South Korea’s main opposition party taps former party chief as presidential candidate

0 seconds of 1 minute, 0Volume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
01:00
01:00
 
Short Url
Updated 27 April 2025
Follow

South Korea’s main opposition party taps former party chief as presidential candidate

South Korea’s main opposition party taps former party chief as presidential candidate
  • Lee, 60, lost the 2022 election to Yoon in the narrowest margin recorded in the country’s presidential elections

SEOUL: South Korea’s main liberal opposition party tapped Sunday its former leader Lee Jae-myung as presidential candidate in the upcoming June 3 vote.
The Democratic Party said Lee has won nearly 90 percent of the votes cast during the party’s primary that ended Sunday, defeating two competitors.
Lee, a liberal who wants greater economic parity in South Korea and warmer ties with North Korea, has solidified his position as front-runner to succeed recently ousted conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol.
Lee had led the opposition-controlled parliament’s impeachment of Yoon over his imposition of martial law before the Constitutional Court formally dismissed him in early April. Yoon’s ouster prompted a snap election set for June 3 to find a new president, who’ll be given a full, single five-year term.
Lee, 60, lost the 2022 election to Yoon in the narrowest margin recorded in the country’s presidential elections.
He is the clear favorite to win the election.
In a Gallup Korea poll released Friday, 38 percent of respondents chose Lee as their preferred new president, while all other aspirants obtained single-digit support ratings. The main conservative People Power Party is to nominate its candidate next weekend, and its four presidential hopefuls competing to win the party ticket won combined 23 percent of support ratings in the Gallup survey.
Lee, who served as the governor of South Korea’s most populous Gyeonggi province and a mayor of Seongnam city, has long established an image as an anti-establishment figure who can eliminate deep-rooted unfairness, inequality and corruption in South Korea. But his critics view him as a populist who relies on stoking divisions and demonizing opponents and worry his rule would likely end up intensifying a domestic division.


Ukraine peace talks: What are Kyiv and Moscow’s positions?

Ukraine peace talks: What are Kyiv and Moscow’s positions?
Updated 10 sec ago
Follow

Ukraine peace talks: What are Kyiv and Moscow’s positions?

Ukraine peace talks: What are Kyiv and Moscow’s positions?

ISTANBUL: Delegations from Kyiv and Moscow are set to hold their first direct talks on the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine for more than three years.
Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has announced he will travel to Turkiye, while Russia’s Vladimir Putin indicated he will not attend the talks.
Despite the flurry of diplomacy and US President Donald Trump’s call for a swift end to the fighting, Moscow and Kyiv’s demands appear to be far apart.
Russia has repeatedly demanded to keep the territory in southern and eastern Ukraine that it occupies and for Kyiv to cede even more land.
Moscow in 2022 annexed four Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson — despite not having full control over them.
Russia also annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 and has held it ever since.
President Vladimir Putin last year demanded Ukraine pull its forces out of parts of those regions that its army still controls as a prerequisite to any peace settlement.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said recognition of Moscow’s ownership of these territories was “imperative” for any negotiations.
Kyiv has said it will never recognize its occupied territories, including Crimea, as Russian.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Kyiv may be forced to try to secure their return through diplomatic means — effectively conceding that Russia could maintain control over some land in any peace deal.
Russia has also demanded that Ukraine be barred from joining the NATO military alliance and has repeatedly said it wants Zelensky removed from office.
Russia had intended to topple Zelensky when it launched its invasion in 2022, with Putin calling in a televised address for Ukraine’s generals to oust him in a coup d’etat and then open talks with Moscow.
Putin in March floated the idea of Ukraine being put under a UN-backed “temporary administration,” refreshing his call to essentially remove Zelensky.
Russian officials have throughout the war called for the “de-militarization” and “de-Nazification” of Ukraine — casting Kyiv as a neo-Nazi “regime.”
Kyiv, the West and independent experts have rejected those narratives.
Russia has also sought at times to limit the size of Ukraine’s army, wants Ukraine to be declared a neutral state and for Western countries to stop supplying it weapons.
Zelensky has for months been calling for “security guarantees” for Ukraine to stop Russia invading again.
His top demand would be for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO, or for Ukraine to fall under the military alliance’s Article Five collective defense term.
Trump has however, dismissed the possibility of Ukraine joining the bloc and Russia says NATO membership would be “unacceptable.”
Instead, Kyiv is pushing for some other form of Western military commitment that would deter Moscow.
Britain and France are leading discussions about a possible European troop deployment to enforce any ceasefire, among a group of countries dubbed the “coalition of the willing.”
But Zelensky and Kyiv still want Washington to back-up any “security guarantee.”
Moscow has said it would not accept troops from NATO countries being deployed to Ukraine in any capacity.
Zelensky wants an immediate, full and unconditional ceasefire to cover combat on air, sea and land.
He accepted a US proposal for that in March but Putin rejected it.
Putin has instead ordered two short “truces” — over Easter and to cover Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebrations.
Air attacks dipped during the periods but Ukraine accused Moscow of violating both on hundreds of occasions.
In his late-night address from the Kremlin calling for the direct Russia-Ukraine talks, Putin said he did not “exclude” that some kind of ceasefire could be agreed between the sides.


