News

China’s Plan to Destabilize Europe Already in Action, G7 Vows Tough Stance

China Plan to Destabilize Europe Already in Action

China’s intention to push European Union members against one another in order to achieve its own geopolitical goals is already “in action,” according to the president of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen in a recent critical speech.

The president’s cautious statements come nearly two weeks after her joint trip to Beijing with French President Emmanuel Macron.

At the end of his visit, Macron sparked outrage by suggesting that the EU not become “America’s follower” in the conflict between China and the US over Taiwan, a democratic island that the Chinese Communist Party considers a breakaway province and has vowed to reunite with the mainland.

“Is it in our best interests to hasten [the Taiwan crisis]?” No. The worst thing would be for us Europeans to believe that we must become followers on this issue, taking our cues from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction,” Macron said in an interview with Politico Europe and Les Echos, referring to the concept of “strategic autonomy.”

Macron’s remarks sparked a fierce backlash from Eastern European and American officials, who accused the French president of endangering the transatlantic partnership.

Ursula Von Der Leyen, speaking before the European Parliament on Tuesday morning, carefully avoided the topic while issuing a sharp caveat on what Beijing is attempting to do.

“A strong European China policy relies on strong coordination between member states and EU institutions, as well as a willingness to avoid the divide and conquer tactics that we know we may face,” Von Der Leyen added, quoting from a previous address.

“We’ve already seen those tactics in action in recent days and weeks,” she continued.

“And it is now time for Europe to act as well.” Now is the opportunity to display our collective determination, to define success together, and to showcase the togetherness that makes us powerful.”

china, taiwan

Peace and stability” in the Taiwan Strait

Von Der Leyen emphasized the EU’s adherence to the One China policy, which recognizes the People’s Republic of China as China’s sole government, but emphasized the importance of maintaining “peace and stability” in the Taiwan Strait.

Western allies have long accused Beijing of launching a full-scale military incursion to seize control of the island, a calamity that would almost certainly disrupt semiconductor supply chains and bring the global economy to a halt.

“We are vehemently opposed to any unilateral change in the status quo, particularly through the use of force,” Von Der Leyen added.

During her speech, the European Commission chief said the world has changed “enormously” since the bloc’s previous single policy on China was revealed in 2019, and she asked member states to come up with a new, cohesive plan, “one that we can all rally around.”

However, this attempt has been impeded by significant divisions among EU countries over how to engage with China, a split that is plainly reflected in the harsh reaction to Macron’s remarks.

Beijing’s stance on the Ukraine war, which the West regards as unduly ambiguous and biassed in favour of Moscow, has exacerbated the policy dilemma.

“I believe we can – and must – carve out our own distinct European approach that also allows us to collaborate with other partners,” Von Der Leyen said, implying Macron’s long-held desire for strategic autonomy.

“And the starting point for this is the need to have a shared and very clear-eyed picture of the risks and opportunities in our engagement with China.”

Von Der Leyen then reiterated her suggestion, which is based on “de-risking” some parts of EU-China relations, such as renewable energy, raw materials, emerging technologies, and defence, which are now more vulnerable to undue meddling as a result of “China’s explicit fusion of its military and commercial sectors.”

The president also stated that her services would be used to create a new tool to oversee outbound investment in a “very small number but sensitive technologies,” which she did not specify.

“We must ensure that the capital, expertise, and knowledge of our companies are not used to enhance the military and intelligence capabilities of those who are also our systemic rivals,”That simply cannot be,” Von Der Leyen warned.

G7 meets on china

G-7 United on Chinese threats to Taiwan

Meanwhile, top diplomats from the Group of Seven affluent democracies vowed a united front against Chinese threats to Taiwan and Russia’s aggressiveness in Ukraine, declaring at the end of their discussions on Tuesday that they were determined to strengthening and enforcing strong sanctions against Moscow.

The G-7 declaration outlining their agreements also featured strong comments against North Korea’s unprecedented string of missile testing. The three-day summit in this hot springs resort town, however, was emphasized by China’s growing aggressiveness in Asia and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“There can be no impunity for war crimes and other atrocities, such as Russia’s attacks against civilians and critical civilian infrastructure,” the ministers stated.

“We remain committed to intensifying sanctions against Russia, coordinating and fully enforcing them,” the communique read, adding that the US would stand by Ukraine “for as long as it takes” to protect itself.

