South Korea begins removing border propaganda speakers in conciliatory gesture toward North
The speakers had previously been used to blast anti-North Korean propaganda across the border, but the South's new liberal government halted the broadcasts in June in a conciliatory gesture as it looks to rebuild trust and revive dialogue with Pyongyang, which has largely cut off cooperation with the South in recent years.
South Korea's Defense Ministry said the physical removal of the loudspeakers from the border was another 'practical measure' aimed at easing tensions between the war-divided Koreas and that it does not affect the South's military readiness.
Lee Kyung-ho, a spokesperson for the ministry, didn't share specific details on how the removed loudspeakers will be stored or whether they could be quickly redeployed to the border if tensions flare again between the Koreas. There were no discussions between the two militaries ahead of the South's decision to remove the speakers, Lee said during a briefing.
North Korea, which is extremely sensitive to any outside criticism of its authoritarian leadership and its third-generation ruler, Kim Jong Un, didn't immediately comment on the South Korean step.
The South's previous conservative government resumed the daily loudspeaker broadcasts in June last year following a yearslong pause in retaliation for North Korea flying trash-laden balloons toward the South in a psychological warfare campaign.
The speakers blasted propaganda messages and K-pop songs, a playlist clearly designed to strike a nerve in Pyongyang, where Kim's government has been intensifying a campaign to eliminate the influence of South Korean pop culture and language among the population in a bid to strengthen his family's dynastic rule.
The Cold War-style psychological warfare campaigns further heightened tensions already inflamed by North Korea's advancing nuclear program and South Korean efforts to expand joint military exercises with the United States and their trilateral security cooperation with Japan.
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, a liberal who took office in June after winning an early election to replace ousted conservative Yoon Suk Yeol, has vowed to improve relations with Pyongyang, which reacted furiously to Yoon's hard-line policies and shunned dialogue.
But Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of the North Korean leader, rebuffed overtures by Lee's government last week, saying that Seoul's 'blind trust' in the country's alliance with the U.S. and hostility toward North Korea make it no different from its conservative predecessor. Her comments implied that North Korea — now preoccupied with its expanding cooperation with Russia over the war in Ukraine – feels no urgency to resume diplomacy with Seoul and Washington anytime soon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PSNI removes caravan while HE seek legal advice over issues in Ballinmallard
THE Housing Executive (HE) has confirmed that it is seeking legal advice regarding a property in Ballinamallard following concerns around criminal and anti-social behaviour. This was confirmed at a recent multi-agency meeting involving The Housing Executive, PSNI, Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, and members of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). The meeting also heard that a caravan causing concern among residents will be removed and relocated. Concerns over anti-social behaviour have been growing in the Fermanagh village for several months, particularly in relation to one specific property. According to DUP MLA, Deborah Erskine, some residents have been 'terrorised as a result of disgraceful and unwanted behaviour.' At the meeting, a Housing Executive representative clarified the housing status of the tenants and landlord of the property in question, confirming that those residing there are 'private tenants' with 'no connection' to the organisation. The Housing Executive is currently seeking legal advice regarding the property and intends to consider further action once this advice has been received. PSNI representatives also spoke at the meeting. While noting that there have been limited reports of abusive or criminal behaviour to date, they strongly encouraged all residents to report any concerns directly to the police. 'A strong and consistent community response is essential to tackling any issues that arise,' said the PSNI representative. 'Therefore, it is important that all incidents, no matter how minor they may seem, are reported to the PSNI as soon as they happen, regardless of the type of incident.' Regarding the caravan, which has caused concern from residents, the PSNI confirmed that it has been removed from the area and will be relocated elsewhere. Speaking after the meeting, a UUP spokesman said: 'We want to thank everyone who has raised concerns with us. Your voice is being heard, and your concerns continue to be our priority. 'We will maintain close engagement with all agencies involved and continue to advocate for the best interests of our community.'