Australia removes repeatedly vandalized James Cook statue

Australia removes repeatedly vandalized James Cook statue
Updated 8 min 25 sec ago
Follow

Australia removes repeatedly vandalized James Cook statue

Australia removes repeatedly vandalized James Cook statue
  • ‘Don’t think if we put it back up, it wouldn’t be just damaged again,’ says mayor

MELBOURNE: The Australian city of Melbourne will not replace a damaged monument to British explorer James Cook, the mayor said, for fear it will inevitably be vandalized again.
The granite-and-bronze memorial in the southeastern Australian city has been a favorite target of vandals, who tore the monument down last year and scrawled “cook the colony” on its surface.
It was similarly defaced in 2020 with spray-painted slogans of “shame” and “destroy white supremacy.”
Stephen Jolly, mayor of Yarra City in Melbourne’s inner suburbs, said the Cook monument would not be replaced because it would just be “damaged again.”
“I’m not in favor of demolishing statues of people in the past, even problematic ones, but don’t think if we put it back up, it wouldn’t be just damaged again,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
“It would be ongoing. How can we justify that?“
Vandals poured red paint over a different statue of Cook in the lead-up to Australia Day earlier this year.
Statues of colonial figures such as Cook are frequently targeted by vandals to draw attention to the plight of Australia’s Indigenous peoples.
Cook sailed into Botany Bay in 1770 and claimed eastern Australia for Britain under the doctrine of “terra nullius” — land belonging to no one — brushing over tens of thousands of years of Indigenous history.
 


Argentina orders immigration crackdown with new decree to ‘make Argentina great again’

Argentina orders immigration crackdown with new decree to ‘make Argentina great again’
Updated 14 min 3 sec ago
Follow

Argentina orders immigration crackdown with new decree to ‘make Argentina great again’

Argentina orders immigration crackdown with new decree to ‘make Argentina great again’

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina: Argentina’s right-wing President Javier Milei issued a decree on Wednesday curbing immigration to the South American nation, a move coinciding with the immigration restrictions put in place by the Trump administration.
In a country that has long prided itself on its openness to immigrants, Milei’s abrupt measures and declaration that newcomers were bringing “chaos and abuse” to Argentina drew criticism from his political opponents and prompted comparisons to US President Donald Trump.
Milei’s government welcomed those parallels to its close American ally, with presidential spokesperson Manuel Adorni saying it was “time to honor our history and make Argentina great again.”
Wednesday’s executive order tightens restrictions on citizenship, requiring immigrants to spend two uninterrupted years in Argentina or make a significant financial investment in the country to secure an Argentine passport.
Immigrants seeking permanent residency must show proof of income or “sufficient means” and have clean criminal records in their home countries.
The decree makes it much easier for the government to deport migrants who enter the country illegally, falsify their immigration documents or commit minor crimes in Argentina. Previously, authorities could only expel or deny entry to a foreigner with a conviction of more than three years.
It also asks the judiciary to fast-track otherwise lengthy immigration court proceedings.
“For some time now, we’ve had regulations that invite chaos and abuse by many opportunists who are far from coming to this country in an honest way,” Adorni told reporters. The presidential spokesperson is also the main candidate for Milei’s La Libertad Avanza party running in the key Buenos Aires legislative elections Sunday.
In a big shift, the new decree also charges foreigners to access Argentina’s public health care and education while mandating that all travelers to the country hold health insurance. Adorni claimed that public hospitals had spent some $100 million on treating foreigners last year, without offering evidence.
“This measure aims to guarantee the sustainability of the public health system, so that it ceases to be a profit center financed by our citizens,” he said.
Foreign residents from all over the world have been guaranteed free access to Argentina’s extensive education and health systems since a 2003 law under then-President Néstor Kirchner, a left-leaning populist. Public universities and hospitals are now struggling to cope with sharp government spending cuts under Milei’s austerity program.
Right-wing politicians for years have railed against what Adorni described on Wednesday as “health tours,” in which people hop over the border, get treatment and go back home. Already, several northern provinces and the city of Buenos Aires have started charging non-resident foreigners fees to access health care.
Adorni said the decree allows universities to introduce fees for foreign studies if they so choose.
Critics worried that the new rules would challenge Argentina’s tradition of openness written over waves of migration through the decades. Although bursts of xenophobia have prompted crackdowns at various moments of turmoil, Argentina has welcomed surges of foreigners from all over Latin America, the Arab world, Asia and, more recently, Russia, offering a path to citizenship and ensuring their right to basic services.