The foreign ministers’ communique was written as a blueprint for global leaders to adopt at the G-7 summit in Hiroshima next month, and it mentioned Iran, Myanmar, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, and other “grave threats.”

However, two crises stood out: China’s rising threats and military maneuverings surrounding Taiwan, the self-governing democracy that Beijing claims as its own, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s current offensive is mostly stopped, and Ukraine is preparing a counteroffensive, but the Russian leader’s frequent threats to deploy tactical nuclear weapons have sparked considerable global concern.

“Russia’s irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and its threat to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus are unacceptable,” the ministers added.

putin XI

Wests response to Russian and Chinese aggression

The G-7 envoys from Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, and the European Union have emphasized that their meeting in Karuizawa comes at a critical juncture in the world’s response to Russian and Chinese aggression, both of which are viewed as threats to the post-World War II rules-based international order.

Global efforts to address the issues at the United Nations have been thwarted by Chinese and Russian obstinacy on the Security Council.

G-7 leaders and foreign ministers have recently ended visits to China, most recently France and Germany, and there is growing concern after China recently sent planes and ships to practise an encirclement of Taiwan. Beijing has also been swiftly acquiring nuclear warheads, toughening its stance on its claim to the South China Sea, and creating a picture of approaching conflict.

According to The Associated Press, the G-7 ministers stated that peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait between China and Taiwan are “an indispensable element in the international community’s security and prosperity,” and they called for “the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues.”

“There is clear unanimity in the approach we are taking,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said of his talks with other ministers in Karuizawa. “What I heard was a remarkable convergence on concerns related to (China) and what we’re doing to address those concerns,” he said.

Concerning stalling talks with the Chinese, Blinken stated that the US prioritized maintaining communication channels open, as President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed to last year.

“My expectation is that we will be able to move forward on that,” Blinken added, “but it does require China to make clear its own intentions in doing so.”

The communique also encouraged China to “refrain from using threats, coercion, intimidation, or force.” We continue to be deeply worried about the situation in the East and South China Seas… There is no legal foundation for China’s vast maritime claims in the South China Sea, and we reject China’s militarization of the region.”

G7 china

G-7 interfering in China’s internal affairs

Foreign Minister Wang Wenbin of China claimed in Beijing that the G-7 had “grossly interfered in China’s internal affairs and maliciously slandered and smeared China.”

“The communique is full of arrogance, prejudice, and sinister intentions against China,” he stated. We strongly reject and condemn this, and have submitted formal concerns with the Japanese side, the meeting’s host country.”

Despite indications, including comments from French President Emmanuel Macron, that the G-7 is divided on China, US officials said in Karuizawa that there is a shared concern among G-7 nations about China’s actions, as well as a desire to maintain a coordinated approach to working with Beijing even as nations face Chinese coercion and attempts to water down or circumvent international trade and commerce rules.

Japan’s concern about China may be seen in its efforts to depart from its post-World War II self-defense-only ideals, which include efforts to acquire preemptive strike capabilities and cruise missiles.

“We noted in a statement for the first time as the G-7 our commitment to a rules-based, free and open international order and our strong opposition to unilateral attempts to change the status quo anywhere in the world,” Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters.

He stated that Japan, as Asia’s lone G-7 member, focused on the Indo-Pacific region.

Aside from China, North Korea has conducted around 100 missile tests since the beginning of last year, including intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland and a variety of other shorter-range weapons that threaten South Korea and Japan.

“We demand that North Korea refrain from any further destabilizing or provocative actions, including any further nuclear tests or launches using ballistic missile technology,” the communique said, adding that any future actions “must be met with a swift, united, and robust international response, including additional significant measures to be taken by the UN Security Council.”

“It is critical that sanctions be fully and scrupulously implemented by all states, and that they remain in place for as long as North Korea’s WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and ballistic missile programmes exist,” the ministers said.

News

Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

Trudeau plans to purchase 2,063 firearm from legal gun owners in Canada - Rebel News Image

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.

The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.

This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.

The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.

In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.

Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened

“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.

Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).

“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.

Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.

In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.

An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.

Enforcement efforts Questioned

By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.

“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).

The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.

The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.

“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.

Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem

Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.

“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.

Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.

Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.

“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.

“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP