
World closing down — when it reopens is anyone's guess
Straws in the wind: recently I ran across a post by the chief executive of a nationwide professional association in Canada.
People like him are used to hopping across the United States border for various meetings several times a month, but he was remarking on what people had been talking about at the association's recent annual conference in a big Canadian city.
His post said "consensus here is that it's risky to travel to [US flag emoji] but if you have to go, bring a burner phone".
"Have a plan in case you get detained. Watch what you say. Who you meet."
And I thought "yeah, me too".
I am a journalist so I will still go to the US if I absolutely have to, but not for pleasure, not for paid lectures and things, and yes please on the burner phone.
Back when I started out in this trade half the world was off limits, especially for freelance journalists.
The Cold War reached a second peak in the early '80s and you couldn't go to the Soviet Union unless you had a big media organisation negotiating for you. Even then it took months for a visa, and you were followed everywhere.
The communist-ruled "satellite" countries in Eastern Europe were a little easier, and China was letting tourists in to some parts of the country — but not stray journalists.
Albania, North Korea and Iran were completely closed, and most of Southeast Asia and much of Central and South America were ruled by military dictators who ran death squads.
Then non-violent democratic revolutions began all over the Third World, the communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapsed, and the old Soviet Union itself followed suit. Soon almost the whole world opened up.
It was a nice ride while it lasted but then the whole process went into reverse.
You won't feel the effects much if you travel as a tourist or even do business abroad, but journalists — including foreign journalists — are the canaries in the coalmine on this and I'm certainly feeling the change.
The number of countries I won't go to any more is growing every year.
It started, weirdly enough, with Turkey, a place I thought I knew well. I've lived there, I speak the language — or at least I used to — and I even thought President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was a welcome change from a militantly secular government that ignored the rights of the pious half of the population.
Then the editor of the newspaper that ran this column in Turkey was jailed, the publisher went into exile and the new regime turned the paper into a government propaganda outlet.
I know there's a fat file on me somewhere in Ankara and I've seen the inside of a Turkish jail (as a visitor), so I don't go there any more. Twenty years now.
Next was Russia, where I had been practically commuting in the early '90s. Vladimir Putin was elected in 1999 and it was still all right for a while, but by 2005 he was killing opposition leaders and I started reporting from afar.
Note, by the way, these changes were happening after more or less free elections — although they tended to be the last fair elections.
Then came a round of non-violent pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East, most of them drowned in blood. That set off a whole cluster of civil wars, and the whole region became very hard to work in. It still is.
Next was China, where they arrested, tried and jailed two random Canadian businessmen in 2018, really as hostages to exchange for a Chinese citizen in Canada whom they wanted back.
It wasn't aimed specifically at journalists and the victims were freed after 1000 days in prison, but I and many other people took it as a signal to do your Chinese business from afar.
However, I never thought that I would be adding the US to the list. Even during Donald Trump's first term foreign journalists were no more at risk of arbitrary imprisonment than the average US citizen, and nobody followed you around or listened to your phone calls. Well, no more than they listen to everybody else's calls.
Now, quite suddenly, the US has become just another great power where foreigners watch what they say, try to minimise contacts with official bodies, or just stay away.
The thought even occurs that, as in so many other cases, there will still be elections but we will know the outcome in advance.
It sounds almost hysterical to talk like this and many non-journalist travellers won't even notice it, but the world is closing down again.
I have no idea if or when it will reopen.
• Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Russia, Ukraine exchange 84 prisoners each
Relatives hug a released prisoner of war (POW) wrapped in a Ukrainian national flag after a prisoner swap between Ukraine and Russia on Friday. Photo: Sergei Supinsky / AFP Russia and Ukraine exchanged 84 prisoners each on Thursday, both sides said, the latest in a series of swaps that has seen hundreds of POWs released so far this year. This latest release came on the eve of a high-level summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US counterpart Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday. "I'm back in my homeland. Honestly, I never thought this would happen," Mykyta Kaliberda, 29, a marine who was exchanged, told AFP. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on social media that among the exchanged prisoners were "both military personnel and civilians", some of whom had been "held by the Russians since 2014, 2016, and 2017". He said "defenders of Mariupol" were also part of the swap, referring to a Ukrainian port city that fell to Russian forces in 2022 following a nearly three-month siege. "My eldest son was in captivity for three years, four months, and two days. Thank God, we awaited him," said Tetiana Turkoman, a mother of a soldier who fought in Mariupol, adding that she had a "feeling" her son will be released and decided to come. "I don't know how many times I've been to the exchanges, hoping that my husband will be there. Artur! Artur Ivanik! My God!" said Anastasia, calling out her husband Artur, who was due to come home Thursday. The Russian defence ministry said on Telegram that the United Arab Emirates had mediated the exchange and that the released Russian personnel were receiving "psychological and medical assistance". Large-scale prisoner exchanges were the only tangible result of three rounds of peace talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul between May and July. In their latest round of talks last month, Russia and Ukraine agreed to exchange 1200 prisoners of war each. A Russian negotiator said that Moscow had also offered to hand Kyiv the bodies of 3000 killed soldiers. - AFP

RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump says he thinks Putin will make a deal on Ukraine
By Dmitry Antonov, Tom Balmforth and Olena Harmash , Reuters Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Photo: Brendan SMIALOWSKI and Maxim Shemetov / AFP United States President Donald Trump said he thought Vladimir Putin was ready to make a deal on ending the war in Ukraine after the Russian president floated the prospect of a nuclear arms agreement on the eve of their summit in Alaska. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his European allies have intensified their efforts this week to prevent any deal between the US and Russia emerging from Friday's (local time) summit that leaves Ukraine vulnerable to future attack. "I think he's going to make a deal," Trump said in a Fox News radio interview, adding that if the meeting went well he would call Zelensky and European leaders afterwards and that if it went badly he would not. The aim of Friday's talks with Putin is to set up a second meeting including Ukraine, Trump said, adding: "I don't know that we're going to get an immediate ceasefire." Putin earlier spoke to his most senior ministers and security officials as he prepared for the meeting with Trump in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday that could shape the endgame to the largest war in Europe since World War Two. In televised comments, Putin said that the US was "making, in my opinion, quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities, stop the crisis and reach agreements that are of interest to all parties involved in this conflict". This was happening, Putin said, "in order to create long-term conditions for peace between our countries, and in Europe, and in the world as a whole - if, by the next stages, we reach agreements in the area of control over strategic offensive weapons." His comments signalled that Russia will raise the issue of nuclear arms control as part of a wide-ranging discussion on security when he sits down with Trump. A Kremlin aide said Putin and Trump would also discuss the "huge untapped potential" for Russia-US economic ties. A senior eastern European official, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said Putin would try to distract Trump from Ukraine at the talks by offering him possible progress on nuclear arms control or something business-related. "We hope Trump won't be fooled by the Russians, he understands all (these) dangerous things," the official said, adding that Russia's only goal was to avoid any new sanctions and have existing sanctions lifted. Trump said there would be a press conference after the talks but that he did not know whether it would be joint. He also said that there would be a give and take on boundaries and lands. Russia controls around a fifth of Ukraine and Zelensky and the Europeans worry that a deal could cement those gains, rewarding Putin for 11 years of efforts to seize Ukrainian land and emboldening him to expand further into Europe. An EU diplomat said it would be "scary to see how it all unfolds in the coming hours. Trump had very good calls yesterday with Europe but that was yesterday". Trump had shown willingness to join the security guarantees for Ukraine at a last-ditch virtual meeting with European leaders and Zelensky on Wednesday, European leaders said, though he made no public mention of them afterwards. Zelensky said the security guarantees had been discussed in "considerable detail" in comments after a meeting in London on Thursday with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer . Friday's summit, the first Russia-US summit since June 2021, comes at one of the toughest moments for Ukraine in a war that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Speaking