The Israeli Cabinet unanimously approved a proposal to build over 700 housing units for Palestinians in addition to 6,000 Israeli settlement housing units in the West Bank.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government advanced the proposal late on Tuesday, according to an Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting.

The approval appeared timed to coincide with a visit by President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and chief Mideast envoy Jared Kushner, who is expected in the region this week.

The permits would be for construction in what is known as Area C — the roughly 60% of the West Bank where Israel exercises full control and where most Jewish settlements are located. Netanyahu’s government has approved the construction of tens of thousands of settler homes there, but permits for Palestinian construction are extremely rare.

Israel captured the West Bank, along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians seek these areas as parts of a future state. Most of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law and an impediment to a two-state solution to the conflict.

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, responded to the Israeli decision by saying the Palestinians have the right to build on all territory occupied in 1967, “without needing a permit from anyone.”

“We will not give any legitimacy to the construction of any settlement,” he added.

The Western-backed Palestinian Authority has control of civilian affairs in Areas A and B, which include the West Bank’s main Palestinian cities and towns.

Since capturing the West Bank and east Jerusalem in 1967, Israel has settled some 700,000 of its citizens in the two areas, which are considered occupied territory by most of the world.

Touring new construction in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, south of Jerusalem, Netanyahu said Wednesday that “not a single settlement or a single settler will ever be uprooted.”

Transportation Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a religious nationalist in Netanyahu’s government, wrote on Facebook that he backed the construction of Palestinian housing in Area C because “it prevents the establishment of a terrorist Arab state in the heart of the land” and asserts Israeli sovereignty over Area C.

Peace Now, an Israeli organization opposed to West Bank settlements, said in a statement that the approval of 700 housing units for Palestinians “is a mockery” because it “will not provide real answers to Palestinians who already live in Area C, and certainly will not help the entire West Bank to be developed as a Palestinian area.”

Kushner is returning to the Middle East this week to promote the administration’s call for a $50 billion economic support plan for the Palestinians, which would accompany a Mideast peace proposal that the administration has yet to release.

The Palestinians have rejected the agreement out of hand and cut off all contact with the Trump administration, saying its policies are unfairly biased toward Israel.

The Trump’s administration’s Mideast team is spearheaded by people with close ties to Israel’s settler movement. His ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, recently told the New York Times that Israel has the “right” to annex some of the West Bank.

Both critics and supporters of the settlements say the White House’s friendly attitude has encouraged a jump in settlement activity.

Democratic presidential contenders struck off notes on the science of global warming and the state of the economy in their Detroit debate Tuesday night. 

As much as scientists see the need for action on climate change, they don’t lay out a looming point of no return , as Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke asserted. Bernie Sanders almost certainly overstated how much new income is soaked up by the richest Americans.

A look at some of their statements in the opening night of the second round of debates, with 10 more Democrats taking the stage Wednesday:

Climate

BETO O’ROURKE, former U.S. representative from Texas, on global warming: “I listen to scientists on this and they’re very clear: We don’t have more than 10 years to get this right. And we won’t meet that challenge with half-steps, half-measures or only half the country.”

PETE BUTTIGIEG, mayor of South Bend, Indiana: “Science tells us we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of our catastrophe when it comes to our climate.” 

THE FACTS: Scientists don’t agree on an approximate time frame, let alone an exact number of years, for how much time we have left to stave off the deadliest extremes of climate change. 

A report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drawn from the work of hundreds of scientists, uses 2030 as a prominent benchmark because signatories to the Paris climate change agreement have pledged emission cuts by then. But it’s not a last-chance, hard deadline for action, as O’Rourke, Buttigieg and others have interpreted it.

“The hotter it gets, the worse it gets, but there is no cliff edge,” James Skea, co-chairman of the report, told The Associated Press.  

Climate scientists certainly see the necessity for broad and immediate action to address global warming, but they do not agree that 2030 is a “point of no return,” as Buttigieg put it.

“This has been a persistent source of confusion,” agreed Kristie L. Ebi, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington in Seattle. “The report never said we only have 12 years left.”

 ___

JOHN HICKENLOOPER, former Colorado governor: When it comes to fighting climate change, “What we do here is a best practice and a template that’s got to be done all over the world. … We need every country working together if we’re going to deal with climate change in a real way.” 

THE FACTS: The nations most concerned with climate change certainly do not consider the U.S. a “template” for a solution. Americans per capita are among the world’s biggest emitters of climate-changing carbon. The U.S. is also the top oil and natural gas producer, pumping out more fossil fuels on the front end. 

On Hickenlooper’s point about needing all countries working together, the U.S. under President Donald Trump is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord , a voluntary commitment by countries to combat climate-changing emissions.

  ___

BERNIE SANDERS, Vermont senator: “49 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.” 

THE FACTS: That is surely exaggerated. The figure comes from a short paper by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and leading researcher on inequality, and doesn’t include the value of fringe benefits, such as health insurance, or the effects of taxes and government benefit programs such as Social Security. 

But Saez and another Berkeley economist, Gabriel Zucman, have recently compiled a broader data set that does include those items and finds the top 1% has captured roughly 25% of the income growth since the recession ended. That’s certainly a lot lower but still a substantial share. Income inequality has sharply increased in the past four decades, but since the recession, data from the Congressional Budget Office shows that it has actually narrowed slightly. 

  ___

SANDERS: Benefits under his health care plan “will be better because ‘Medicare for All’ is comprehensive and covers all health care needs.”

THE FACTS: On paper, the Vermont senator is right. In real life, if he’s elected president, the result might be quite different.

Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill calls for a government plan that would cover all medical care, prescriptions, dental and vision care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and home and community-based long-term care services with virtually no copays or deductibles. The only exception would be a modest copay for certain high-cost medications.

But other countries with national health care plans are not as generous with benefits and also make use of copays to manage costs. Canada, often held up as a model by Sanders, does not have universal coverage for prescription drugs. Canadians rely on a mix of private insurance and public plans to pay for their prescriptions.

If Sanders is elected president, a Congress grappling with how to pass his plan may well pare back some of its promises. So there’s no guarantee that benefits “will be better” for everybody, particularly people who now have the most generous health insurance.

  ___

TIM RYAN, U.S. representative from Ohio: “The economic system that used to create 30, 40, 50 dollar-an-hour jobs that you could have a good solid  middle class living now forces us to have two or three jobs just to get by.”

THE FACTS: Most Americans, by far, only work one job, and the numbers who juggle more than one have declined over a quarter century. 

In the mid-1990s, the percentage of workers holding multiple jobs peaked at 6.5%. The rate dropped significantly, even during the Great Recession, and has been hovering for a nearly a decade at about 5% or a little lower. In the latest monthly figures, from June, 5.2% of workers were holding more than one job. 

Hispanic and Asian workers are consistently less likely than white and black workers to be holding multiple jobs. Women are more likely to be doing so than men. 

With its latest test Wednesday, North Korea has now launched seven ballistic missiles over the past three months, after having refrained from such launches for a year and a half.

By firing missiles into the ocean, North Korea is expressing its anger at upcoming U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises and presumably trying to increase its leverage over the two allies amid stalled nuclear talks.

But the missile tests have more than symbolic importance. North Korea appears to be perfecting a new short-range missile that represents a unique threat to U.S. interests in the region.

Though the latest launch is still being analyzed, South Korean officials say the North appears to have tested some version of the same weapon each time: a modified version of a Russian-developed Iskander missile. 

