The International Thread

[Coss]

[Coss]

Europe in ‘most dangerous situation’ since second world war, Danish PM warns

Mette Frederiksen tells EU leaders all countries are affected by ‘Russian hybrid war’ via drones or sabotage...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/01/europe-dangerous-situation-since-second-world-war-russia-war-drones-sabotage

 

[Coss]

Applicable wherever the Anti folk reside:

 

[Coss]

BBC vs Trump - a long read, but a good one - those with a short attention span may choose to skip...

___

Trump can get away with saying what he likes about the BBC. But Epstein? That’s his one vulnerability

Jonathan Freedland.  Fri 14 Nov 2025 12.12 EST

LINK

In attacking a vital broadcaster, the US president is once again holding others to standards he flouts. But the Maga faithful might not let his links to the disgraced financier go

To confront Donald Trump is to engage in asymmetric warfare. It is to enter a battlefield that is not level, where he enjoys an immediate and in-built advantage over those who would oppose him or merely hold him to account. That fact has cost Democrats dearly over the past decade – exacting a toll again this very week – but it has now upended an institution central to Britain’s national life: namely, the BBC.

The key asymmetry can be spelled out simply. Trump pays little or no regard to the conventional bounds of truth or honesty. His documented tally of false or misleading statements runs into the tens of thousands: the Washington Post registered 30,573 such statements during Trump’s first term in the White House, an average of 21 a day. In a single interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes earlier this month, Trump spoke falsely 18 times, according to CNN.

To hold him to account for this dishonesty is to cast yourself as an arbiter of truth, which creates the instant and obvious expectation that you yourself must be truthful. Here, then, is the asymmetry: he can lie, but his critics cannot.

So he can continue to tell the big lie, claiming against all evidence that he won the 2020 election, and myriad smaller lies – he told 60 Minutes that grocery prices “are down” when they are up and that Joe Biden gave Ukraine $350bn in aid when the real figure is well under half that – and, save for a few tireless factcheckers, no one cares. The response is a collective shrug, because it’s Donald Trump. No one expects any better.

The opposite is true of his scrutineers. They have to be fastidious, their evidence impeccable. So when the BBC’s Panorama programme examined Trump’s record ahead of the 2024 election, it had to be right on every detail. As we now know, and for which the BBC has apologised, it was not: it stitched together two statements, made 54 minutes apart, from Trump’s speech ahead of the Capitol Hill riot of 6 January 2021 to create a single, seamless call for violence.

There’s no defence to be made of that. No journalist would argue for the right to be as dishonest as Trump is allowed to be, even though misquoting and manipulating the words of others is a Trump specialism. That path is closed to those who want to criticise Trump for his untruthfulness.

Nor will it do to make the move some have attempted in defence of Panorama, arguing that the programme’s broad thrust was right, even if that specific edit was not. It’s quite true that plenty of 6 January rioters testified that they believed they were doing Trump’s bidding. It’s also true that Trump was impeached, even if eventually acquitted, for his role in inciting those events. But those facts cannot justify a deceptive edit. To say otherwise is to engage in what the US comedian Stephen Colbert famously called “truthiness”, substituting what feels to be true, or what we might want to be true, for what is actually true.

What’s at stake here is not only intellectual and journalistic integrity. It’s also that any slip is a gift to Trump and a setback to what, portentously, we might call the cause of truth – not in some high-blown, abstract sense, but very practically. Note the White House press secretary’s denunciation of the BBC as “100% fake news” and a “propaganda machine”. Mark those words, because they will be used again. Next time the BBC accurately exposes a Trump misdeed, or even asks a tough question, he and his allies will recall the Panorama edit and insist that whatever the BBC says can be safely ignored.

It’s for this reason that it is not the BBC’s many enemies, but rather its staunchest friends who should be taking the events of the last week most seriously. (Full disclosure: I have presented BBC Radio 4’s contemporary history series The Long View for many years.) A democratic society cannot function without a broadly accepted body of facts. The US no longer has that: there are red-state facts and blue-state facts; Fox News facts and MSNBC facts. The Watergate scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office would barely make a dent in today’s US: the right would simply deny the evidence, cheered on by its media allies.

