Суспільство

«Походи під спільною назвою «Світло переможе над темрявою» підкреслюють, що агресія Росії затягнулася надто довго», сказала організаторка від «Голосу України»
…

«Країна-окупант вкотре порушила Женевську конвенцію про поводження з військовополоненими»
…

athens, georgia — A Venezuelan man has been convicted of murder in the killing of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, a case that fueled the national debate over immigration during this year’s presidential race.

Jose Ibarra was charged with murder and other crimes in Riley’s February death, and the guilty verdict was reached Wednesday by Athens-Clarke County Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard.

Ibarra, 26, had waived his right to a jury trial, meaning that Haggard alone heard and decided the case.

Riley’s family and roommates cried as the verdict was read. Ibarra didn’t visibly react.

The killing added fuel to the national debate over immigration when federal authorities said Ibarra illegally entered the U.S. in 2022 and was allowed to stay in the country while he pursued his immigration case.

The trial began Friday, and prosecutors called more than a dozen law enforcement officers, Riley’s roommates and a woman who lived in the same apartment as Ibarra. Defense attorneys called a police officer, a jogger and one of Ibarra’s neighbors on Tuesday and rested their case Wednesday morning.

Prosecutor Sheila Ross told the judge that Ibarra encountered Riley while she was running on the University of Georgia campus on Feb. 22 and killed her during a struggle. Riley, 22, was a student at Augusta University College of Nursing, which also has a campus in Athens, about 70 miles (115 kilometers) east of Atlanta.

Defense attorney Dustin Kirby said in his opening that Riley’s death was a tragedy and called the evidence in the case graphic and disturbing. But he said there was not sufficient evidence to prove that his client killed Riley.

Riley’s parents, roommates and other friends and family packed the courtroom throughout the trial.
…

Пропонується передбачити, що особа може бути позбавлена державної нагороди України за обвинувальним вироком суду, або рішенням РНБО
…

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin this week visited the Philippines, where he met with its president and his defense counterpart to highlight the expansion and modernization of two countries’ alliance in just a few short years. VOA Pentagon correspondent Carla Babb has more.
…

NEW YORK — Distant, ancient galaxies are giving scientists more hints that a mysterious force called dark energy may not be what they thought.

Astronomers know that the universe is being pushed apart at an accelerating rate and they have puzzled for decades over what could possibly be speeding everything up. They theorize that a powerful, constant force is at play, one that fits nicely with the main mathematical model that describes how the universe behaves. But they can’t see it and they don’t know where it comes from, so they call it dark energy.

It is so vast it is thought to make up nearly 70% of the universe — while ordinary matter like all the stars and planets and people make up just 5%.

But findings published earlier this year by an international research collaboration of more than 900 scientists from around the globe yielded a major surprise. As the scientists analyzed how galaxies move they found that the force pushing or pulling them around did not seem to be constant. And the same group published a new, broader set of analyses Tuesday that yielded a similar answer.

“I did not think that such a result would happen in my lifetime,” said Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki, a cosmologist at the University of Texas at Dallas who is part of the collaboration.

Called the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, it uses a telescope based in Tucson, Arizona to create a three-dimensional map of the universe’s 11-billion-year history to see how galaxies have clustered throughout time and across space. That gives scientists information about how the universe evolved, and where it might be heading.

The map they are building would not make sense if dark energy were a constant force, as it is theorized. Instead, the energy appears to be changing or weakening over time. If that is indeed the case, it would upend astronomers’ standard cosmological model. It could mean that dark energy is very different than what scientists thought — or that there may be something else altogether going on.

“It’s a time of great excitement, and also some head-scratching and confusion,” said Bhuvnesh Jain, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania who is not involved with the research.

The collaboration’s latest finding points to a possible explanation from an older theory: that across billions of years of cosmic history, the universe expanded and galaxies clustered as Einstein’s general relativity predicted.

The new findings aren’t definitive. Astronomers say they need more data to overturn a theory that seemed to fit together so well. They hope observations from other telescopes and new analyses of the new data over the next few years will determine whether the current view of dark energy stands or falls.

“The significance of this result right now is tantalizing,” said Robert Caldwell, a physicist at Dartmouth College who is not involved with the research, “but it’s not like a gold-plated measurement.”