The North’s missile, dubbed KN-23 by U.S. and South Korean intelligence officials, is easy to hide, can be quickly deployed, and is difficult for U.S. and South Korean missile defenses to intercept, according to analysts. 

“It is not appropriate to shrug off these tests as short range.” says Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha Womans University in Seoul. “These missiles represent technological developments that threaten U.S. allies and forces in Asia.”

Though he has not commented on the latest launch, U.S. President Donald Trump has downplayed the importance of the prior tests, saying the missiles are not long-range and cannot reach the United States. 

Trump’s laid-back response, which has been echoed by South Korea’s government, is an apparent attempt to preserve the possibility of talks with North Korea that have been stalled for months. 

But by refusing to heavily criticize the launches, Washington and Seoul risk encouraging more tests of North Korean missiles that represent a major threat to South Korea, which hosts nearly 30,000 U.S. troops.

“Trump unfortunately dismisses short-range ballistic missiles, so it enables Pyongyang to continue to develop its weapons,” says Duyeon Kim, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). 

A unique threat

North Korea has long possessed a multitude of short-range weapons capable of striking South Korea. But what makes the KN-23 different is that it may be able to evade U.S. and South Korean missile defense systems. 

“It can disarm our missile defense capacity if the missiles fly lower than 40 kilometers, which is below the coverage of the Thaad missile defense system,” says Kim Dong-yub, a North Korea specialist at Seoul’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies. “And the speed will be faster than Mach 7, so the Patriot (missile defense system) will also be of no use.”

According to pictures released by North Korean state media, the KN-23 appears to have jet vanes, which allows the missile to be maneuvered in-flight, much like a cruise missile. 

“It can be maneuvered during its ballistic trajectory making it difficult to predict where the missile will land and intercept it before it does, and difficult to detect exactly where the missile came from,” says CNAS’ Duyeon Kim. 

Another danger, according to Kim, is the KN-23’s portability, since it is fired via truck launchers. 

“Being road mobile, North Korea can increase survivability of its missiles by continuously moving them, hiding them in tunnels, warehouses, and even highway underpasses. And because the missiles are solid-fueled, they can be kept ready for longer periods of time and can be moved around pre-fueled,” Kim says.

“And the payload could be nuclear or conventional,” she adds. 

‘Full spectrum’ of capabilities

The missiles that North Korea launched Wednesday traveled about 250 kilometers, reaching an altitude of 30 kilometers, the South Korea defense ministry says. 

The launch distances of the missiles North Korea has tested since May have ranged from 270 kilometers to 600 kilometers, according to estimates by South Korea’s military. Their altitude has ranged from 30-60 kilometers. 

If confirmed as the KN-23, the latest launches show that North Korea is “really showing off the full spectrum” of the weapons’ capabilities, says Vipin Narang, a nuclear and geopolitical expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

“(A) scary impressive missile,” Narang said in a tweet. 

North Korea has now conducted seven successful tests over the course of less than three months. The tests have demonstrated “a variety of different ranges and trajectories, simulating different payloads,” tweeted Ankit Panda, a senior fellow at the U.S.-based Federation of American Scientists.

Bigger provocations coming?

North Korea has given a variety of justifications for its ballistic missile tests. 

Its first launch in early May was part of a “regular and self-defensive” exercise that did not mean to target anyone or escalate regional tensions, North Korea’s foreign ministry insisted at the time. 

But North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said last week’s test of the same weapon was aimed at sending a message to “warmongers” in South Korea.

Pyongyang is angry that Seoul and Washington are preparing to conduct joint military exercises. North Korea is also upset at the South’s recent acquisition of U.S.-made F-35 jet fighters.

The launches appear to be part of North Korea’s strategy to slowly increase pressure on Washington and Seoul to gain leverage for future talks, even while avoiding steps that would prompt Trump to walk away.

Trump, who now appears to have established a precedent for not complaining about North Korea’s short-range missile tests, is in an awkward position. 

“Trump’s reactions to the missile tests have to walk that fine line between reacting too strongly and killing talks and not reacting at all which could encourage Kim to keep testing in the future,” says Eric Gomez, a policy analyst focusing on missile defense systems at Washington’s Cato Institute. 

“Trump has leaned more toward a light reaction to keep diplomacy alive,” he says. “This isn’t a bad approach, but he could also stand to be a bit tougher on North Korea rhetorically in order to try and get them to stop testing missiles,” Gomez says.

“For example, Trump or another senior member of the administration could issue a strongly worded message criticizing the test while offering talks on security assurances that could include military drills as a topic. Sending the message that there is a way for Kim to get what he wants but he can only do so via diplomacy and not missile tests,” he adds.

North Korea has warned that bigger provocations may be coming. In July, an unnamed North Korean foreign ministry spokesperson warned that Pyongyang may restart intercontinental ballistic missile or nuclear tests if Washington and Seoul go ahead with their joint military drills.

The Democratic presidential contenders opened a second round of debates in Detroit, Michigan, Tuesday, with a flurry of attacks on President Donald Trump. But the 10 Democrats also went after each other at times and showed some growing strains between moderate and progressive candidates. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone reports on the first of two nights of debate.

Christy Lee contributed to this report which originated on VOA’s Korean Service.

The National Defense University, an institution funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, has published a journal article suggesting Washington should share its nuclear tactical missiles with Japan and South Korea to deter North Korea’s growing nuclear threat to East Asia and the U.S. 

“The United States should strongly consider … sharing of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities during times of crisis with select Asia-Pacific partners, specially Japan and the Republic of Korea,” according to “Twenty-First Century Nuclear Deterrence,” published by the university in the current issue of Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ). The Republic of Korea is the official name for South Korea.

Publication guidelines on the university’s site say “The views expressed by this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”

Sharing American nuclear capabilities with Japan and South Korea would involve deploying its nuclear weapons in the territories of its two allies in East Asia so that the weapons can be used in such time as a nuclear war, as the U.S. does with five member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO), according to the article. 

Japan and South Korea are under the U.S. nuclear umbrella that promises defense against threats. The U.S. maintains military bases in both countries, which are currently embroiled in a trade dispute colored by historical animosities. 

The article’s release on July 25 coincided with North Korea’s launch of two short-range missiles. Then, early Wednesday local time, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said that North Korea launched multiple unidentified projectiles off the east coast of its Hodo Peninsula.

The four authors, who serve in the U.S. army, navy, and air force, suggest U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Japan and South Korea would be used for exigent purposes during war but would mainly serve as an extended deterrence against North Korea’s use of nuclear weapons in peacetime, effectively preventing it from launching a nuclear attack. 

The article suggests American nuclear sharing with Japan and South Korea could be undertaken in a manner similar to an agreement the U.S. signed with five NATO member states. 

US weapons

Currently, the U.S. shares approximately 180 tactical nuclear weapons such as B61 nuclear bombs with Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. 

NATO is a multilateral alliance now composed of 29 member-states from North America and Europe established in 1949 by 12 countries to serve as a collective defense against emerging threats in the region. 

American nuclear weapons have been deployed to the five NATO countries since the mid-1950s in an arrangement known as nuclear sharing.  Nuclear sharing allows these countries without nuclear weapons to use American deployed nuclear weapons in case of war at which time the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) will be disabled. 

