CNA938 Rewind - How the L.A protests are impacting Singaporeans living there
Play
Day 4 of protests over illegal migrants and gang members in Los Angeles - U.S President Donald Trump is sending 700 marines into the city and doubling the number of National Guard to manage things. Lance Alexander and Daniel Martin speak with Winnie Puah, Founder of AshburyCo Co and Shabnam Melwani, Founder of Sun Moon Rain - two Singaporeans living in Los Angeles who own their own businesses there.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
US scales back human rights report; softens criticism of some Trump partner nations
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump's administration has scaled back a key US government report on human rights worldwide, dramatically softening criticism of some countries that have been strong partners of the Republican president. Among such nations are El Salvador and Israel, which rights groups say have extensive records of abuses. Instead, the widely anticipated 2024 Human Rights Report of the US State Department sounded an alarm on the erosion of freedom of speech in Europe and ramped up criticism of Brazil and South Africa, with which Washington has clashed on a host of issues. Any criticism of governments over their treatment of LGBTQI rights, which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appeared to have been largely omitted. Washington referred to Russia's invasion of Ukraine mainly as the "Russia-Ukraine war". The report's section on Israel was much shorter than last year's edition and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. More than 61,000 people have been killed in Gaza, the Gaza health ministry says, as a result of Israel's military assault after an attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023. The report was delayed for months as Trump appointees altered an earlier State Department draft dramatically to bring it in line with "America First" values, said government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The report introduced new categories such as "Life" and "Liberty," and "Security of the Person". "There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses," the 2024 report said about El Salvador. That stood in sharp contrast to the 2023 report that talked about "significant human rights issues" and listed them as credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, torture, and harsh and life-threatening prison conditions. Washington's two-way ties with El Salvador have strengthened since Trump took office, as his administration has deported people to El Salvador with help from President Nayib Bukele. His country is receiving US$6 million from the United States to house the migrants in a high-security mega-prison. Critics said the report was politically driven. "The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts," said Josh Paul, a former State Department official and director of non-government organisation A New Policy. "The outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda release than of a democratic system." State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the report was restructured to improve readability and was no longer an expansive list of "politically biased demands and assertions". Bruce declined to respond to specific questions about countries and did not say why a list of rights abuses in El Salvador was removed. DIFFERING ASSESSMENTS The Trump administration has moved away from the traditional US promotion of democracy and human rights, seeing it as interference in another country's affairs, even as it criticised countries selectively, in line with its broader policy towards a particular country. One example is Europe, where Trump officials repeatedly weighed in on its politics to denounce what they see as suppression of right-wing leaders, including in countries such as Romania, Germany, and France, and accused European authorities of censoring views such as criticism of immigration. For decades, the State Department's congressionally mandated Human Rights Report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy. This year's report was prepared following a major department revamp that included the firing of hundreds of people, many from the agency's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which takes the lead in writing the report. In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote an opinion piece saying the bureau had become a platform for "left-wing activists", and vowing that the Trump administration would reorient it to focus on "Western values". In Brazil, where the Trump administration has clashed with the government, the State Department found the human rights situation declined, after the 2023 report found no significant changes. This year's report took aim at the courts, stating they took action undermining freedom of speech and disproportionately suppressing the speech of supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, among others. Bolsonaro is on trial before the Supreme Court on charges that he conspired with allies to violently overturn his 2022 electoral loss to leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Trump has referred to the case as a "witch hunt" and called it grounds for a 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian goods. In South Africa, whose government the Trump administration has accused of racial discrimination towards Afrikaners, this year's report said the human rights situation significantly worsened. It said, "South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country." In last year's report, the State Department found no significant changes in the human rights situation in South Africa. Trump issued an executive order this year calling for the US to resettle Afrikaners. He described them as victims of "violence against racially disfavored landowners," accusations that echoed far-right claims but which have been contested by South Africa's government. South Africa dismissed the report's findings, and said it was flawed, inaccurate and disappointing. "It is ironic that a report from a nation that has exited the UN Human Rights Council and therefore no longer sees itself accountable in a multilateral peer review system would seek to produce one-sided fact free reports without any due process or engagement," the government said.
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
California says Trump sent military to 'silence' LA protests
The US government's unprecedented use of National Guard troops in Los Angeles to protect officers carrying out President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown was illegal and should be ended, a lawyer for the state of California told a federal judge on Tuesday (Aug 12). The lawyer said evidence presented from the landmark trial that began on Monday showed that soldiers had violated a 19th century law that bars the military from civilian law enforcement. 'The government wanted a show of military force so great that any opposition to their agenda was silenced," said the lawyer, Meghan Strong of the California Attorney General's Office. Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton countered that there was "substantial violence" in Los Angeles meriting military intervention and that the troops were only there to protect federal agents and property. Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in response to days of unrest and protests sparked by mass immigration raids. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, opposed the move and sued, alleging it violated prohibitions on the use of the military in law enforcement. US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine whether the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA). Breyer will also hear arguments on Wednesday on Newsom's legal right to bring the case. The judge has not said when he will rule. The trial comes as Trump said he was taking the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to fight crime in Washington and suggested he might take similar actions in other American cities. In the California trial, the administration sought to prove that the military was only used to protect federal personnel or federal property, which the administration said are permissible exceptions to the PCA. California, meanwhile, sought to convince Breyer that troops crossed the line by setting up roadblocks, diverting traffic and making arrests, which Strong described as prohibited policing actions. Government witnesses testified that although those actions are generally prohibited, there are exceptions when federal agents or property are in danger. Breyer appeared skeptical at times of the government's assertion that Trump had sole discretion to decide when troops were needed. The president said in June the protests amounted to a rebellion against federal authority. "Is it a 'rebellion' because the president says it is a 'rebellion'?" Breyer asked Hamilton during the government's closing argument. Many of the troops have been withdrawn from Los Angeles, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Monday that 300 National Guard members are still going on immigration raids and restricting civilian movements in the state. The trial before Breyer will have limited impact on Trump's plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington.