There’s a lot riding on the answer. Because dark energy is the biggest component of the universe, its behavior determines the universe’s fate, explained David Spergel, an astrophysicist and president of the Simons Foundation. If dark energy is constant, the universe will continue to expand, forever getting colder and emptier. If it’s growing in strength, the universe will expand so speedily that it’ll destroy itself in what astronomers call the Big Rip.

“Not to panic. If this is what’s going on, it won’t happen for billions of years,” he said. “But we’d like to know about it.”
…

SEATTLE — What was expected to be one of the strongest storms in the northwest U.S. in decades arrived Tuesday evening, knocking out power and downing trees across the region.

The Weather Prediction Center issued excessive rainfall risks beginning Tuesday and lasting through Friday as the strongest atmospheric river — a large plume of moisture — that California and the Pacific Northwest has seen this season bears down on the region. The storm system is considered a “bomb cyclone,” which occurs when a cyclone intensifies rapidly.

The areas that could see particularly severe rainfall will likely reach from the south of Portland, Oregon, to the north of the San Francisco area, said Richard Bann, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center.

“Be aware of the risk of flash flooding at lower elevations and winter storms at higher elevations. This is going to be an impactful event,” he said.

Hurricane-force winds, which are gusts above 121 kph, could be felt along the Oregon coast, according to the National Weather Service in Medford, Oregon. And near Seattle, conditions for a “mountain wave” were shaping up, bringing large, low elevation wind gusts that could cause widespread power outages and downed trees, said Larry O’Neill, director of the Oregon Climate Service and Oregon State University associate professor.

“This will be pretty strong in terms of the last 10 or 20 years,” he said. “We’ve only seen a couple storms that have really been this strong.”

About 94,000 customers were without power in western Washington as strong winds ramped up and snow fell in the Cascade Mountain passes Tuesday evening. More than 12,000 customers had lost power in Oregon, according to poweroutage.us.

The National Weather Service in Seattle said a peak wind speed of 109 kph was recorded at Crystal Mountain near Mount Rainier. Winds were expected to increase in western Washington throughout the evening, the weather service said.

In northern California, flood and high wind watches were in effect, and a winter storm watch was issued for the northern Sierra Nevada above 1,066 meters, where 28 centimeters of snow was possible over two days.

“Numerous flash floods, hazardous travel, power outages and tree damage can be expected as the storm reaches max intensity” on Wednesday, the Weather Prediction Center warned.

In Northern California’s Yolo County, crews spent Monday clearing culverts, sewers and drainage ditches to avoid clogs that could lead to street flooding. Mesena Pimentel said she hoped the efforts would prevent a repeat of floods last February that inundated her property near Woodland.

“We had about 10 inches of water in our garage, had a couple gophers swimming around,” Pimentel told KCRA-TV. Woodland city officials set up two locations where residents could pick up free sandbags. Authorities urged people to stock up on food and charge phones and electronics in case power goes out and roads become unpassable.

In southwestern Oregon near the coast, 10 to 18 centimeters of rain was predicted — with as much as 25 centimeters possible in some areas — through late Thursday night and early Friday morning, Bann said. The National Weather Service issued a flood watch for parts of southwestern Oregon through Friday evening.

Washington could also see strong rainfall, but likely not as bad as Oregon and California.

A blizzard warning was issued for the majority of the Cascades in Washington, including Mount Rainier National Park, starting Tuesday afternoon, with up to a foot of snow and wind gusts up to 97 kph, according to the weather service in Seattle. Travel across passes could be difficult if not impossible.

Officials also urged motorists to consider delaying travel around the state until Wednesday because of high winds and heavy snow expected in the mountains.

“It will only be a winter wonderland in the sense that you’ll be wondering where the heck you are on any given patch of land,” the Washington State Department of Transportation said on social media.
…

LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday unanimously passed a “sanctuary city” ordinance to protect immigrants living in the city, a policy that would prohibit the use of city resources and personnel to carry out federal immigration enforcement.

The move by the Southern California city, the second most populated city in the U.S. after New York City, follows President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to carry out mass deportations of immigrants.

The ordinance codifies the protection of migrants in municipal law. Council member Paul Krekorian said the measure addresses “the need to ensure that our immigrant community here in Los Angeles understands that we understand their fear.”