after Wednesday's meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump insisted that the transatlantic NATO alliance should not be part of security guarantees that would be designed to protect Ukraine from future attacks in a post-war settlement. Macron said, however, that Trump had also said the United States and all willing allies should be part of the security guarantees. Expanding on that, a European official told Reuters that Trump said on the call he was willing to provide some security guarantees for Europe, without spelling out what they would be. It "felt like a big step forward", said the official, who did not want to be named. It was not immediately clear what such guarantees could mean in practice. On Wednesday, Trump threatened "severe consequences" if Putin does not agree to peace in Ukraine and has warned of economic sanctions if his meeting on Friday proves fruitless. Russia is likely to resist Ukraine and Europe's demands and has previously said its stance had not changed since it was first detailed by Putin in June 2024. - Reuters Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

1News
14 hours ago
- 1News
'Unique' espionage trial of a NZ soldier to be heard next week
A soldier with links to far-right groups and who is accused of spying will face a court martial hearing next week – a first-of-its-kind prosecution shrouded in secrecy for now. The Linton-based soldier's name is suppressed and so is the foreign country at the centre of the espionage case, as well as the names of some prosecution expert witnesses. RNZ was opposing these orders and a suppression hearing was scheduled for next Monday morning, before the court martial would begin. In late 2020, 17 charges under the Armed Forces Discipline Act were laid against the soldier, including espionage and possessing objectionable material. Since then, the case has wended its way through pre-trial hearings. ADVERTISEMENT RNZ has previously reported the soldier, aged 27 at the time of his arrest, was a member of far-right groups the Dominion Movement and Action Zealandia. First of its kind A similar case 50 years ago tried and acquitted Bill Sutch in the civilian court of espionage, for passing information to the Russians. Next week's court martial is the first military case. "I think 'unusual' is not the right term," said retired Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge about the prosecution. "I think 'unique' might be the correct term." Hodge said the suppression orders appeared extensive. "I've always been surprised that there could be information held by the armed forces, which absolutely had to be kept top secret. ADVERTISEMENT "There maybe information about the citizens of a foreign jurisdiction and what they're doing here, but still, that would be of public interest." Hodge said military courts were historically ahead of civilian ones on matters of justice and fairness, although they might hold concerns about making information public. "Remember, the background of a military court would concern hostilities and [be] in the face of the enemy. In that sort of situation, that sort of context, they would be greatly concerned with information that would aid the enemy. "I don't see an enemy at this moment, so I'm still mystified at what secrecy they'll be pursuing." Military panel to hear the case One difference between courts martial and civilian courts is that, instead of a jury, a panel of senior military officers hears the evidence, and decides on a defendant's guilt or innocence, and – if applicable – their sentence. In his previous career in the military, Hodge sat on these panels. ADVERTISEMENT "A military court is concerned with fairness, right to counsel, the insanity defence, for example, the discovery of information," he said. "One thing I could say firmly is the individual will have a fair trial, because in my experience, it's a fair system." David Pawson is an experienced court martial counsel and, in 30 years – firstly with the military police, then as a lawyer – he has never seen a similar case. "When I was a military police special investigator – that was at the end of the Cold War period – and even during that period, I was not aware of any investigation of that sort of nature. I have to say that was a new one to me." The system was robust and transparent, he said. "The court martial, in my experience, has always been very careful not to be seen as a secretive court and generally does apply those principles the same way that they do in the civil court." This meant the starting point for suppression decisions was open justice. Another experienced court martial lawyer, Michael Bott, said talking to a military panel was somewhat different to addressing a jury. ADVERTISEMENT "There are military values you have to take into account and also, with a court martial, it's governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act, as opposed to the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Bill of Rights still applies. "When you're doing an opening and a closing, the processes and techniques are pretty much transferable." He said suppression arguments at courts martial sometimes included matters not applicable to civilian courts, such as national security. Hodge said he didn't think the court martial would reflect badly on New Zealand's reputation. "I think there's the opposite argument that the allies could say, 'New Zealand is alert, New Zealand is sufficiently concerned about this matter and they're looking after whatever information this might be'. "While you could say, 'Is New Zealand a leaky sieve?', no, New Zealand is behaving properly and attending to the disciplinary side of a possible breach." If the soldier was found guilty next week, he wouldn't face the death penalty. This was removed from military law in 1989, but sentences for courts martial ranged from losing rank to a lengthy term in military prison. ADVERTISEMENT