Under pressure from hard-right, Starmer takes cautious approach to EU ‘reset’

Under pressure from hard-right, Starmer takes cautious approach to EU ‘reset’
Updated 32 min 33 sec ago
Follow

Under pressure from hard-right, Starmer takes cautious approach to EU ‘reset’

Under pressure from hard-right, Starmer takes cautious approach to EU ‘reset’

LONDON: Prime Minister Keir Starmer is treading a fine line on UK-EU relations as hard-right populists make gains at a time when Brexit and immigration remain toxic issues in Britain.
The Labour leader will host European Union chiefs in London on Monday for a major summit designed to progress a deeper relationship between the UK and the bloc than the one negotiated by the previous Conservative government.
But Starmer will be wary of giving ammunition to arch-Euroskeptic Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, while also conscious that US President Donald Trump views the EU negatively.
“He’s walking two tightropes at the same time,” said British foreign policy expert Richard Whitman, describing immigration as a “salient” issue in the UK and Trump’s attitude to the EU as “hostile.”
“Starmer is balancing this big international issue and also the domestic politics one, and that’s what makes it so tricky for the prime minister,” the politics professor told AFP.
The anti-immigration Reform was founded in 2018 — two years after Britons voted to leave the EU — as the Brexit Party, with the aim of advocating for Britain to depart the bloc without a withdrawal agreement.
Renamed the Reform UK Party in 2021, it has gained significant ground.
Last month, it won more than 670 local council seats, its first two mayoral posts, and gained an additional parliamentary MP in local English elections.
Farage’s upstarts are also leading national opinion polls as they tap into concerns about net migration, which stood at 728,000 in the 12 months to last June, and the struggling economy.
Starmer hopes closer relations with the bloc can spur his main ambition of economic growth but he has vowed to honor the Brexit result, not rejoin the single market, customs union or return to free movement of people.
He has been publicly reticent about an EU-proposed youth mobility scheme that would allow British and European 18- to 30-year-olds to study and work in the UK and vice versa, although the UK government has made warmer noises in recent weeks about a possible controlled program.
An announcement seems unlikely on Monday given that it comes just a week after Starmer said he wanted to “significantly” reduce immigration in a speech intended to appeal to potential Reform voters.
“To announce something like that would be a bit perilous politically,” said Whitman, deputy director of the Global Europe Center at the University of Kent.
Starmer and EU bosses Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa are instead expected to seal a defense pact at the summit — a deal seen as the lowest hanging fruit for negotiators.
“There’s nothing in his proposals that is a dial-shifter in terms of economic growth,” said Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank.
While Starmer is squeezed on the right, he is also under pressure from pro-European lawmakers within Labour who want him to get closer to the EU.
“We must not let Brexit hold us back from our national interest,” Stella Creasy, chair of the Labour Movement for Europe group, told AFP.
“Both sides must move on from the disagreements and red lines to seeking to reduce the paperwork and red tape we face as a result.”
A poll for the internationalist think-tank Best for Britain last month found that 53 percent of voters believe a closer relationship with the EU would be positive for the UK economy.
Britain’s traditional third party, the Liberal Democrats, wants to rejoin the single market and is also surging in popularity, as are the left-wing Greens as UK politics fractures.
“I think Labour are underplaying the danger of losing votes to their left,” said Menon.
He thinks Starmer — who voted to remain at the 2016 referendum — can afford to be bolder considering his 156-majority in parliament and the fact that Reform only has five out of 650 MPs.
“Everything is done in a sort of defensive crouch,” Menon said of the prime minister’s approach.
“It’s kind of apologetic, rather than, ‘This is what I think is good for the country, this is why I’m doing it’.
“I would advise him to start winning the argument.”


