logo
US FBI opens office in New Zealand

US FBI opens office in New Zealand

Reuters3 days ago
WELLINGTON, July 31 (Reuters) - The FBI has opened a standalone office in New Zealand's capital in part to improve the United States and New Zealand's ability to counter China's presence in the Pacific region, FBI Director Kash Patel said on Thursday.
Patel said in a statement that opening a dedicated law enforcement attache office in Wellington would strengthen and enhance Washington's longstanding co-operation with one of its key partners in the southwestern Pacific.
'Some of the most important global issues of our times are the ones that New Zealand and America work on together – countering the CCP (the Communist Party of China) in the Indo PACOM theatre, countering the narcotics trade, working together against cyber intrusions and ransomware operations and most importantly protecting our respective citizenry,' he added in a video released by the U.S. Embassy in Wellington.
The FBI has had a suboffice in New Zealand since 2017 and the two countries work closely on policing issues including child exploitation and organised crime.
New Zealand and the U.S. have been working more closely together amid concerns about China's increasing influence in the Pacific. They are both members of the intelligence sharing partnership known as the Five Eyes, which also includes Australia, Canada and the UK.
New Zealand Defence Minister Judith Collins and Police Minister Mark Mitchell said in a statement that they welcomed the new FBI office, which they said would enhance the safety and security of New Zealanders.
Patel visited New Zealand to open the office and the U.S. Embassy statement said he also visited key government ministers.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why did Trump move his nuclear deterrent? Not for strategic gain
Why did Trump move his nuclear deterrent? Not for strategic gain

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Why did Trump move his nuclear deterrent? Not for strategic gain

President Trump announced on Friday that he had sent two nuclear submarines 'closer to Russia' in response to threatening rhetoric from the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. Whatever Trump's reason for the sabre-rattling deployment, strategic advantage is not one of them. Moving a pair of Ohio-class submarines equipped with nuclear missiles — 'boomers' in US military parlance, or 'bombers' in the UK — nearer to Russia would put them in shallower waters, making them easier to detect. And moving them anywhere quickly, which means making noise and disturbance in the water, would also increase their vulnerability. However, if Trump is referring to nuclear-powered attack submarines, rather than boomers, he can move them wherever he wants; it makes no difference to the nuclear relationship with Russia. America's boomers are far better off staying where they are, deep in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They move very slowly and very quietly, staying underwater for 70 days or more without surfacing — a deadly game of silent deterrence they have played with Moscow for the past 60 years. They do not need to go any nearer to Russia to maintain that threat. Each Ohio boat carries missiles with a range of more than 7,000 miles, so they could reach Moscow, or anywhere else in Russia, from underneath either of the oceans they patrol. Indeed, they could sit in their Pacific base at Kitsap-Bangor in Washington State, or at King's Bay Georgia on the Atlantic coast, and still launch against any target within Russia. The real deterrent threat of the boomers is not what they can do — that dreadful destructive power has been well understood for many years — but their ability to remain elusive and undetectable while they do it. On any given day, the US would aim to have perhaps four or five of its 12 operational boomers on patrol across the Atlantic and Pacific. Each submarine carries up to 20 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, and each missile can carry up to 12 independently targeted warheads, although some of these would undoubtedly be decoys. Every Ohio boat could deliver to any part of the northern hemisphere a mixture of 240 nuclear warheads and decoys against a range of targets. Every US president knows they have the power on any day to unleash about 1,000 nuclear warheads from just this one component of the total nuclear force. Rushing extra boomers out to sea as a political signal would be hugely disruptive to the careful preparation and maintenance schedules for rotating boats and crews that 'continuous at-sea deterrence' requires. It would be contemplated only in the most dire circumstances and would simply add more overkill to America's already huge capabilities. Russia is outmatched by the destructive power of America's boomers, but nonetheless maintains a more than adequate deterrent in the form of its own nuclear submarine force. Moscow has been phasing out its Soviet-era Delta design in favour of newer Borei-class boomers. At present Russia is thought to keep maybe three of its older Delta boats and seven of its eight Borei submarines available for launching nuclear missiles. Each Borei-class boat can launch 16 Bulava missiles, with up to six independent warheads apiece, each of which has a 6,000-mile range. Unlike the extravagant American undersea presence across two oceans, Russia is believed to keep only one or two bombers on 'continuous at-sea deterrence' duties and relies instead on the ability to put other boats to sea rapidly in a time of crisis, offering a pretty loud signal to western intelligence agencies if they ever did it. Nevertheless, both the US and Russia have more than enough nuclear power prowling slowly through the deepest oceans to threaten each other with ultimate destruction. It's the most stable part of the strategic nuclear balance, part of the 'triad' of nuclear deterrence: heavy missiles launched from silos deep underground; air-launched glide bombs and missiles loaded with nuclear warheads; and submarine-launched ballistic missiles systems like Trident and Bulava. The sites of the underground silos are all known and might feasibly be hit before launching their missiles in a 'bolt from the blue' attack. Aircraft, too, can be detected and attacked before they release their armaments, or even while still on the ground. But the submarine out at sea can remain undetected, providing a guaranteed retaliatory weapon for both sides. Even in a massive, all-out first strike on the homeland, the boomers would still be intact — as would their threat of second-strike nuclear retaliation. The only hope for an aggressor would be simultaneously to cut into the firing chain that authorised a boomer to launch — a huge gamble for any attacker to take. This continuous, silent, shadow war has provided ample material for novelists and analysts alike. Tom Clancy was an obsessive amateur and in 1984 produced his debut novel, The Hunt for Red October, which contained astonishingly accurate technical information about the whole business. The Pentagon was alarmed at his independent powers of deduction. The secretary of the navy wanted to know 'who the hell cleared it?' When the nuclear missiles carried on Russian submarines only had a range of 1,500 miles, there were regular stories of Soviet boomers cruising around Bermuda, about 600 miles from the east coast of the US. That was true enough. But Nato's supreme commander (Atlantic) once remarked that he wished Russia would put more of its boomers so close: 'In the first hour of hostilities, we take them out,' he said. Operating near the enemy coast is always dangerous. In 1986 K-219, a Yankee-class Russian boomer, suffered an onboard explosion northeast of Bermuda. The Russians could not recover it. The CIA also secretly had a go. But the submarine was lost, taking all its nuclear weapons to the bottom with it. That catastrophe was turned into a realistic novel as well. In the world of submarines, the boomers are behemoths. The Ohio class weighs almost 19,000 tons, the Borei 24,000, and its Soviet-era predecessors were even bigger. The simple fact remains that these vessels can only perform their deterrent role properly by keeping very quiet, a long way out to sea and deep beneath it. Michael Clarke is visiting professor in defence studies at King's College London and a former director of the Royal United Services Institute