Pro-immigrant protesters spoke on the steps of Los Angeles City Hall before the vote, holding up signs saying, “Los Angeles Sanctuary City Now!” They chanted in Spanish “What do we want? Sanctuary. When do we want it? Now.”

The city is home to 1.3 million migrants, council members said, without specifying how many entered the country legally.

“We are extremely concerned, given that this is a city where about a third of the population is immigrants,” Shiu-Ming Cheer said at the rally. She is deputy director of immigrant and racial justice at the California Immigration Policy Center.

People were “afraid that the National Guard or other people are going to be forced to execute Trump’s mass deportation plans,” she said. “But, you know, we’re also organized.”

Eleven states have, to varying degrees, taken steps toward reducing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, according to the non-profit Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Trump, winner of the Nov. 5 election, takes office on Jan. 20.

The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
…

New Orleans, Louisiana — The teaching of America’s racial history is dividing voters as state governments and federal judges weigh in on what is known as critical race theory.

“What we are seeing is that America is having a very public argument about how to discuss race in our country,” explained Stanford law professor Ralph Richard Banks. “It is a conversation about how we talk about the racist incidents in our past but also about how the past continues to shape inequalities in the present.

“But what makes the topic especially charged,” he added, “is that this is a debate that has reached our children and their classrooms.”

Banks says part of the issue is disagreement over an approach to the subject known as critical race theory.

Liberals largely see it as a way of understanding how American racism has shaped public policy, while conservatives view it as a divisive discourse aimed at shaming white Americans for past atrocities while further dividing the country’s racial groups.

“I have no problem with the teaching of history,” explained Cody Clark, a Republican voter from Denton, Texas. “But I don’t like the idea of teachers telling our children that some of them are privileged and some of them are oppressed. I think that just passes our divisions to the next generation.”

Louisiana Republican Governor Jeff Landry this year signed an executive order banning the teaching of critical race theory in public schools, making the Pelican State the 18th in the country to limit or ban the subject.

Public school teachers and civil rights attorneys are responding. Civil rights attorneys in Little Rock are arguing before a federal judge that an Arkansas law banning critical race theory in schools violates the U.S. Constitution.

Louisiana public school teacher Lauren Jewett calls the bans misguided.

“I think it’s laughable and insulting in the same breath,” she told VOA. “K-12 teachers don’t teach critical race theory. It’s not in the state standards or our curricula and, to be honest, we don’t even have enough time to eat our lunches or meet all our students’ needs, let alone create new material.”

What is critical race theory?

While Jewett says laws banning critical race theory in public schools are political stunts, she also calls accurate accounts of American history essential.

“Our country has many uncomfortable and violent truths such as slavery, colonization, segregation, and mass incarceration,” she said. “It is important for our students to understand why things in the current day are the way they are and how history informs that. But that is not critical race theory.”

To understand what critical race theory is, Stanford Law professor Banks says you need to go back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

“The decision said that racial segregation of our public schools was unconstitutional,” he told VOA, “but more than a decade later, civil rights leaders noticed nothing had changed. Black students were still going to different schools of a lower quality than their white peers.”

Banks says critical race theory was developed to help understand why — even when Americans passed laws to create equality — inequality seemed to prevail.

Civil rights lawyers including Derrick Bell, whose thought was vital to the development of critical race theory, concluded that racial bias is inherent in Western society’s legal and social institutions, as the race with the most political power had material reasons to protect that power at the expense of other races.

Well-developed among legal scholars in the 1970s, the theory was largely unknown to the public.

“Critical race theory was so obscure it wasn’t even something taught at most law schools,” Banks says. “It wasn’t in practice in corporate law or even civil rights law, but more like a framework or approach some academics might use to understand race-based issues.

“But that all changed after George Floyd was killed.”

Bogeyman in the mainstream

Banks says critical race theory grew to prominence largely as the target of Republican reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement that rose from the 2020 death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer in Minnesota.

Critical race theory “was a good target because it embodies three things that tend to give many Americans a lot of anxiety,” Banks said. The idea that “being critical of this country isn’t considered part of ‘the American spirit;’ [that] we have strains of anti-intellectuals that make theories repulsive; and we don’t feel comfortable talking about our racist past as if it’s unresolved.”