The NPT, which entered into force in 1970, prohibits signatory states from transferring and accepting direct and indirect control of nuclear weapons.

The JFQ article came out as the process of denuclearization diplomacy with Pyongyang, stalled since the Hanoi summit in February, has started to inch forward.

In June, North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un and U.S. President Donald Trump met for an impromptu summit at the inter-Korean border in June where they agreed to resume denuclearization efforts. North Korea has been reluctant to engage in the working-level negotiations since Hanoi where Washington rejected Pyongyang’s demand for sanctions lift.

The JFQ authors highlighted that the U.S. may face “difficulties in shaping [North Korean] behavior” if it does not give up its nuclear program.

“If left unchecked, North Korea will continue to threaten the East Asian region and perhaps one day the United States itself,” they noted.

North Korea threat

On June 25, North Korea fired what South Korea called new types of short-range ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan, the body of water between the Korean peninsula and Japan, rattling the East Asian countries.

The next day, Pyongyang said it had tested a new type of “tactical guided weapon” intended to send a “solemn warning” to South Korea to end its joint military exercises with the U.S.

North Korea said the weapons it tested had “rapid anti-firepower capability” and “low altitude gliding and leaping flight orbit…which would be hard to intercept.”  

In May, North Korea tested three short-range missiles off its east coast that experts considered to be similar to a Russian Iskander, a nuclear loadable short-range ballistic missile.

The article said, “Considering North Korea’s history of aggressive nuclear rhetoric and recent missile tests,” sharing U.S. nuclear weapons with its regional allies “would provide renewed physical evidence of U.S. resolve.”

The article also stated that nuclear sharing with Japan and South Korea will strengthen a “military partnership through joint-regional exercises” necessary to deter North Korea.

However, according to Gary Samore, former White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction during the Obama administration, the time may not be ripe for the U.S. to propose nuclear sharing with Seoul and Tokyo because of an on-going trade row between the two. 

“My sense is that [in] both South Korea and Japan, there is very little political support for such a step at this time,” said Samore, currently senior fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center’s Korea Project. “It could change, but, for now, I think it would be very controversial.”

Seoul and Tokyo have been involved in a trade dispute after Japan placed export restrictions on three high-tech items South Korean companies use to manufacture parts used in smart phones and other high-tech devices. The trade dispute is widely seen as rooted in Korean anger at Japan for decades of colonization and occupation from 1910 until Japan’s 1945 surrender to the U.S. to end World War II. During that period, many Japanese companies used Korean forced labor. 

Boycotts against Japanese-made products have been widespread in Seoul, and Japan has rejected Seoul’s call for talks to resolve the dispute. 

Samore said, “There may come a time when the domestic politics in South Korea and Japan have changed especially when North Korea continues to maintain and advance nuclear weapons and (a) ballistic missile program.” He added, “And then at that point it would make more sense.”

U.S. health care policies took center stage Tuesday night at the Democratic presidential candidates’ debate, with more moderate challengers attacking Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the leading progressives looking to oust President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

Warren and Sanders have both called for a sweeping end to the country’s current health care system centered on private company insurance plans offered to 150 million workers through their employers. But their views were under attack almost from the start of the two-hour debate on a theater stage in Detroit, Michigan, the country’s auto industry hub.

“We don’t have to go around and be the party of subtraction and telling half the country who has private health insurance that their health insurance is illegal,” former Maryland Congressman John Delaney said. “It’s also bad policy. It’ll under-fund the industry, many hospitals will close, and it’s bad politics.”

Often political allies

Warren, a former Harvard law professor, and Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, are friends of long-standing and often political allies. They now are both looking for votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Both defended their position calling for a government-run health care system.

“This is not radical,” Sanders of Vermont shouted at one point, noting that numerous other Western societies already have adopted government-run systems. “I get a little tired of Democrats who are afraid of big ideas.”

Warren of Massachusetts rebuffed the critics, saying, “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.” 

But their challengers lobbed multiple attacks at the pair, saying their proposals would, over four years or longer, upend the long-standing U.S. health care system, including government-subsidized insurance for moderate and low-income families under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who has called for more incremental health care policy changes, said, “I have bold ideas, but they are grounded in reality.”

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said that Democrats had picked up 40 seats in the House of Representatives in the 2018 mid-term elections and not one of them had pushed for the Warren-Sanders Medicare for All plan.

“I’m a little more pragmatic,” Hickenlooper declared.

Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan called for a plan allowing Americans to buy into government-run insurance if they want to, but said that closing down the insurance industry “is a recipe for disaster,” especially among union members who would face the loss of hard-won health care benefits through collective bargaining.

First of two nights

Tuesday’s debate was the first of two nights with two groups of 10 Democratic candidates sparring with each other over domestic and foreign policy differences, but more importantly trying to make the case that they are the party’s best hope to defeat Trump when he seeks re-election in 2020.

Trump’s relentless attacks on Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings, a prominent African American political leader, and the predominantly black city of Baltimore that he represents, drew sharp criticism from some of the Democratic presidential candidates.

“Donald Trump disgraces the office of the presidency every single day,” Warren said. Klobuchar added: “I don’t think anyone can justify what this president is doing.”

The two debates are occurring six months ahead of the Democratic Party’s first presidential nominating contests. The two-hour debates could prove pivotal in both winnowing the field, forcing the weakest challengers out of the race before the next debate in mid-September, and in solidifying the list of front-runners. It largely depends on who is perceived by pundits in the post-debate analyses as making a plausible case to be the Democratic standard-bearer, or, conversely, flubbing their opportunity on CNN’s nationally televised broadcasts.

On Wednesday, former Vice President Joe Biden, currently the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in national surveys of Democrats and some independents, will be at center stage. Some party stalwarts say he is the more moderate, center-left, politically safe choice to take on the unpredictable Trump, whose populist base of conservative voters remains strong.

But Biden had a shaky first debate performance a month ago, faltering as California Sen. Kamala Harris challenged him to explain his opposition three decades ago to forced busing of schoolchildren to racially desegregate public schools. Harris said that she, as a black woman and the daughter of an Indian mother and Jamaican father, benefited from such a busing program to attend a better school while growing up in California.

Biden, a fixture on the U.S. political scene for four decades, and Harris, a former state attorney general before winning election to the Senate, will be standing alongside each other on the debate stage. Biden is promising a more robust performance than in the first debate, saying, “I’m not going to be as polite this time.” 

But questions remain about Biden’s standing, whether at 76 he is too old to lead the country, even though Trump is 73, and whether Democratic voters want a candidate with more progressive views than Biden on health care, prevention of crime, migrant immigration at the U.S.-Mexican border and other issues.

Some analysts think Biden’s top standing in national polls is at least partly a reflection of name recognition, from his 36 years as a U.S. senator, two unsuccessful runs for the presidency and two terms as vice president under former President Barack Obama.

Tough-on-crime legislation

On the same stage Wednesday, Biden is also likely to face a challenge from Sen. Cory Booker, an African American former mayor of Newark, New Jersey.

Booker has assailed Biden’s support 25 years ago for get-tough-on-crime legislation that led to the disproportionate imprisonment of black defendants.

Biden recently offered a new criminal justice plan, reversing key provisions of the 1994 measure, such as ending the stricter sentencing for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. Booker scoffed that Biden was hardly the best candidate to lay out a new criminal justice plan and has called for slashing mandatory minimum sentences.