What stands between Britain and that sorry state, in which knowledge is a matter of tribal affiliation, is the BBC. And yet for it to perform that vital function, the BBC cannot just be good; it has to be bulletproof. Which surely explains why it is that some of those most committed to the BBC and its mission – people who have devoted decades of their working life to it – have sought to wrestle with, rather than dismiss, Michael Prescott’s internal report and its more alarming findings of bias on a series of issues beyond the Panorama edit, from gender to Gaza. They understand that, as the distinguished former Newsnight journalist Mark Urban puts it, “failing to deal internally with issues like those raised by Prescott is a gift to the destroyers”.

None of this is fair. Trump’s lack of shame means he can say what he likes. But those who seek to protect the principles that undergird a liberal democracy – of which a basic, if necessarily imperfect, commitment to truth is among the most fundamental – hold themselves to a higher standard.

That habit constantly hands a huge advantage to Trump. A version of it was at work this week, when eight Senate Democrats broke from their party to bring an end to the standoff that had led to a 42-day shutdown of the US federal government. Politically, the Democrats were in the stronger position: polls showed voters blamed Trump and the Republicans for the stalemate. But, as one of the eight put it, the “mounting economic pain [and] risks to Americans’ safety” became too much to bear – and so they caved. In their shoes, Trump would have pressed his political advantage, the public’s pain be damned.

That disregard, for the public good as much as for truth, gives Trump tremendous power. So often he fights an opponent who is hamstrung by values he freely ignores. There may, in fact, be only one area where he is constrained by the same standards, subject to the same limits, as everyone else. And we got a glimpse of that, too, this week.

The area in question is Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats this week released new documents that suggest Trump may have known more about Epstein’s pattern of abuse than the president has admitted, or at least that Epstein wanted to give that impression. True to form, the president’s allies in Congress and on cable news played down the revelations. That usually works: if the target is the media or the Democrats, the Maga base will reflexively give Trump the benefit of the doubt. But the Epstein scandal is different.

Much of the Maga hardcore were first drawn to Trump by their conviction, strengthened by the QAnon conspiracy, that there was a secret, elite cabal of child abusers protected by the deep state – a cabal that Trump would expose and destroy. Any email or scribbled note that confirms he and Epstein were, in fact, chums shakes that confidence. It is the one thing the Trump faithful may never forgive him for. He could shoot people on Fifth Avenue – but he couldn’t do that.

Which is why the White House is currently straining every sinew to prevent the House of Representatives voting next week for a full release of the justice department’s Epstein files, a motion likely to be backed by several rebel Republicans who know how much this matters to the base. Trump calls the whole thing a “hoax”, as though all those tens of thousands of pages are forged. If they’d been produced by the BBC, he would get away with that. But Epstein is different. It’s the one battlefield that’s level – and the prospect terrifies him.

___

[Coss]

...watching Lee Hsien Loong speak on trade and international relations.

He speaks about rules based world trade and how (list of many countries) can still trade in advent of disruption, without mentioning the USA.

It's pleasing to see that he and others are preparing for disruption, if the schoolyard bully spits tacks and goes home in a huff.

 

[Coss]

and I guess this is international - Laos/USA

I had lunch with a Lao lady, here in middle earth, on Sunday.

She had just returned to NZ from overseas, she is ethnic Lao but a NZ citizen.

She had gone to Minneapolis, to see her mum and dad, both of them ethnic Lao and naturalised USA citizens.

Why the visit? to uplift her mum's gold and remove it from the USA.

The Lao community in Minneapolis is so harassed by ICE and scared of going outside, that they are taking steps to survive, what they see as impending anarchy and repression.

Some of these people lived through the secret war and have been, in their then country's uproar, so they are being very careful.

[Old Hippie]

13 hours ago, Coss said:

The Lao community in Minneapolis is so harassed by ICE and scared of going outside, that they are taking steps to survive, what they see as impending anarchy and repression.

Some of these people lived through the secret war and have been, in their then country's uproar, so they are being very careful.