A 2023 poll by the Black Education Research Center at Columbia University found that 85% of respondents agreed that public school students should learn about the history of racism and slavery in the United States and its impact on events today.

That consensus evaporates when it comes to the government’s role in righting past wrongs.

“Of course, I think students should be learning about how our government has been prejudiced in the past in dealing with minorities through policies like slavery or not allowing mixed marriages,” explained Rebecca Urrutia, a Republican voter in Tolland, Connecticut. “I also think we need to teach about revisiting our laws to change any that are still unfair today.

“But I don’t think it makes sense to be teaching things like critical race theory to our kids,” she added. “If teachers are trying to convince white students that they have an inherent tendency toward privilege and discrimination against Black people, then I think this perpetuates the very cycle they claim they are trying to escape. Instead, teach our true history and our progress so we can learn from our mistakes and successes.”

Some Democratic voters view attacks on critical race theory as part of an effort to discredit movements that would promote the interests of minorities in the United States.

“They’re trying to turn critical race theory into a political bogeyman, and the result is getting closer and closer to censorship,” says California Democrat Evante Daniels.

“These anti-CRT laws are so unclear that schools become unsure what they can and can’t teach. Are LGBTQ clubs and ethnic studies okay? How about culturally relevant teaching? What happens when teachers are afraid to effectively teach about our past because they don’t know if they’re breaking a purposely ambiguous law?”

Banks of Stanford Law has similar fears.

“I actually understand if a parent has a concern about their second grader learning about things like white privilege,” he said. “That’s a valid concern. But if a teacher doesn’t know what is and isn’t allowed, they operate from fear and leave important parts of lessons out. The result, unfortunately for our kids and our country, is an impoverished education.”
…

CHEYENNE, Wyoming — A state judge on Monday struck down Wyoming’s overall ban on abortion and its first-in-the-nation explicit prohibition on the use of medication to end pregnancy. 

Since 2022, Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens has ruled consistently three times to block the laws while they were disputed in court. 

The decision marks another victory for abortion rights advocates after voters in seven states passed measures in support of access. 

One Wyoming law that Owens said violated women’s rights under the state constitution bans abortion except to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases involving rape and incest. The other made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, though other states have instituted de facto bans on the medication by broadly prohibiting abortion. 

The laws were challenged by four women, including two obstetricians, and two nonprofit organizations. One of the groups, Wellspring Health Access, opened as the state’s first full-service abortion clinic in years in April 2023 following an arson attack in 2022. 

“This is a wonderful day for the citizens of Wyoming — and women everywhere who should have control over their own bodies,” Wellspring Health Access President Julie Burkhart said in a statement. 

The recent elections saw voters in Missouri clear the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in a series of victories for abortion rights advocates. Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota, meanwhile, defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place. 

Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment in support of abortion rights, but they’ll need to pass it again in 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York. 

The abortion landscape underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states. 

Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions, and four have bans that kick in at or about six weeks into pregnancy — often before women realize they’re pregnant. 

Nearly every ban has been challenged with a lawsuit. Courts have blocked enforcement of some restrictions, including bans throughout pregnancy in Utah and Wyoming. Judges struck down bans in Georgia and North Dakota in September 2024. Georgia’s Supreme Court ruled the next month that the ban there can be enforced while it considers the case. 

In the Wyoming case, the women and nonprofits who challenged the laws argued that the bans stood to harm their health, well-being and livelihoods, claims disputed by attorneys for the state. They also argued the bans violated a 2012 state constitutional amendment saying competent Wyoming residents have a right to make their own health care decisions. 

As she had done with previous rulings, Owens found merit in both arguments. The abortion bans “will undermine the integrity of the medical profession by hamstringing the ability of physicians to provide evidence-based medicine to their patients,” Owens ruled. 

The abortion laws impede the fundamental right of women to make health care decisions for an entire class of people — those who are pregnant — in violation of the constitutional amendment, Owens ruled.
…

Протягом дня російські війська здійснили 37 штурмових і наступальних дій на Покровському напрямку, чотири бої ще тривають
…

«Росія – терористична організація, яка нас всіх знищить, якщо ми їй це дозволимо», каже полька-учасниця акції
…

MANILA, Philippines — U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Tuesday condemned China’s dangerous actions against the Philippines and renewed a warning that the United States would defend its treaty ally if Filipino forces come under an armed attack in the increasingly volatile waters.