Ex-FBI agent and Pentagon contractor sues over secret recording showing him criticizing Trump

Ex-FBI agent and Pentagon contractor sues over secret recording showing him criticizing Trump
Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

Ex-FBI agent and Pentagon contractor sues over secret recording showing him criticizing Trump

Ex-FBI agent and Pentagon contractor sues over secret recording showing him criticizing Trump
  • Jamie Mannina said he was induced into criticizing the Trump government in a sting operation organized by conservative activist James O’Keefe
  • O’Keefe would later publish online a secretly taken video, painting Mannina as a “top Pentagon adviser” who was plotting a coup against Trump

WASHINGTON: A former FBI agent and Pentagon contractor has sued the founder of a conservative nonprofit known for its hidden camera stings over secretly recorded videos showing the contractor criticizing President Donald Trump to a woman he thought he had taken on a date.
Jamie Mannina says in his lawsuit that he was misled by a woman he met on a dating website who held herself out as a politically liberal nurse but who was actually working with the conservative activist James O’Keefe in a sting operation designed to induce Mannina into making “inflammatory and damaging” remarks that could be recorded, “manipulated” and posted online.
Clips from their January conversations were spliced together to make it appear that Mannina was “essentially attempting to launch an unlawful coup against President Trump,” and articles released online with the videos defamed Mannina by painting him as part of a “deep state” effort with senior military officials to undermine Trump’s presidency, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington.
Mannina does not deny in the lawsuit making the comments but says his words were taken out of context, edited and pieced together in a manner designed to paint him in a false light, including in a written description on YouTube that accompanied the publication of one of the recordings.
O’Keefe founded Project Veritas in 2010 but was removed from the organization in 2023 amid allegations that he mistreated workers and misspent funds. He has continued to employ similar hidden camera stings as part of a new organization he established, O’Keefe Media Group, which also is named in the lawsuit along with the woman who pretended to be on dates with Mannina. Her identity is not known, the lawsuit says.
O’Keefe told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Mannina “voluntarily” offered up the comments in the recording and that it was important for the public to hear Mannina’s remarks. O’Keefe pointed out that the District of Columbia requires the consent of only one party, not both, for a conversation to be recorded. He called the lawsuit an “attack on the First Amendment” and said he was prepared to fight it all the way to an appeals court if necessary.
“He said what he said. We did not take him out of context. The words that we reported came out of his mouth,” O’Keefe said, adding, “We stand by our reporting.”
The lawsuit includes claims of defamation, false light, fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of the federal Wiretap Act. Though the lawsuit acknowledges that D.C.’s consent law for recording conversations, it asserts that the law nonetheless prohibits “the interception and recording of a communication if it was for the purposes of committing a tortious act.”
The complaint arises from a pair of dates that Mannina had in January with the woman and a series of videos that O’Keefe released in the following days. During their first date, the lawsuit alleges, the woman expressed her distaste for Trump and repeatedly pressed Mannina on his political views and about his work with the government. Mannina told her that included working as a “spy catcher” several years earlier when he was an FBI counterintelligence agent.
A recording that O’Keefe released shows Mannina being asked at one point by the woman, whose name was not disclosed in the lawsuit, about his “overall assessment of Trump.”
“He’s a sociopathic narcissist who’s only interested in advancing his name, his wealth and his fame,” Mannina can be heard saying. Asked in the recording whether there was anything he could do to “protect the American people,” Mannina replied that he was in conversation with some retired generals to explore what could be done.
The lawsuit says Mannina and the woman met for a second date over lunch, and as they left the restaurant, a man with a microphone approached Mannina and said: “Jamie, you’re a spy hunter, you say. Well, I’m a spy hunter, too, but I’m evidentially a better spy hunter than you.” The man was O’Keefe, the lawsuit says.
Mannina was swiftly fired from Booz Allen, where he worked as a contractor, after O’Keefe contacted the press office and presented at least parts of the video of the two dates.
The lawsuit was filed by Mark Zaid, a prominent Washington lawyer who routinely represents government officials and whistleblowers. Zaid himself sued Trump last week after the president revoked his security clearance.
“Lying or misleading someone on a dating app, which no doubt happens all the time, is not what this lawsuit seeks to address,” Zaid said in a statement to the AP. “The creation of a fake profile for the specific purposes of targeting individuals for deliberately nefarious and harmful purposes is what crosses the line.”
The lawsuit says the O’Keefe Media Group painted Mannina in a false light by misconstruing his words and his title, including in an article published on its website that said, “BREAKING VIDEO: Top Pentagon Adviser Reveals On Hidden Camera Conversation ‘with a Couple of Retired Generals to Explore What We Can Do’ to ‘Protect People from Trump.’“
According to the lawsuit, the characterization of Mannina as a “top Pentagon adviser,” when he was actually “one of a countless number of defense contractors,” was intended to support “fabricated claims that Mr. Mannina was essentially attempting to launch an unlawful coup against President Trump.”
The lawsuit does not directly say why Mannina was targeted, but it does note that in 2017, when he was working at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, he published three articles in the Huffington Post and The Hill newspaper that were critical of Trump.