Latest news with #MunichSecurityConference
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
German chancellor to travel to US to meet with Trump
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will travel to Washington next week for his first visit since taking office, where he is scheduled to meet with US President Donald Trump. Source: Politico, a Brussels-based politics and policy news organisation, citing the German government press service, as reported by European Pravda Details: Merz will travel to the US on 4 May for his first visit under the new German government. His meeting with Trump is set for Thursday 5 June, followed by a joint press conference. At the meeting with Trump, they will discuss the Russo-Ukrainian war, the situation in the Middle East and trade issues. Background: Merz has repeatedly engaged in public disputes with the US administration, particularly after criticism from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance regarding the classification of the far-right Alternative for Germany party as right-wing extremist. Merz stressed that neither Germany nor he personally interfered in the US election campaign or supported any candidate, and he expects the same attitude from the American administration. This week, the German chancellor stated that Europe is ready to fight for its fundamental values – freedom and democracy – thus responding to repeated criticism of the EU by the Trump administration and, in particular, Vice President Vance's infamous speech at the Munich Security Conference. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Mint
a day ago
- Politics
- Mint
European Kindness Is Threatening Freedom of Speech
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Britain and Europe have become 'a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom,' according to Samuel Samson, a senior adviser to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. His punchy boss further threatens to bar European visitors to the US for 'censoring' Americans online. Vice President JD Vance also condemned European 'backsliding' on basic democratic values in a speech that outraged his audience at the Munich Security Conference last autumn. It used to be liberal progressives and radicals who denounced the state for infringing freedom of speech. Now it's the turn of the populist right to rage against 'woke' censorship. President Donald Trump's own respect for the democratic process is questionable, and administration officials, contemptuous of academic and artistic freedoms at home, make unlikely ambassadors for human rights abroad. But what if these populists have a point? Alas, the UK and Europe should look hard at their protections of the rights of individuals to say whatever they please. Some governments who would regard themselves as liberal minded are in danger of stifling, if not killing, free speech, albeit out of kindness. That's where the muddle begins. In theory, all states, even totalitarian ones like North Korea and dictatorships like Russia which murder truth-telling journalists, subscribe to Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states 'everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference.' In practice, all states also have restrictions on freedom of speech, and rightly so. Shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema out of mischief and you'll be held responsible for those trampled in the rush for the exit; incite a crowd to lynch a victim and you'll spend many years behind bars. Individuals also have the right to protection against libel, slander and harassment. This is the stuff of a thousand philosophy seminars. But balancing individual rights with social responsibility is harder than it looks. The US Supreme Court has made a better fist of it than most by extending First Amendment protections for free speech in recent decades, ruling that the authorities may only prosecute inflammatory speech that's 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.' Several European governments, however, have now tilted in the wrong direction — toward censorship and overreach. Germany goes to absurd lengths to protect its political class from personal abuse, for instance. France and Italy have similar laws. In the UK, however, the desire to promote social harmony and protect minorities has taken precedence over free speech. So, a retired police officer was arrested in his Kent home by a posse of former colleagues for a wry tweet about pro-Palestinian demonstrators. As his home was ransacked, the police commented on his suspiciously Brexit-y reading material. In another notorious incident that made the front pages, a couple were held for eight hours at a police station for writing WhatApp messages and posting salty criticism of their daughter's primary school. Unfortunately, these aren't isolated incidents of overzealous authorities. Another cause celebre of the populist right on both sides of the Atlantic is the case of Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor who was jailed for 31 months for a public order offence. Yet she's no free speech martyr. After three children were murdered in a knife attack in Southport last year, Connolly wrongly assumed the assailant was an immigrant — he was the son of refugees from Rwanda — and tweeted on X calling for mass deportations and inciting people to set fire to hotels housing immigrants. The post was viewed more than 300,000 times on a day when racist thugs attacked mosques and migrant hostels. Judges are the ultimate guardians of the rule of law, the fertile ground out of which both British and American democracy grew. The courts therefore come down hard on those who threaten public order. Connolly's sentence was intended to be exemplary, but it was at the extreme range of censure - and should have been reduced on appeal. Confused thinking and badly drafted legislation lies behind the UK's recent illiberal tilt. Hate crime is now defined by law as 'any criminal offence perceived by the victim or any person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.' Such vague, subjective criteria should have no place on the statute book. As Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court justice puts it: 'Words may now be criminal if they are abusive or even insulting, even if they are not threatening and put no one in danger.' At the root of much of this is poorly written legislation. The concept of 'non-crime hate,' introduced after the racist murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence 30 years ago, also obliges the police to record incidents of so-called offensive speech that have no criminal penalty. The evidence, such as it is, can stay on file and be used in criminal record checks seen by potential employers. The College of Policing's Kafkaesque guidance states 'the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception' — a charter for aggrieved individuals to pursue private vendettas. Ten of thousands of police hours are devoted to non-crime hate; 13,200 incidents were recorded by police in the year to June 2024. It's easy to collect the evidence because most of it is posted online — far easier than tracking down violent criminals, burglars and fraudsters. So while police chiefs went public in the media this week with demands for more money from the Treasury, the government should be asking whether officers are making best use of their existing budgets. Unfortunately, things look likely to get worse before they get better. The Labour government's new employment bill includes provisions to require employers to take 'all reasonable' steps to prevent harassment of staff at work by clients and customers, including 'overheard conversations' - a boggy territory which strips out context and relies heavily on subjective impressions about what was heard. How will free speech in bars and pubs be monitored in practice? Prime Minister Keir Starmer made his reputation as a lawyer by taking on corporations trying to stifle free speech. He needs to be alert to the wider context in which this legislation is being proposed, ideally calling for a review that would halt the pernicious drift toward limiting freedom of speech for fear of causing minor offence. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. More stories like this are available on
The Star
a day ago
- Business
- The Star
US defence chief Hegseth tells Asian allies: Raise defence spending to 5% of GDP like Europe
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth delivers his speech during 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue summit in Singapore, Saturday, May 31, 2025. - AP SINGAPORE: The US expects Asian countries to increase their defence spending to match levels that Washington expects of European allies, since they bear the brunt of the 'threat' of China and North Korea in their backyards. That was the message that US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth brought on May 31 to the leading annual forum of global security and defence leaders in the Asia-Pacific at the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue. 'It is hard to believe I can say this – but Asian allies and partners should look to countries in Europe as a new-found example. Nato members are pledging to spend five per cent of their GDP on defence, even Germany,' the former Fox News presenter said. Hegseth communicated to European allies this expectation at the Munich Security Conference in February. 'How can it make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies and partners in Asia spend far less in the face of a far more formidable threat from Communist China, not to mention North Korea?' he added. 'Ultimately, a strong, resolute,and capable network of allies and partners is our key strategic advantage. China envies what we have together.' Since the Trump administration returned to office at the turn of 2025, Washington has been doubling down on its demands that its allies should bear a greater responsibility for their conventional defences and cannot expect the US to bear the financial burden alone. For a generation, the US ignored the Indo-Pacific, but under the Trump administration, 'we are here to stay', Hegseth said. Like Singapore's founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, 'President Trump's approach is grounded in common sense and national interests, built on a willingness to work with others while respecting mutual self-interest, and informed by an understanding of military strength but shaped by a preference for engaging on the basis of commerce and sovereignty — not war,' he said. He added: 'These two historic men share a willingness to challenge old ways of doing things that no longer make sense. Under President Trump's leadership, we are applying this common sense approach here in the Indo-Pacific and throughout the world.' While China is reportedly the world's second largest defence spender in the world after the US, Beijing's reported defence expenditure typically does not exceed 1.5 per cent of its GDP, compared with the 3.5 per cent that the US typically maintains every year. In 2024, Singapore said it plans to cap its defence outlay to about three per cent of its GDP annually on average for the next decade. The US is bound by treaty to defend the Philippines when the South-East Asian archipelago is under attack and has been deeply committed to the defence of Taiwan, a self-governing territory that Beijing claims as its own to be reunified by force if necessary. - The Straits Times/ANN
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
'Don't Just Talk, But Act': JD Vance Takes Europe To Cleaners; Merz Responds Amid Big Fight
'Don't Just Talk, But Act': JD Vance Takes Europe To Cleaners; Merz Responds Amid Big Fight Source: In a pointed response to U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance's criticism at the Munich Security Conference—where he accused Europe of stifling free speech and losing control over immigration—German politician Friedrich Merz firmly defended European values. Reflecting on Vance's challenge about what Europe truly stands for, Merz declared that the answer lies in a shared legacy: a hard-earned commitment to freedom and democracy. He emphasized that Europe's identity has been shaped through centuries of struggle and resilience, and that these principles remain worth defending—even fighting for—against any threats, foreign or domestic.
3 days ago
- Politics
DNI Tulsi Gabbard leading US delegation to major security summit in Singapore
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is leading a U.S. delegation to Singapore this week to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia's premier security summit, another signal of the Trump administration's intensified focus on the Indo-Pacific region. The summit will convene more than 550 delegates from 40 nations, including military, intelligence, business and security leaders, from across the Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America, a source familiar with plans told ABC News. Gabbard will be joined by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the 22nd annual summit, hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which runs from May 30 to June 2 in Singapore. Gabbard is expected to "discuss major security challenges" with leaders, a source familiar with Gabbard's plans told ABC News. This year's U.S. delegation includes higher-level representation than in previous years, the source added. The Shangri-La Dialogue is considered Asia's top defense summit, comparable to the Raisina Dialogue and the Munich Security Conference, both of which Gabbard attended earlier this year. This trip marks Gabbard's second trip to Asia in recent weeks, seemingly reinforcing the Trump administration's renewed focus on the region. Shortly after her confirmation, Gabbard traveled to India and met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of President Donald Trump's bilateral meeting with Modi in February. Her relationship with Modi spans more than a decade, dating back to 2013 when she became the first Hindu member of Congress. They met again during her 2014 visit to India at Modi's invitation. Earlier this year, Gabbard accepted an invitation from Modi to speak at the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi, a multilateral conference on geopolitics and geoeconomics, but, before returning to Washington, D.C., Gabbard made stops in Japan, Thailand and France. Her diplomatic tour began in Honolulu, Hawaii -- her hometown -- where she represented the state in Congress for eight years. While in Hawaii, Gabbard met with intelligence community partners and visited United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) headquarters in Honolulu. In Singapore this week, she will hold bilateral meetings with regional leaders to "explore opportunities to chart a path that advances mutual interests of security, peace, and prosperity in the region," according to a source familiar with the agenda. Long before taking the helm of the intelligence community, Gabbard was already on the ground in Southeast Asia and, in 2019 while she was running for president, she paused her campaign for two weeks to serve on active duty with the U.S. Army National Guard in Jakarta, Indonesia, becoming the first candidate in modern history to do so. Now, as director of national intelligence, her return to the region marks a shift from military service to high-stakes diplomacy, an evolution that underscores not only her long-standing personal and strategic ties to the Indo-Pacific, but also hints the administration's broader efforts to elevate U.S. engagement in the region.