Despite Biden’s first debate stumbles, the ranks of the top Democratic candidates have changed little in national surveys.

Biden remains ahead of three challengers, all U.S. senators: Sanders, a democratic socialist lawmaker from the Northeastern state of Vermont; Warren, a former Harvard law professor from neighboring Massachusetts, and Harris. Booker has edged up a bit in the polling, while South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has slipped a notch. The remaining candidates far down the ranks and struggling to gain a foothold.

A new Quinnipiac University national poll this week shows Biden leading the pack with 34% of Democrats and independents leaning Democratic, followed by Warren at 15%, Harris with 12% and Sanders with 11%.

Biden claims he has the best chance of making the Republican Trump the country’s first single-term president in nearly three decades, denying him a second four years in the White House. 

National surveys, 15 months ahead of the Nov. 3, 2020, election, consistently show Biden winning a hypothetical match-up over Trump, whose voter approval ratings remain mired in the mid-40% range. Sanders often defeats Trump as well, although not by Biden’s margin, while surveys show the other top Democrats potentially locked in tight, either-or outcomes with Trump.

Aside from Biden, Harris and Booker, the Wednesday debate stage also includes former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, entrepreneur Andrew Yang and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Five other Democratic candidates did not qualify for the Detroit debates, but the 20 who did had to have collected campaign donations from at least 65,000 individuals and hit a 1% threshold in at least three separate polls.

It gets tougher to appear on the stage at the third debate six weeks from now. To qualify then, candidates must have 130,000 campaign contributors and at least 2 percent support in four polls.

Only seven of this week’s 20 debaters have already met the third debate criteria: Biden, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker and former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke.

VOA Asia’s Ira Mellman contributed to this report.

Myanmar is beginning to yield to international pressure to repatriate the more than 700,000 Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh, but rights advocates worry its commitment is only surface level.

The country stepped up its efforts over the weekend, when Myanmar permanent foreign secretary U Myint Thu led a 10-member delegation to talks with refugee representatives last weekend at Kutupalong — the largest refugee camp in the world.

Rohingya representatives put citizenship and guaranteed safety up as requirements for the ethnic group’s return, but government representatives only offered a path to naturalized citizenship, beginning with an application for a national verification card. 

“[Myanmar] is essentially playing games with the discussions about citizenship,” Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division, told VOA Asia.

Some Rohingya worried that the cards, which the government also proposed in 2018, could be used to further persecute against group members. 

Refugees rejected a previous repatriation offer made in October.

International pressure

Myanmar has been hit with increasing international pressure to repatriate the Rohingya, especially from Bangladesh.

Bangladesh Foreign Minister Abul Kalam Abdul Momen told VOA Bangla earlier in July that the country expected to hold Rohingya refugees temporarily, as in the past.

“We believed this time they would take them back, because they assured us [they would],” Momen said. “But, they have not created a conducive environment in Myanmar, so that these people feel secure if they go back.”

The two countries signed a repatriation deal in November 2017, but no Rohingya have voluntarily returned. Bangladeshi authorities even gave Myanmar a list on Monday, with the names of 25,000 refugees from 6,000 families for potential repatriation. 

Last weekend’s meetings were part of a push by Myanmar to make conditions livable for returning refugees. But after Myanmar’s refusal to grant the Rohingya citizenship and recognize them as an indigenous group, human rights advocates are skeptical.

“We haven’t seen that political commitment, to be honest,” Robertson said. “We have our doubts.”

He pointed at the 120,000 Rohingya displaced in 2012, still living in camps, as evidence of the government’s true intentions.

“These are people who are essentially locked down in camps or unable to move. They’re unable to pursue livelihoods or have access to basic services like health and education. And they haven’t gotten citizenship,” he added.

Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh keep in touch with those in Myanmar through WhatsApp and other messaging services, so they know about current conditions, Robertson said. Their awareness of treatment back home could further fuel their distrust of the Myanmar government, he added.

Recent media reports also have shown Myanmar has continued to destroy the remaining Rohingya settlements, further casting doubt on the country’s public statements. Military facilities may now occupy the villages’ locations, a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute found.

Rohingya want guaranteed safety

Some Rohingya representatives at Sunday’s talks wanted U.N. peacekeepers to ensure the group’s safety, Robertson said, but it’s unlikely that Myanmar would let U.N. forces in.

Still, Robertson echoed a need for international monitoring, saying without it, Rohingya lives could be at risk.

“The Rohingya are very acutely aware that if they go back without a security guarantee, they’re basically placing their fates back in the hands of the military and the police who two years ago were raping and killing them,” he said.

The Myanmar government has restricted the group’s rights for decades, but the military most recently cracked down in 2017. In reaction to attacks by some Rohingya, the military carried out what it called a cleansing campaign, which included mass killings, rapes and arsons. The U.N. and other human rights advocates have called their actions genocide.

The Rohingya were excluded from a 1982 citizenship law that bases full legal status through membership in a government-recognized indigenous group. The Myanmar government considers the Rohingya illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, effectively rendering the ethnic group stateless.

North Korea fired multiple projectiles from its east coast early Thursday, according to South Korea’s military.

The projectiles were launched from near North Korea’s Hodo peninsula in South Hamgyung province, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

“Our military will keep monitoring for additional launches,” the message said.

The launch comes six days after North Korea fired two short-range ballistic missiles, in what it said was a response to South Korea’s decision to purchase U.S. weapons and continue joint military drills with Washington. 

North Korea has said it could restart intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear tests if Seoul and Washington go ahead with the exercises. Pyongyang has also said it may not resume working-level nuclear talks with the United States.

U.S. President Donald Trump has not responded to the latest launch, but shrugged off North Korea’s launches last week as short-range missiles that “lots test.” 

“I have a good relationship with him. I like him. He likes me. We’ll see what happens,” Trump said earlier Thursday. 

North Korea is banned from any ballistic missile activity under United Nations Security Council resolutions.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday he was “appalled” that more than 12,000 children were killed or maimed last year in some 20 countries at war or in a state of conflict.

The unprecedented level of violence against boys and girls was recorded in the U.N.’s annual report naming and shaming countries and armed groups that perpetrate such violence.

In all, the U.N. recorded 24,000 grave violations against children in 2018, including killing, maiming, sexual violence, abductions, recruitment and attacking schools and hospitals.

Worst offender

“But without a doubt, the one situation that really comes to my mind is the worst one — the one we have to do our utmost to reverse — is Somalia,” said Virginia Gamba, U.N. special representative for children in armed conflict, whose office prepares the often-controversial report.

She told reporters that the number of violations across all categories there is very high, providing a worrying picture. She said there is also a lack of engagement with the United Nations to improve protections for children, and she said she hopes to visit Somalia in the next two months to see if there is any possibility to open a dialogue.

Both the Somali National Army and the terrorist group al-Shabab, as well as the Ahlu-Sunna Wal-Jama’a (ASWJ), were included in the report’s annex of perpetrators.

Targeting hospitals and schools

One of the more troubling trends emerging in the 2018 report is the growing targeting of schools and hospitals from Yemen and Syria to Afghanistan and South Sudan.

“Here you can actually see the tactics of war, and we are seeing more and more armed groups on purpose destroying schools — and particularly those that engage in girls’ education,” Gamba said. “If you are destroying schools, you are destroying choices.”

She noted that on a recent visit to Mali, she spoke with youth who told her of having no education or vocational opportunities, which means they will have few job prospects.