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved Advertisement The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. Advertisement The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Advertisement Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' Advertisement The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. Advertisement 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's broad tariffs go into effect, just as economic pain is surfacing
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump began levying higher import taxes on dozens of countries Thursday, just as the economic fallout of his monthslong tariff threats has begun to create visible damage for the U.S. economy. Just after midnight, goods from more than 60 countries and the European Union became subject to tariff rates of 10% or higher. Products from the European Union, Japan and South Korea are taxed at 15%, while imports from Taiwan, Vietnam and Bangladesh are taxed at 20%. Trump also expects the EU, Japan and South Korea to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. 'I think the growth is going to be unprecedented,' Trump said Wednesday afternoon. He added that the U.S. was 'taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs,' but he couldn't provide a specific figure for revenues because 'we don't even know what the final number is' regarding tariff rates. Despite the uncertainty, the Trump White House is confident that the onset of his broad tariffs will provide clarity about the path of the world's largest economy. Now that companies understand the direction the U.S. is headed, the administration believes they can ramp up new investments and jump-start hiring in ways that can rebalance the U.S. economy as a manufacturing power. But so far, there are signs of self-inflicted wounds to America as companies and consumers alike brace for the impact of new taxes. What the data has shown is a U.S. economy that changed in April with Trump's initial rollout of tariffs, an event that led to market drama, a negotiating period and Trump's ultimate decision to start his universal tariffs on Thursday. Economic reports show that hiring began to stall, inflationary pressures crept upward and home values in key markets started to decline after April, said John Silvia, CEO of Dynamic Economic Strategy. 'A less productive economy requires fewer workers,' Silvia said in an analysis note. 'But there is more, the higher tariff prices lower workers' real wages. The economy has become less productive, and firms cannot pay the same real wages as before. Actions have consequences.' Even then, the ultimate transformations of the tariffs are unknown and could play out over months, if not years. Many economists say the risk is that the American economy is steadily eroded rather than collapsing instantly. 'We all want it to be made for television where it's this explosion — it's not like that,' said Brad Jensen, a professor at Georgetown University. 'It's going to be fine sand in the gears and slow things down.' Trump has promoted the tariffs as a way to reduce the persistent trade deficit. But importers sought to avoid the taxes by importing more goods before the taxes went into effect. As a result, the $582.7 billion trade imbalance for the first half of the year was 38% higher than in 2024. Total construction spending has dropped 2.9% over the past year, and the factory jobs promised by Trump have so far resulted in job losses. The lead-up to Thursday fit the slapdash nature of Trump's tariffs, which have been variously rolled out, walked back, delayed, increased, imposed by letter and frantically renegotiated. The process has been so muddled that officials for key trade partners were unclear at the start of the week whether the tariffs would begin Thursday or Friday. The language of the July 31 order to delay the start of tariffs from Aug. 1 said the higher tax rates would start in seven days. On Wednesday morning, Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, was asked if the new tariffs began at midnight Thursday, and he said reporters should check with the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. Trump on Wednesday announced additional 25% tariffs to be imposed on India for its buying of Russian oil, bringing its total import taxes to 50%. A top body of Indian exporters said Thursday the latest U.S. tariffs will impact nearly 55% of the country's outbound shipments to America and force exporters to lose their long-standing clients. 'Absorbing this sudden cost escalation is simply not viable. Margins are already thin,' S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organizations, said in a statement. Import taxes are still coming on pharmaceutical drugs and Trump announced 100% tariffs on computer chips. That could leave the U.S. economy in a place of suspended animation as it awaits the impact. The president's use of a 1977 law to declare an economic emergency to impose the tariffs is also under challenge. The impending ruling from last week's hearing before a U.S. appeals court could cause Trump to find other legal justifications if judges say he exceeded his authority. Even people who worked with Trump during his first term are skeptical that things will go smoothly for the economy, such as Paul Ryan, the former Republican House speaker, who has emerged as a Trump critic. 'There's no sort of rationale for this other than the president wanting to raise tariffs based upon his whims, his opinions,' Ryan told CNBC on Wednesday. 'I think choppy waters are ahead because I think they're going to have some legal challenges.' Still, the stock market has been solid during the recent tariff drama, with the S&P 500 index climbing more than 25% from its April low. The market's rebound and the income tax cuts in Trump's tax and spending measures signed into law on July 4 have given the White House confidence that economic growth is bound to accelerate in the coming months. As of now, Trump still foresees an economic boom while the rest of the world and American voters wait nervously. 'There's one person who can afford to be cavalier about the uncertainty that he's creating, and that's Donald Trump,' said Rachel West, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who worked in the Biden White House on labor policy. 'The rest of Americans are already paying the price for that uncertainty.'