This is a very sad part. Many of these Lao and Hmong people were our allies during the “shadow war” in Laos, met Bill Lair, Jack Shirley, Tony “Po,” etc…they all said how badly we betrayed many of these people, now we are abusing them again..? Sickening…

[bust]

10 hours ago, Old Hippie said:

Many of these Lao and Hmong people were our allies

Clint would be pissed off

[bust]

On 1/20/2026 at 4:48 PM, Coss said:

...watching Lee Hsien Loong speak on trade and international relations.

He speaks about rules based world trade and how (list of many countries) can still trade in advent of disruption, without mentioning the USA.

It's pleasing to see that he and others are preparing for disruption, if the schoolyard bully spits tacks and goes home in a huff.

 

I enjoy listening to Justin Wolfers explaining exactly what is going on in a way that caters for the poorly educated (AKA average MAGA supporters)

[bust]

Sounds like just another Trump grift to me. Hope Albo tells him to shove it up his arse.

Why Asian countries are joining Trump's Board of Peace

At least 25 countries have joined Donald Trump's Board of Peace. (Reuters: Denis Balibouse)

A handful of Asian nations have agreed to sign up to US President Donald Trump's Board of Peace.

Initially pitched as a measure to resolve the conflict in Gaza, it's now expanded its remit to be a new global conflict-resolution platform.

Donald Trump's Board of Peace was initially pitched as a measure to resolve the conflict in Gaza.  (Reuters: Mahmoud Issa)

Countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam have signalled support not because they expect the board to transform conditions on the ground in Gaza, analysts say, but because it could offer access to US trade.

Which Asian countries have joined?

Mongolia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Kazakhstan are among the 25 countries who have agreed to join so far.

What is Donald Trump's Board of Peace?

 

Donald Trump appears to be trying to build his own international peacekeeping body. Here's why experts think it might attempt to rival the UN.

Member states must pay $US1 billion ($1.4 billion) for a three-year term.

It has unclear how the board will function, how often it will meet and act.

Mr Trump retains final authority, a structure that some say signals the initiative is less about multilateral consensus.

Russia and China have been invited to join.

Both countries are veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council, frequently blocking resolutions that have increased tensions with Western nations.

What do Asian nations expect to get out of it?

Analysts say Indonesia is keen to boost its international standing. (Reuters: Jonathan Ernst)

Analysts say Asian countries are likely signing up as the global order feels increasingly fragmented.

"It's about relationships, leverage and reading the direction of US power," said the Lowy Institute's Susannah Patton.

Adrianus Harsawaskita, a foreign policy expert from Indonesia's Parahyangan Catholic University, told the ABC that Indonesia "needs an organisation that can take it to the next level".

Adrianus Harsawaskita said Indonesia's involvement does not reflect the interest of Indonesian public. (Supplied)

"[Indonesia] needs an organisation that would make it appear international and … whether we like it or not, the Board of Peace, fits into the international category, albeit in a negative way," he said.

Mr Harsawaskita said Mr Trump saw Indonesia's membership in the board as a tool to increase US business interests in the country, which he said is now "too close to Beijing in the context of investment".

"I'm afraid this [the membership] is just an image, and has no real interest for the Indonesian public," he said.

Vahd Nabyl, the spokesperson of Indonesia's Foreign Ministry, told the ABC these allegations were incorrect.

"Indonesia's participation in the Board of Peace is not merely a formality," he said.

"It's a manifestation of its support for Palestine and a consistent commitment to supporting a just, sustainable peace process based on the principles of the two-state solution."

Indonesia's quiet shift to get noticed by Trump

While Jakarta has long presented itself as a principled, non-aligned actor — particularly on Middle East issues — Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto has gradually adopted a more US-friendly approach.

At the UN General Assembly in September, he called for stability and restraint in comments that marked a departure from the Muslim-majority country's past unequivocal support of Palestinian statehood.

"We must have an independent Palestine, but we must also recognise and guarantee the safety and security of Israel," he said.

He also flagged Indonesia's willingness to contribute troops to a potential stabilisation mission and to accept medical evacuees — steps that aligned closely with Western diplomatic language.

Indonesia's president, Prabowo Subianto, says the country is willing to contribute troops to Gaza. (Reuters: Ajeng Dinar Ulfiana)

Later, Prabowo attended Mr Trump's peace summit in Egypt, and there were even rumours he might travel to Israel.