“It seems to me that there is every intention of armed groups to destroy the possibility of giving an alternative to children outside of war usage,” she said.

Treading lightly with Saudi Arabia

In recent years, Saudi Arabia has rejected its listing for its role in the Yemen war, which has led to the report’s annex being separated into two lists — one for grave violators and another for parties that are perpetrating violations but have put in place measures aimed at improving the safety of children.

Saudi Arabia is not listed by name in the 2018 report but rather as the “Coalition to Support Legitimacy in Yemen.” It is not among the most grave violators, despite the report citing numerous airstrikes that killed or maimed 685 children last year.

The coalition, which has engaged with the U.N. on the issue, is among those parties that have put in place measures to protect children. The Houthi rebels who they are fighting are on the most serious offenders list.

“It’s baffling that the secretary-general’s ‘not-so-bad’ list gives credit to parties that are increasing, not reducing, their violations against children,” said Human Rights Watch children’s rights advocacy director, Jo Becker, in a statement. “Guterres should return to a single list based solely on evidence of violations on the ground.”

Israel vs. Palestinians

Israel was not listed, despite the U.N. verifying the deaths of 57 Palestinian children — 56 were attributable to Israeli forces and one to an Israeli settler — the highest figures since 2014. The report also found that nearly 3,000 Palestinian children were injured during the Great March of Return in March and April of last year, when there were daily protests at the security fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel.

Gamba said the secretary-general ultimately decides who is listed, and that he has directed her office to further examine the killings and maimings of children in the Palestinian territories and to report back to him by the end of December. She is also to look into the recruitment of children by Palestinian militants.

The special representative also noted that she has repeatedly sought to engage with both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities and has been unsuccessful, and hoped that the secretary-general’s new directive would enable her access.

“My office was not born to name and shame and attribute, and that’s it,” Gamba said of the controversies her annual blacklist generates. “The job is to raise awareness on the plight of children and to try to prevent the violations and better protect children.”

Nicaragua granted citizenship Tuesday to Salvadoran ex-President Mauricio Funes, who has been in the country under political asylum since 2016 and is wanted back home on allegations of illicit enrichment and embezzlement.

The decision by President Daniel Ortega’s government, which took legal effect with its publication in the official Gazette, also made Funes’ wife and two sons citizens.

The move would block current Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele from bringing Funes and his family before that country’s justice system, as Nicaragua’s constitution prohibits extradition of Nicaraguan nationals.

Funes tweeted an image of that constitutional article, saying: “Not today, nor in the first 100 days of [Bukele’s] government, nor in years will extradition be possible.”

Bukele’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Funes, El Salvador’s president from 2009 to 2014, faces four arrest warrants for alleged corruption and the purported diversion of $351 million in state money. He denies the allegations.

The certification of Nicaraguan citizenship was signed by immigration director-general Juan Emilio Rivas Benitez, who said Funes “has fulfilled the requirements and formalities established by Law to acquire Nicaraguan nationality,” taking into account his continued presence in national territory and being a permanent resident of the country.

Rivas added that Funes immediately enjoys all rights, prerogatives and responsibilities established by Nicaragua’s constitution.

Steve Herman contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump defended again Tuesday what critics are characterizing as racist rhetoric, focused on the majority African American city of Baltimore and one of its prominent representatives in Congress, Elijah Cummings, whose powerful committee is trying to obtain communications of White House officials, including the president’s family members.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump defended his recent inflammatory remarks, saying “I think I’m helping myself because I’m pointing out the tremendous corruption that’s taken place in Baltimore and other Democratic-run cities.”

Trump said “Those people are living in hell in Baltimore” and that “largely African American” city residents have let him know “they really appreciated what I’m doing.”  He also said he is the “least racist person in the world”

Trump doubled down on his criticism of Cummings, claiming “all that money that’s been spent (in Baltimore) over 20 years has been stolen and wasted by people like Elijah Cummings.”

On Monday, Trump falsely stated Baltimore has nation’s worst crime statistics under Cummings’ leadership.

While Baltimore has a high crime rate, several other cities — including St. Louis, Detroit and Memphis — are ranked more dangerous, according to recent crime statistics

A critical series of tweets targeting Cummings began Saturday and has continued, with Trump referring to the congressman’s district as “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”

Government statistics show, however, that Cummings’s district, which includes impoverished parts of Baltimore and well-off suburban enclaves adjoining the city, has higher per capita income and higher median home values than the national average.

The focus on the Baltimore area and its congressman comes amid Trump battling over the past week on social media with others he has singled out for criticism, including two friendly nations: France and Sweden.
 
Trump also recently has been assailing four first-term Democratic lawmakers, all women of color, saying they should “go back” to their home countries, even though all four are American citizens, three of them by birth and the fourth, a Somali refugee, through naturalization.
 

As Trump unleashed his attacks, Cummings has defended himself.

“Mr. President, I go home to my district daily. Each morning, I wake up, and I go and fight for my neighbors. It is my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. But, it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents.”
 
In recent congressional hearings, Cummings, as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, berated Kevin McAleenan, the acting Homeland Security chief, for the condition of the country’s detention facilities at the border and the government’s lax records on tracking the whereabouts of migrant parents it had separated from children at the border.
 
Cummings’s committee is also investigating Trump’s presidency, but he is not among the more than 100 Democrats calling for impeachment proceedings. 
 
The committee, voting along party lines last Thursday, authorized subpoenas for personal emails and texts used for official business by top White House aides, including Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner.
 
Cummings said lawmakers had obtained “direct evidence” that the president’s daughter, Kushner and others were using personal accounts for government business in violation of federal law and White House policy.
 
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney rejects the notion that Trump’s attacks on Cummings are racially motivated.
 
“The president is attacking Cummings for saying things that are not true,” Mulvaney told the Fox News Sunday interview show. “It has absolutely zero to do with race.”

Around $10 million in aid for the displaced in northern Iraq’s Nineveh province, where the Islamic State group was based, has been embezzled by its fugitive ex-governor, the country’s anti-corruption commission said Tuesday.

A spokesperson for the Integrity Commission told AFP that its investigators had uncovered “invoices from developers in Iraqi Kurdistan”.

But, he added, “no receipt was found” for these debited sums, which were meant for the rehabilitation of two hospitals in the northern metropolis of Mosul, capital of Nineveh.

Many of the province’s inhabitants are still displaced as public services have not been fully reestablished.

Currently, 1.6 million Iraqis are still crowded into camps for the displaced, of which 40 percent are originally from Nineveh, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

A total of 11.3 billion Iraqi dinars ($9.4 million) had been allocated to the Provincial Council by the Ministry of Migration and Displaced, according to the commission.

“It has been debited and doesn’t appear in any provincial authorities’ bank accounts or in the Provincial Council funds,” he said.

“It was transferred to Kurdistan,” an autonomous region where the sacked governor of Nineveh, Nawfel Akoub, is thought to be in hiding, along with several other officials wanted by Baghdad.

He has been on the run since a ferry sank in Mosul on Mother’s Day in March, killing 150 people.

In April, the commission said more than $60 million of public funds were diverted by officials close to Akoub from Nineveh’s budget of $800 million.

Graft is endemic across Iraq, which ranks among the world’s worst offenders in Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index.

Since 2004, a year after the US-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, almost $250 billion of public funds has vanished into the pockets of shady politicians and businessmen, according to parliament.