During a visit to the Philippine province of Palawan next to the disputed South China Sea, Austin was asked if the strong U.S. military support to the Philippines would continue under incoming President Donald Trump, including $500 million in new military funding.

Austin expressed the belief that the strong alliance “will transcend” changes of administration.

“We stand with the Philippines, and we condemn dangerous actions by the PRC against lawful Philippine operations in the South China Sea,” he said, using the acronym of China’s official name.

He added: “The behavior of PRC has been concerning. They’ve used dangerous and escalatory measures to enforce their expansive South China Sea maritime claims.”

China has also had recent territorial spats with smaller coastal states, including Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia, over the key global trade and security route. Brunei and Taiwan are also involved in long-unresolved disputes.

The outgoing Biden administration has taken steps to strengthen an arc of military alliances across the Indo-Pacific region to better counter China, including in any future confrontation over Taiwan or in the South China Sea, which Beijing has claimed almost in its entirety.

That has dovetailed with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s thrust to strengthen his country’s external defenses, given an alarming escalation of territorial confrontations between Chinese and Filipinos forces in the South China Sea.

There has been intense speculation over how Trump would steer U.S. military engagements in Asia.

Marcos told reporters Tuesday that he congratulated Trump on his presidential election victory in a telephone call and renewed Philippine commitment to continue strengthening its alliance with the U.S.

“I expressed to him our continuing desire to strengthen that relationship between our two countries, which is a relationship that is as deep as can possibly be because it has been for a very long time,” Marcos said.

Austin was speaking during a joint news conference with his Philippine counterpart, Gilberto Teodoro, in the military headquarters in Palawan.

They were given a demonstration of an unmanned vessel the U.S. has funded for use by the Philippine Navy for intelligence-gathering and defense surveillance.

Austin “reaffirmed the ironclad U.S. commitment to the Philippines” and reiterated that the allies’ Mutual Defense Treaty covers both countries’ armed forces, public vessels and aircraft…”anywhere in the South China Sea.”

He also reaffirmed his department’s “commitment to bolstering the Philippines’ defense capabilities and capacity to resist coercion,” according to a joint statement.

Austin and Teodoro signed an agreement on Monday to secure from possible leakages the exchange of highly confidential military intelligence and technology in key weapons the U.S. would provide to Manila.

The Department of National Defense in Manila said the agreement aims to ensure the security of classified military information exchanges and would “allow the Philippines access to higher capabilities and big-ticket items from the United States.”

Neither side provided more details or released a copy of the agreement.

Two Philippine security officials, however, have told The Associated Press that such an agreement, similar to those Washington has signed with other allied countries, would allow the U.S. to provide the Philippines with higher-level intelligence and more sophisticated weapons, including missile systems.

It would also provide the Philippine military access to U.S. satellite and drone surveillance systems with an assurance that such intelligence and details about sophisticated weapons would be kept secure to prevent leaks, the two officials said on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to discuss the sensitive issue publicly.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said in Beijing on Monday that no military agreement “should target any third party … nor should it undermine regional peace or exacerbate regional tensions.”
…

«52-річний чоловік, який перебував на вулиці, зазнав травми, несумісні з життям»
…

Одного чоловіка госпіталізували у тяжкому стані
…

RIO DE JANEIRO — With just two months remaining in President Joe Biden’s administration, the United States is ramping up financial, military and diplomatic support for Kyiv’s effort to defend itself against Russian aggression.

At the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where Biden and leaders of 20 of the world’s largest economies are meeting, U.S. officials are pushing for the “strongest possible” language on Ukraine, deputy national security adviser Jon Finer told VOA during a briefing Monday.

Western diplomats have renewed their push for stronger criticism on Moscow following Russia’s weekend airstrike, its largest on Ukrainian territory in months.

They’ve also warned that increased Russian war efforts could have a destabilizing effect beyond Europe. Earlier this month, the U.S. and Ukraine announced that North Korea has sent more than 10,000 troops to help Moscow reclaim territory seized by Ukraine in Russia’s Kursk region.

However, the final leaders’ statement did not include the language the U.S. pushed for. It highlights human suffering and the negative impacts of the war in Ukraine to the global economy without any condemnation to Russia. On Gaza, it called for cease-fire in Gaza and in Lebanon and commitment to the two-state solution, without mentioning Israel’s right to defend itself.

Finer acknowledges that finding a consensus on global conflicts is elusive given the diversity of the G20. In addition to mostly like-minded countries of the G7, the G20 also includes Russia, China and nations of the Global South.

Ever since the G20 summit in Bali in 2022 — held months after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine — the global grouping has faced challenges hammering out a response to the conflict.

Long-range missiles authorized

The U.S. has been surging its military assistance to Kyiv. It is also authorizing Ukraine to use American-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russia, according to media reports quoting officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Finer declined to confirm but said it is “consistent” with the U.S. approach of tailoring its response to meet developments on the ground to “allow the Ukrainians to continue to defend their territory and their sovereignty.”

On Monday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that if true, authorization for Kyiv to strike inside Russia with U.S. long-range missiles, “will mark a qualitatively new round of tensions and level of Washington’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict.”

Last week in Brussels, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken sought to reassure European allies that Biden is “committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20,” the date of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Trump has been critical of using American taxpayer’s money to help Kyiv. Without providing details, Trump often boasts he can swiftly end the war — a statement that many in Europe fear would mean forcing Ukraine to capitulate.

Earlier this month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he wants a “just end” to the war, and that a swift end “means losses.” On Saturday, he told Ukrainian public radio that under the Trump administration, “the war will end faster.”

“This is their approach, the promise to their country,” he said. “And for them, it is also very important.”

At the State Department, spokesperson Matthew Miller told VOA during Monday’s briefing that the U.S. seeks an end to the war in Ukraine that upholds the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, while ensuring it does not “reward a dictator” intent on seizing land by force.

The sentiment is shared by many European leaders, but they may ultimately be forced to accept a new political reality.

“No government in Europe is going to officially endorse a land-for-peace deal at this point. It’s diplomatically and legally impossible to do that,” said Edward Hunter Christie, a former NATO official and now senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

Behind the scenes, however, some European leaders believe Ukraine’s chances are not strong enough, Christie told VOA, especially if the U.S. under Trump does not continue its assistance to Ukraine.

The U.S. is racing to disburse $20 billion as part of a Biden-driven G7 initiative agreed in June to provide Kyiv with $50 billion in loans. The funds are to be paid back using interest income from Russian assets frozen in Western financial institutions.

A senior administration official briefing reporters in Rio told VOA they are “working full speed” to get the loan disbursed before the end of the year.

Climate change, poverty alleviation

G20 host Brazil has worked to keep the focus of talks away from global conflicts and more on addressing divisions in the ongoing U.N. conference on climate change in Azerbaijan, as well as accelerating efforts to reduce global hunger and poverty — an initiative championed by summit host President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Lula’s approach to resist pressures from the G7 and the rest of the G20 on Ukraine and Gaza reflects Brazil’s strategy of “multi-alignment” in an increasingly fragmented global landscape, said Bruna Santos, director at the Wilson Center’s Brazil Institute.

However, “neutrality risks alienating all sides in an increasingly polarized world,” Santos told VOA.

Negotiators in Rio have also been struggling to find consensus on shared language on climate financing, said diplomatic sources who spoke to VOA on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing negotiations.

Western nations have been pushing for China and wealthy Middle Eastern countries to join them in contributing to global funds for climate change mitigation — a proposal resisted by Brazil and other member countries of the Global South.

Another Lula proposal, a 2% tax on the super-rich that Brazil says can potentially generate up to $250 billion per year to help the world’s poor, has also met new resistance.

Argentinian right-wing President Javier Milei rejected the proposal after visiting Trump at his Florida residence, the first foreign leader to visit the president-elect.

Milei’s rejection is an example of how as president-elect, Trump has already affected dynamics among world leaders and upended Biden’s international priorities.

The senior administration told VOA that the U.S. was “really supportive” of Lula’s proposal, which was “very much in line” with the fiscal policy Biden has pushed in his term.

In the G20 joint statement released Tuesday, leaders agreed to work to “ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed.”

State Department bureau chief Nike Ching contributed to this report.
…