Mainstream Muslim organisations in Indonesia have not openly opposed Prabowo's decision, giving him space to manoeuvre despite criticism from foreign policy experts.

"I'm sorry to say, but Gaza is just an issue that is used [by Indonesia] as a political tactic, not as a serious issue that needs to be addressed," Mr Harsawaskita said.

Why these refugees made a dangerous boat trip

 

Khairul's family is among more than 1,000 Rohingya refugees who recently fled from a refugee camp in Bangladesh to another uncertain future in Indonesia.

"If Indonesia wanted to seriously address refugee issues and so on, it could've tackled the Myanmar case, the Rohingya refugees, which is right before our eyes," Mr Harsawaskita added.

Mr Nabyl said the accusation that Indonesia did not care about humanitarian issues is false.

"Participating in the Board of Peace and the Rohingya issue are two different things," he said.

Indonesia did not have many obvious ways to get the US interested, Ms Patton agreed.

"But its position as an influential Muslim-majority country gives it weight on this issue."

Fear of more tariffs

Experts say Vietnam is more exposed to US tariffs than Indonesia, and its decision to join the board is primarily about trade.

Hanoi's official announcement about joining framed the move as "strengthening cooperation with the United States".

Analaysts say Vietnam's decision to join the board is primarily related to economic reasons. (ABC News: Jarrod Fankhauser)

For analyst Carlyle Thayer, a former professor at UNSW, that framing of "cooperation" said everything.

"Once the invitation comes through, they immediately have to ask: what are the consequences if we don't accept?" Mr Thayer said.

"Going along with the flow for three years may be safer than antagonising Trump," he added.

He said for many countries, the calculation was less about enthusiasm and more about risk.

Cambodia, heavily dependent on garment exports to the US and already facing visa restrictions, is particularly wary of provoking Washington.

Vietnam, meanwhile, is balancing relations with both the US and China.

The US is its largest export market, leaving it more exposed than any other South-East Asian economy.

Vietnam is worried about its trade with the US and wants to tighten ties. (Reuters: Kham)

Unlike Indonesia, Vietnam has no strong domestic constituency focused on Middle East politics, making support for a Gaza-focused peace board uncontroversial domestically.

"If this helps get Trump's attention — or even a presidential visit — that's a win," Ms Patton said.

Maintaining US relations over principles

Analysts say interest in joining the board has come primarily from Asian governments already inclined to prioritise their bilateral relationship with Washington.

Cambodia is cautious when making any decisions involving the United States. (Reuters: Samrang Pring)

In Asia, this reflects a broader mood of pragmatism rather than nostalgia for the old international order.

"Many Asian leaders have been saying for some time that the old system is breaking down,"

Ms Patton said.

"The question is what replaces it."

While countries in the Global South often say they are dissatisfied with existing institutions because they feel under-represented, Mr Trump's proposal places the US even more firmly at the centre.

"That doesn't necessarily satisfy the Global South either," Ms Patton said.

Trump asks Australia to join Gaza 'Board of Peace'

 

The US president is pushing for the board to preserve a fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel and progress the peace deal to the next phase.

China, for example, has quietly promoted alternative forums, including its International Organisation for Mediation (IOMED) — a technocratic, behind-the-scenes effort to shape how disputes are resolved.

Beijing's approach contrasts sharply with Mr Trump's characteristically loud diplomacy.

Ms Patton said we were likely to see competing institutions altogether.

She pointed to the way China and the US have approached regional conflicts — including between Thailand and Cambodia — with Beijing favouring behind-the-scenes engagement, and Washington opting for headline-grabbing interventions.

"The question," she said, "is which approach actually gains traction over time?"

Given the lack of process, structure and follow-through, some analysts believe the Board of Peace could simply fade away.

"In the Trump universe," Ms Patton said, "it's entirely possible that it blows up, or just disappears after a couple of years."

"In a [Middle-East conflict] region context, he's looking after his own interest in the name of Gaza, but internationally, I see this as part of the Trump Order," Mr Harsawaskita said.

The ABC approached the Cambodian and Vietnamese governments for comment.