Indian lawmakers on Tuesday approved a bill to end the Muslim practice of instant divorce two years after the Supreme Court ruled that it violated the constitutional rights of Muslim women.

Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the bill’s approval by the upper house of Parliament reflects the empowerment of women and India’s changing profile.

The more powerful lower house approved the bill last week. It will become law after India’s president approves it, which is a formality.

Most of the 170 million Muslims in India are Sunnis governed by the Muslim Personal Law for family matters. The law has included allowing Muslim men to divorce their wives by saying “Talaq,” the Arabic word for divorce, three times — and not necessarily consecutively, but at any time, and by any medium, including telephone, text message or social media post.

More than 20 countries, including neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh, have banned the practice.

The 99-84 approval on Tuesday was a victory for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. The opposition had blocked the bill for more than a year, as the ruling party lacked majority support in the upper house. A split in the opposition ranks helped the government cross the line.

Ghulam Nabi Azad, a Congress party leader, said the opposition parties were opposed to a clause providing a three-year jail term for a husband who divorced his wife in such a way, arguing that no other religion has such a punishment. The opposition also said the bill had no clarity on spousal support if men were jailed for an instant divorce.

Both houses of Parliament rejected the opposition stand and also refused to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee to consider those provisions.

The United Nations says more Afghan civilians were killed by government and NATO-led troops than by the Taliban and other insurgent groups in the first half of 2019.

The U.N.’s mission in Afghanistan released a report Monday that showed a combined 717 civilians were killed by government and international forces — an increase of 31% from the same period in 2018 — compared to 531 killed by the Taliban and other hardline Islamist groups. Most of the deaths occurred during Afghan and NATO air and ground attacks against insurgents.  

The report said a total of 2,446 Afghan civilians were injured at that hands of pro-government and insurgent troops.  

“Parties to the conflict may give differing explanations for recent trends, each designed to justify their own military tactics,” said Richard Bennett, the human rights chief of the U.N.’s Afghanistan Mission. He said both sides could improve the situation “not just by abiding by international humanitarian law but also by reducing the intensity of the fighting.”

The United States is negotiating with Taliban on a peace deal to end the 18-year-long war, launched by the U.S. against Afghanistan’s then-ruling Taliban in response to the September 11, 2001, al-Qaida terror attacks on Washington and New York.  The Taliban wants the full withdrawal of all U.S. and foreign forces from Afghanistan, while the U.S. is seeking a number of security guarantees from hardline group, including a pledge that Afghanistan will never again be used as a base to launch terror attacks against the U.S.

U.S. President Donald Trump wants combat forces reduced in Afghanistan by the next U.S. presidential election, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Monday, in comments that underlined the growing pressure from Washington to cut troop numbers there.

Trump’s South Asia strategy, unveiled in August 2017, called for an open-ended deployment of U.S. forces with the goal of compelling the Taliban to negotiate peace with the Kabul government to end nearly 18 years of war.

However, Pompeo’s comments underscored a shift that has apparently taken place since talks with the Taliban opened last year.

“That’s my directive from the president of the United States,” Pompeo told The Economic Club of Washington D.C. when asked whether he expects the United States to reduce troops in Afghanistan before the next election in November 2020.

“He’s been unambiguous: end the endless wars, draw down, reduce. It won’t just be us,” he said, referring to Trump’s directive. “We hope that overall the need for combat forces in the region is reduced.”

The disclosure of a timeline will add to speculation that Trump is prepared to strike any deal with the Taliban that will allow for at least partial U.S. withdrawal before American voters go to the polls, irrespective of the concerns of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul.

“Now suddenly adhering to the date suited to Trump’s election date has become more important than the meticulous task of bringing peace to Afghanistan,” said a senior Afghan official who is also a close aide to President Ashraf Ghani.

“The American haste to pull out foreign troops has only provided more leverage to the Taliban. Afghan forces will be soon abandoned to fight the war alone,” said the official, who declined to be identified.

Pompeo’s comments come at a delicate moment, as Afghanistan prepares for a presidential election of its own in September and the United States prepares to engage in another round talks with the insurgents.

Disclosing Trump’s goal of withdrawing forces could weaken the U.S. negotiating position if the Taliban believe Trump wants to get out, no matter what.

On Friday, the State Department said Pompeo and Ghani agreed in a telephone call to “accelerate efforts” to end the war, and that the United States remained committed to a “conditions-based” drawdown of troops.

Pompeo said he was optimistic about the negotiations with the Taliban to end the nearly 18-year-old war.

Washington wants a deal under which foreign forces would pull out in return for security guarantees by the Taliban, in particular a pledge that the country will not become a safe haven for terror groups.

“We want them to take their country back, and we want to reduce what is, for us, tens of billions of dollars a year in expenditures,” Pompeo said.

More than 20,000 U.S. and other NATO coalition troops are in Afghanistan as part of a mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces, which remain heavily dependent on U.S. air support, and to carry out counterterrorism operations.

Intra-Afghan talks 

While U.S. diplomats say the peace process must be “Afghan owned and led,” senior Afghan officials and Western diplomats said the timetable being imposed by the White House to get U.S. troops out risked overshadowing the wider aim of peace among Afghans.

“Ensuring that the Afghan government and the Taliban hold direct talks has clearly slipped below the radar, the main aim is to cut a deal with the Taliban before Afghan elections in September,” said one European diplomat in Kabul.

While the Taliban have held meetings with Afghan politicians and civil society representatives, they have refused to deal with the Afghan government, which they deride as a U.S. “puppet.”

Some U.S. allies fear that once a timetable for a U.S. pullout is announced, the Afghan government will have little leverage over the militants in their talks about how to run the country.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the veteran Afghan-American diplomat leading negotiations for Washington, expects Ghani to appoint a team of politicians, civil society members and women rights’ activists to meet Taliban leaders, a second European diplomat said.

But those so-called intra-Afghan talks will only come after the United States has struck and announced its troop withdrawal plan with the Taliban.

“The bargaining power to protect democracy and basic freedom will be surrendered once the pullout is announced,” the second diplomat said.

Officials at the NATO’s Resolute Support in Kabul said they were working on a drawdown plan while maintaining support for Afghan forces in their fight against the militants.

“There is a massive churning, some bases could be vacated and some could be merged together but security and counter-terrorism operations are not being compromised,” said a senior NATO officer.

Top diplomats from the Asia-Pacific region started gathering Tuesday in the Thai capital to discuss issues of concern to the area, including security on the Korean peninsula and China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

The meetings in Bangkok are hosted by the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, chaired this year by Thailand. Thai officials say there will be 27 meetings in all through Saturday, and 31 countries and alliances will participate.

The core ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting brings together the group’s top diplomats, but they are likely to be overshadowed by the big power players attending the adjunct meetings, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

The heavy-hitters in Bangkok this week include U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Other ASEAN dialogue partners include Australia, India, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.

Most attention will be on these side meetings, in which ASEAN will play a supporting role, if any.

A representative of North Korea will be present in Bangkok, a Thai foreign ministry spokesman said last week, though it is not clear if Pyongyang is sending its foreign minister. Washington has downplayed Pyongyang’s recent launch of medium-range missiles and expressed interest in reviving talks on North Korean denuclearization, so sideline talks are a possibility.