Taiwan has a stronger claim to statehood than Palestine. Will Starmer recognise it?
Taiwan has a stronger claim to statehood than Palestine. Will Starmer recognise it?

Telegraph

time2 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Taiwan has a stronger claim to statehood than Palestine. Will Starmer recognise it?

Now that Sir Keir Starmer has declared his intention to recognise the imaginary state of Palestine, perhaps he might want to consider affording similar status to one that does actually exist: Taiwan. Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine at the UN next month might have helped to appease his restless backbenchers, who champion the Palestinian cause without having the faintest notion what they are talking about. But recognising a state that does not exist, is incapable of holding democratic elections and where a decent proportion of the population are in thrall to Islamist-inspired terrorism is hardly a blueprint for success. Taiwan, by contrast, is a self-proclaimed independent territory that regularly holds free and fair democratic elections – despite the malign efforts of China's Communist rulers to disrupt the process – where the overwhelming majority continue to uphold their right of self-determination. Apart from being a fully functioning democracy, Taiwan is also a valued trading partner, with total trade between the UK and Taipei currently averaging around £9.3bn. And yet, despite his willingness to offer full recognition to Palestine, an area that has no formal borders, a non-functioning administration and meagre trading options, our prime minister appears strangely reticent on the subject of upgrading our diplomatic ties with a democratic and prosperous ally such as Taiwan. This aversion to addressing the issue is all the more remarkable given that the official policy is to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression, a position that means the Royal Navy regularly conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the region – including through the Taiwan Strait – to demonstrate Britain's solidarity. The extent of the UK's military support for Taiwan is evident from the participation of HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy's new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, in the Talisman Sabre exercises currently taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. The British warship is part of a 35,000-strong multi-national force conducting military exercises aimed at deterring China from launching an attack against Taiwan. Indeed, Defence Secretary John Healey was at his most bullish when asked about the UK's commitment to defend the region from Chinese aggression, commenting, 'If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together, and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.' It is unlikely that we would ever see Healey, or any other Labour minister, making such robust comments about defending a future Palestine state – assuming, that is, that one ever materialises. The Starmer Government's desire to steer clear of any serious military entanglements in the Middle East was evident during the recent confrontation between the US and Iran. While the US deployed its aircraft carrier groups to the Gulf in anticipation of war with Tehran, the Prince of Wales, which was sailing through the region at the time, continued on its passage to Australia, out of harm's way. If the Government is so determined to defend Taiwan's right to exist, even risking the prospect of war with China by doing so, then it begs the question: why, having recognised a non-state like Palestine, will it not make the same commitment to Taipei? Ever since the leadership of the original Republic of China fled from the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, successive British governments have sought to adopt a neutral position in its dealing with the territory. While the UK is perfectly willing to maintain lucrative trade ties, as well as providing declarations of military support, ministers have been reluctant to upgrade Taiwan's diplomatic status for fear of causing offence to China, its more powerful and prosperous neighbour. Since 1972, when London eventually recognised the People's Republic as the sole government of China, the view in Whitehall has been that the future status of Taiwan should be a matter for the Chinese to decide. A number of recent factors have made this compromise appear less satisfactory, not least Chinese President Xi Jinping's pronounced determination to reclaim Taiwan as Chinese sovereign territory. Having declared that the ' reunification' of China with Taiwan is a cornerstone of his aim of achieving the Chinese dream of nation rejuvenation by 2049, Xi has authorised the Chinese military to engage in a massive build up, with some Western military analysts predicting a Chinese invasion could take place by 2027. The gathering storm clouds over China's territorial ambitions towards Taiwan have already resulted in significant changes to British policy to the region, most notably the 2021 Integrated Review that proposed an Indo-Pacific 'tilt' in our military and security outlook. Apart from sending an aircraft carrier to participate in joint naval exercises, the Royal Navy is also committed to upgrading its 'persistent presence' in the region to include the rotational deployment of nuclear submarines from 2027 as part of the recent Aukus agreement signed between the UK, US and Australia. If the UK is preparing to defend Taiwan's sovereignty, it makes sense for Starmer to give serious consideration to offering the Taiwanese people the same level of recognition that he is prepared to give to the Palestinians. Otherwise the UK could one day find itself in the invidious position of fighting for a people whose sovereignty it does not even acknowledge.