CNA
8 hours ago
- CNA
Commentary: The dangers of US-Russia dealmaking without Ukraine at the table
WELLINGTON: Uncertainty, and no little trepidation, surrounds the upcoming Trump-Putin meeting on Aug 15 in Alaska. While Trump has (for now) ruled out attendance at the meeting by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, it's still not clear what is on the negotiating table. There is a lot at stake – most immediately for Ukraine but also for broader European security – and the auguries aren't encouraging. Trump says his objective is to end the fighting, and evidently sees his face-to-face meeting with Putin on Friday as key to this. While talk of possible 'land-swaps' and recovering 'prime oceanfront land' for Ukraine suggests the US President is in deal-making mode, Trump has also described Friday's encounter with Putin as just a 'feel-out' meeting, suggesting more a preliminary encounter. Trump's sudden and unexpected decision late last week to meet with Putin – on the very day his self-imposed deadline to Putin to agree to a ceasefire or face more sanctions was due to expire – was at once characteristic of his mercurial operating style, but also his conviction that only the two leaders themselves could resolve the matter. KYIV AND EUROPE FACE A DILEMMA For its part, Europe, caught off balance by the announcement of the summit, has been scrambling, fearful of being presented with a done deal. European leaders have reiterated their strong support for Ukraine, insisting that Kyiv must be involved in any negotiations concerning Ukraine's security. Together with Zelenskyy, they plan to hold a 'virtual' meeting with Trump on Wednesday this week, Aug 13, seeking to shape the outcomes of the summit. Zelenskyy has declared that any agreement reached at the summit without input from Kyiv would amount to 'dead decisions'. Kyiv sees no evidence on the battlefield that Russia is ready to end the fighting – indeed warning that any concessions to Putin would only encourage Russia to continue the war. Yet Kyiv (and its European backers) face a dilemma: While wary of being presented with an unpalatable deal, they don't want to risk angering Washington by appearing to be the obstacle to a negotiated agreement. For Putin, Washington's agreement to hold the summit is itself a gift – an unrequited concession. Such meetings, echoing past US-Soviet high-level encounters, give the Russian leader the status and respect as an equal partner he craves, and accords with Putin's view of how great powers should dispose of world affairs between themselves, deciding spheres of influence. Moreover, Washington's comments to media, suggesting possible 'territorial swaps' before the summit has even occurred, and absent any credible signs of Russia's willingness to stop the fighting, fuels unfortunate speculation that the talks will be held on Moscow's terms. To be sure, Kyiv may indeed have to accept Russian de facto control of parts of eastern Ukraine as part of any eventual settlement to end the fighting. But to concede this likelihood up front is a puzzling negotiating tactic. It will alarm those who suspect that Ukraine, and Washington's European allies, will be presented with a fait accompli, and fuel speculation that the administration's main objective is to reach a quick deal, and promote normalisation of relations with Russia. THE BEST OUTCOME More details may emerge over coming days that provide greater reassurance about how the United States will be approaching Friday's summit. But perhaps the best outcome that can realistically be expected is for a ceasefire along the current line of contact to end the fighting, at least for now. Such a ceasefire would certainly offer a welcome respite for Ukraine from the constant barrage of damaging missile and drone attacks on its troops, its civilian population and infrastructure. But the hard work of converting any ceasefire into some kind of longer-term settlement would remain. And there should be no illusions about how challenging this will prove. Bear in mind that Russia too would benefit from a ceasefire, allowing it to reconstitute its forces and relieve pressure on its overheating economy – especially if it were accompanied by a relaxation of Western sanctions. And given the Kremlin's near-complete control of the information space within Russia, underpinned by its formidable internal security apparatus, Moscow can spin any outcome to the conflict in Ukraine as a victory for Russia. Moreover, there are no grounds to suppose that Putin has resiled from his core objective of bringing Ukraine to heel, installing a more pliable government in Kyiv and bringing Ukraine back firmly within Russia's sphere of influence. This was underscored in May during Russia's latest (abortive) talks with Ukraine in Istanbul, where Moscow reiterated its maximalist demands: full control of the four territories it has annexed in eastern Ukraine (plus Crimea), Ukrainian neutrality and repudiation of NATO membership aspirations, demilitarisation and 'denazification'. More broadly, Russia remains intent on revising the post-Cold War European security framework as set out in Moscow's draft treaties in December 2021 – including the drawdown of forward-deployed NATO forces in its eastern member states. At best, then, the upcoming summit in Alaska might offer an end to the fighting in Ukraine – at least for now. But this will only be the start of a long and arduous process, the outcome of which will remain crucial, not only for the future of Ukraine but also for wider European and global security. Ian Hill is Adjunct Professor in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University and Senior Fellow in the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington. This commentary first appeared