Reports say that the United States is also willing to hold a sidelines meeting with Japan and South Korea to discuss the bitter trade dispute between the two East Asian nations that threatens to disrupt Seoul’s electronics industry by hindering its purchase of semiconductor components.

The dispute also draws on long-standing bitterness over Japan’s actions toward Korea during World War II and threatens to poison relations at a time when Washington would prefer to see a united front in dealing with North Korea.

ASEAN’s own most pressing concern arguably involves Beijing’s expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea, which pits it against the claims of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.

The dispute is long-running, but flared up again earlier this month when Vietnam accused China of violating its sovereignty by interfering with offshore oil and gas activities in disputed waters.

Vietnam can count on having some allies at this week’s meetings but may have to operate outside the conventional ASEAN framework by forming a de facto maritime bloc with Indonesia, which has aggressively dealt with Chinese poachers in its waters, and the Philippines, still smarting over a June incident in which a Chinese fishing vessel hit a Philippine fishing boat and fled the scene as 22 Filipinos escaped their sinking vessel.

It’s unlikely ASEAN will agree on any major statement against China since it operates by consensus, which in practice means a single member can exercise veto over the group’s decisions and declarations. Beijing can count on the support of allies such as Cambodia and Laos, and reluctance by others to defy Asia’s superpower.

Beijing also is disinclined to flout legal norms that might restrain its actions, say critics, citing as an example the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the South China Sea case brought by the Philippines.

The struggle for influence between the U.S. and China looms larger than ever over this year’s meetings, with their trade disputes fueling the rivalry.

Beijing’s attempts to project its influence even further afield through its Belt and Road Initiative, an ambitious global development program of major infrastructure projects, has sharpened the sense of unease among some parties.

The U.S. has countered with its own vision strategy for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific, which Beijing regards as directed against it.

ASEAN leaders at their summit meeting in June adopted a five-page “ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific” statement that sought to find a middle ground. But some analysts suggest it is less an assertion that the regional grouping is a player in its own right than a weak effort to keep on the good side of both Washington and Beijing.

“Its significance is in the monumental opportunity squandered,” said Benjamin Zawacki, author of “Thailand: Shifting Ground between the U.S. and a Rising China.” 

“The increasing tension between Washington and Beijing does afford ASEAN more, rather than less, influence and room to maneuver, but it is influence and room that ASEAN would rather not have and will choose not to use,” he said. “ASEAN is most comfortable when it has the least influence and room to maneuver, for such provides a ready justification for its indecisiveness, inertia, and utter obsession with neutrality.”

More than 12,000 children were killed and injured in armed conflicts last year – a record number – with Afghanistan, the Palestinians, Syria and Yemen topping the casualty list, according to a new U.N. report.

The deaths and injuries were among more than 24,000 “grave violations” against children verified by the United Nations including the recruitment and use of youngsters by combatants, sexual violence, abductions, and attacks on schools and hospitals, it said.

According to Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres’ annual report to the Security Council on Children and Armed Conflict obtained Monday by The Associated Press, violations by armed groups remained steady but there was “an alarming increase” in the number of violations by government and international forces compared to 2017.

The secretary-general’s eagerly awaited blacklist of countries that committed grave violations against children during conflicts remained virtually unchanged from last year, angering several human rights groups.

Human Rights Watch and the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict, an international advocacy group, pointed to the Saudi-led coalition remaining on the list of parties that have put in place measures to protect children, citing a rise in child casualties by government and coalition forces in Yemen.

“The Saudi-led coalition since 2015 has committed appalling violations against children in Yemen without any evidence that it’s trying to improve its record,” said Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director at Human Rights Watch. “By including them once again in the ‘not so bad’ category of serious reformers, the secretary-general makes a mockery of the whole exercise.”

Watchlist program director Adrianne Lapar said that praising “empty promises” by the coalition, also led by the United Arab Emirates, “undermines the deadly repercussions of war on children and ignores the facts on the ground.”

She also asked why conflicts in Cameroon and Ukraine are “conspicuously missing from the report.”

Guterres said he was “deeply concerned by the scale and severity of the grave violations committed against children in 2018, notably the record high number of casualties as a result of killing and maiming and the increase in the number of violations attributed to international forces.”

According to the report, verified cases of deaths and injuries were the highest since the Security Council authorized monitoring and reporting in 2005. 

Afghanistan topped the list with 3,062 child casualties in 2018, “and children accounted for 28 percent of all civilian casualties,” the report said, while in Syria, air strikes, barrel bombs and cluster munitions killed and injured 1,854 youngsters “and in Yemen, 1,689 children bore the brunt of ground fighting and other offensives.”

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.N. said that in 2018 it verified the highest number of Palestinian children killed – 59 – and injured – 2,756 – since 2014. During the same period, six Israeli children were injured.

Guterres said he is “extremely concerned by the significant rise” in injuries, including by inhaling tear gas. He asked U.N. envoy Nikolay Mladenov to examine cases caused by Israeli forces “and urge Israel to immediately put in place preventive and protective measures to end the excessive use of force.”

Jo Becker, children’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, expressed concern that Israeli forces, U.S.-led international forces in Afghanistan, and the Afghan National Army were left off Guterres’ “list of shame,” and that the Somali National Army got “credit” for protecting children even though its violations increased. 

According to the report, parties to the conflict in Somalia recruited and used 2,300 children, some as young as 8-years-old, with al-Shabab extremists significantly increasing their recruitment to 1,865 youngsters. Nigeria was in second place, with 1,947 children recruited, including some used as suicide bombers

Somalia also had the highest verified figure for sexual violence against children, with 331 cases in 2018, followed by Congo with 277 cases though the secretary-general said cases remain significantly underreported, particularly against boys because of stigma. And Somalia had the highest number of child abductions last year – 1,609.

Guterres said thousands of children were also affected by 1,023 verified attacks on schools and hospitals last year.

In Syria, 2018 saw 225 attacks on schools and medical facilities, the highest number since the conflict began in 2011, he said, and Afghanistan also saw an increase with 254 schools and hospitals targeted.

“Increased numbers of attacks were also verified in the Central African Republic, Colombia, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, the Sudan and Yemen,” Guterres said.

The secretary-general also expressed increasing concern at the increasing detention of children, reiterating that “this measure should only be used as a last resort, for the shortest period of time, and that alternatives to detention should be prioritized whenever possible.”

In December 2018, Guterres said, 1,248 children, mainly under the age of 5, of 46 nationalities from areas formerly controlled by Islamic State extremists, were “deprived of their liberty” in camps in northeast Syria. 

In Iraq, 902 children remained in detention on national security charges, including for associating with IS, he said. 

And as of December, Guterres said, Israel was holding 203 Palestinian children over security offenses, including 114 awaiting trial or being tried, and 87 serving a sentence. He said the U.N. received affidavits from 127 Palestinian boys “who during interviews with the United Nations reported ill-treatment and breaches of due process during their arrest, transfer and detention.”  

Mexico unveiled on Monday a stimulus package of over $25 billion to boost the country’s infrastructure, investment and private consumption as Latin America’s second-largest economy teeters on the brink of a recession. 

The announcement by Finance Minister Arturo Herrera came just days before Mexico’s national statistics agency publishes second-quarter growth figures amid a discussion on whether the economy has slipped into recession. 

The package includes credits, accelerated spending on goods and services and money tapped from an infrastructure fund, officials said.