Myanmar military courts sentence 12 to life for human trafficking, including Chinese nationals
Myanmar military courts sentence 12 to life for human trafficking, including Chinese nationals

The Independent

time4 hours ago

  • The Independent

Myanmar military courts sentence 12 to life for human trafficking, including Chinese nationals

Myanmar military courts have sentenced a dozen individuals — including five Chinese nationals — to life imprisonment for their involvement in multiple human trafficking cases, state-run media reported Saturday. According to the Myanma Alinn newspaper, the convictions stem from a range of offenses including the online distribution of sex videos and the trafficking of Myanmar women into forced marriages in China. In one case, five people — including two Chinese nationals identified as Lin Te and Wang Xiaofeng — were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court in Yangon, the country's largest city, on July 29. They were found guilty under Myanmar's Anti-Trafficking in Persons law for producing sex videos involving three Myanmar couples and distributing the footage online for profit. In a separate case, the same court sentenced a woman and three Chinese nationals — Yibo, Cao Qiu Quan and Chen Huan. The group was convicted of planning to transport two Myanmar women, recently married to two of the convicted Chinese men, into China, the report said. Additionally, three other people received life sentences from a separate military court for selling ​a woman as a bride to China, and for attempting to do the same with another woman. In another case, a woman from Myanmar's central Magway region was given a 10-year sentence on July 30 for planning to transport two Myanmar women to be sold as brides to Chinese men, the report said. Human trafficking, particularly of women and girls lured or forced into marriages in China, remains a widespread problem in Myanmar, a country still reeling from civil war after the military seized power from the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021. The persisting conflict in most areas of Myanmar has left millions of women and children vulnerable to exploitation. A 2018 report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Kachin Women's Association Thailand (KWAT) — which works to prevent and respond to trafficking in northern Kachin and Shan states bordering China — estimated that about 21,000 women and girls from northern Myanmar were forced into marriage in China between 2013 and 2017. In its latest report published in December, KWAT noted a sharp decline in the number of trafficking survivors accessing its services from 2020 to 2023. It attributed the decline to the COVID-19 pandemic and border closures caused by ongoing conflict following the army takeover. However, it reported a resurgence in 2024 as people from across Myanmar began migrating to China in search of work. Maj-Gen Aung Kyaw Kyaw, a deputy minister for Home Affairs, said during a June meeting that the authorities had handled 53 cases of human trafficking, forced marriage and prostitution in 2024, 34 of which involved China, according to a report published by Myanmar's Information Ministry. The report also said that a total of 80 human trafficking cases, including 14 involving marriage deception by foreign nationals, were recorded between January and June this year.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store