“We have decided on actions that would mobilize 485 billion pesos ($25.5 billion) that would allow us to boost the creation of infrastructure projects, incentivize infrastructure investment and private consumption,” Herrera said at a press conference.

Herrera said Mexico’s government would accelerate spending this year and bring purchases of goods and services that had been scheduled for 2020 forward, actions which he added would have an immediate effect.

“Mexico is not immune (to global headwinds) and because of this we have been thinking about starting a program that aims to help the economy,” Herrera said, adding that there were concerns about a slowdown in Mexico.

A recession would be a blow to President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who has rejected the notion that the national economy is facing a deep contraction.

The unprecedented resignation of Puerto Rico’s governor after days of massive island-wide protests has thrown the U.S. territory into a full-blown political crisis.

Less than four days before Gov. Ricardo Rossello steps down, no one knows who will take his place. Justice Secretary Wanda Vazquez, his constitutional successor, said Sunday that she didn’t want the job. The next in line would be Education Secretary Eligio Hernandez, a largely unknown bureaucrat with little political experience.

Rossello’s party says it wants him to nominate a successor before he steps down, but Rossello has said nothing about his plans, time is running out and some on the island are even talking about the need for more federal control over a territory whose finances are already overseen from Washington.

Rossello resigned following nearly two weeks of daily protests in which hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans took to the streets, mounted horses and jet skis, organized a twerkathon and came up with other creative ways to demand his ouster. On Monday, protesters were to gather once again, but this time to demand that Vazquez not assume the governorship. Under normal circumstances, Rossello’s successor would be the territory’s secretary of state, but veteran politician Luis Rivera Marin resigned from that post on July 13 as part of the scandal that toppled the governor.

Next in line

Vazquez, a 59-year-old prosecutor who worked as a district attorney and was later director of the Office for Women’s Rights, does not have widespread support among Puerto Ricans. Many have criticized her for not being aggressive enough in investigating cases involving members of the party that she and Rossello belong to, and of not prioritizing gender violence as justice secretary. She also has been accused of not pursuing the alleged mismanagement of supplies for victims of Hurricane Maria.

Facing a new wave of protests, Vazquez tweeted Sunday that she had no desire to succeed Rossello.

“I have no interest in the governor’s office,” she wrote. “I hope the governor nominates a secretary of state before Aug. 2.”

If a secretary of state is not nominated before Rossello resigns, Vazquez would automatically become the new governor. She would then have the power to nominate a secretary of state, or she could also reject being governor, in which case the constitution states the treasury secretary would be next in line. However, Treasury Secretary Francisco Pares is 31 years old, and the constitution dictates a governor has to be at least 35. In that case, the governorship would go to Hernandez, who replaced the former education secretary, Julia Keleher, who resigned in April and was arrested on July 10 on federal corruption charges. She has pleaded not guilty.

But Hernandez has not been clear on whether he would accept becoming governor.

“At this time, this public servant is focused solely and exclusively on the work of the Department of Education,” he told Radio Isla 1320 AM on Monday. A spokesman for Hernandez did not return a message seeking comment.

‘Uncertainties are dangerous’

Meanwhile, Puerto Ricans are growing anxious about what the lack of leadership could mean for the island’s political and economic future.

“It’s very important that the government have a certain degree of stability,” said Luis Rodriguez, a 36-year-old accountant, adding that all political parties should be paying attention to what’s happening. “We’re tired of the various political parties that always climb to power and have let us down a bit and have taken the island to the point where it finds itself right now.”

Hector Luis Acevedo, a university professor and former secretary of state, said both the governor’s party and the main opposition party that he supports, the Popular Democratic Party, have weakened in recent years. He added that new leadership needs to be found soon.

“These uncertainties are dangerous in a democracy because they tend to strengthen the extremes,” he said. “This vacuum is greatly harming the island.”

Puerto Ricans until recently had celebrated that Rossello and more than a dozen other officials had resigned in the wake of an obscenity-laced chat in which they mocked women and the victims of Hurricane Maria, among others, in 889 pages leaked on July 13. But now, many are concerned that the government is not moving quickly enough to restore order and leadership to an island mired in a 13-year recession as it struggles to recover from the Category 4 storm and tries to restructure a portion of its more than $70 billion public debt load.

Gabriel Rodriguez Aguilo, a member of Rossello’s New Progressive Party, which supports statehood, said in a telephone interview that legislators are waiting on Rossello to nominate a secretary of state, who would then become governor since Vazquez has said she is not interested in the position.

“I hope that whoever is nominated is someone who respects people, who can give the people of Puerto Rico hope and has the capacity to rule,” he said. “We cannot rush into this. There must be sanity and restraint in this process.”

‘Rethink the constitution’

Another option was recently raised by Jenniffer Gonzalez, Puerto Rico’s representative in Congress. Last week, she urged U.S. President Donald Trump to appoint a federal coordinator to oversee hurricane reconstruction and ensure the proper use of federal funds in the U.S. territory, a suggestion rejected by many on an island already under the direction of a federal control board overseeing its finances and debt restructuring process.

As legislators wait for Rossello to nominate a secretary of state, they have started debating whether to amend the constitution to allow for a vice president or lieutenant governor, among other things.

The constitution currently does not allow the government to hold early elections, noted Yanira Reyes Gil, a university professor and constitutional attorney.

“We have to rethink the constitution,” she said, adding that there are holes in the current one, including that people are not allowed to participate in choosing a new governor if the previous one resigns.

Reyes also said people are worried that the House and Senate might rush to approve a new secretary of state without sufficient vetting.

“Given the short amount of time, people have doubts that the person will undergo a strict evaluation,” she said. “We’re in a situation where the people have lost faith in the government agencies, they have lost faith in their leaders.”

Scientists warn the most effective drug used to treat malaria is becoming ineffective in parts of Southeast Asia — and unless rapid action is taken, it could lead to a global health emergency.

Writing in the Lancet journal, researchers from Thailand’s Mahidol University and Britain’s Oxford University say parasites that carry malaria are developing resistance to a key drug combination across multiple regions of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

The report warns that the parasite Plasmodium falciparum — which causes the most lethal form of human malaria — is becoming resistant to the first-choice drug, DHA-piperaquine, in parts of Southeast Asia, with patients seeing a failure rate of 50 percent or more.

The situation is so critical that scientists say the treatment should not be used in Cambodia, Vietnam and northeast Thailand, because it is ineffective and contributes to increased malaria transmission.

New treatments must be considered, says Sterghios Moschos of the University of Northumbria.

“It might be opportune at this point in time to explore whether or not we should bring together different new classes of medications so that when the problem starts becoming more substantial, there is a solution potentially that works at the multi-drug level,” said Moschos.

The report says urgent action is now needed to eliminate falciparum malaria from the region — otherwise the resistant strains of the parasite could further spread to other parts of Asia and Africa, potentially causing global health emergency.

“All it takes is a ship with infected individuals, or a pool of water where mosquitoes are, getting into Africa and then slowly that parasite establishing a foothold,” he added. “The likely scenario, however, will be that improvement of health care on a day-to-day basis in Africa will create the opportunity for the parasite to evolve resistance.”

Currently, malaria vaccine trials are under way in several African countries. But drug combinations like DHA-piperaquine remain vital in treating malaria — especially in countries with poor health systems.

Since 2014, global progress against malaria has stalled. There were an estimated 219 million cases and 435,000 related deaths in 2017, most of them children under the age of five in sub-Saharan Africa.