UK vows due diligence on Chinese embassy in London amid security concerns

The UK government promised to assess any security concerns related to the construction of a Chinese embassy near the City of London, an issue that could potentially complicate trade talks with the United States.

President Donald Trump has warned Prime Minister Keir Starmer against letting China set up a “mega-embassy” near the country’s key financial centres, after the plan was revived following personal lobbying by President Xi Jinping, the Sunday Times reported.

The issue has been raised in trade negotiations between the United States and UK, according to the newspaper.

In response to questions about the report, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle told Sky News the UK will offer a “fulsome response” to any security issues. Those issues will be “taken care of assiduously”, he said.

These are “the issues we talk about as two countries all the time”, Kyle said. “But just to reassure people, we deal with embassies and these sorts of infrastructure issues all the time,” he said.

“We’re in the Five Eyes agreement, America and Britain share intelligence. If people raise security issues even though it relates to planning, then I’m sure we will have a fulsome response for them.

“But look, the key thing is these are issues which are quite routinised in the way that we deal with the security of our country.”

A senior US official had told the Sunday Times: “The United States is deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies.”

The matter is believed to have been discussed during US-UK trade talks, with diplomats saying the Trump administration would have reservations about intelligence sharing with the UK if the building went ahead.

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, left, with China’s President Xi Jinping, at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in November. Photo: AFP

The UK is seeking to complete a US trade deal within the next two weeks, which partially hinges on establishing relationships with China that the Trump administration approves of.

The US imposed a July 9 deadline for the UK demands about the ownership of a steel plant currently held by a Chinese company.

The planned embassy’s proximity to a hub of communication cables that could be susceptible to attack is of particular concern, according to the Times report.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told Sky News on Sunday that China would be likely to use the mission as a base for espionage activities, though the Chinese embassy has previously rejected those accusations.

“I agree with the United States. We think it is a security risk,” he said.

“In government the Conservatives were very clear, we should not be allowing the Chinese to build this super-embassy,” he said.

“We’ve seen the Chinese government cracking down on dissidents, running secret police stations in the UK, even putting bounties on the heads of dissidents, some of whom I’ve met. We should not be giving permission to this,” he added.

More than a thousand demonstrators gathered earlier this year for a rally against the proposed Chinese embassy because of concerns about its proximity to the Canary Wharf financial area and the City of London.

The redevelopment plans were “called in” last year, which means the government will make the final decision after a report from the Planning Inspectorate.

The plan was initially refused by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3313568/uk-vows-due-diligence-china-embassy-amid-security-concerns

'AMA Urged to Speak Out Against EMTALA Guidelines Withdrawal'

 The American Medical Association (AMA) should speak out more forcefully on the Trump administration's rescission of guidance on provision of abortions during a medical emergency, AMA delegates said Saturday.

"I'm terrified for my patients," Allie Conry, MD, of Memphis, Tennessee, a delegate for the Resident and Fellows Section who spoke for herself during a reference committee hearingopens in a new tab or window. "I work in a county hospital that is publicly funded and will likely get wrapped up in this in some way or shape or form." Conry was referring to the Trump administration's recession of guidelines for hospitalsopens in a new tab or window related to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), issued in 2022 by the Biden administration. The guidelines outline the circumstances under which hospitals can provide abortions during a medical emergency, including in states where abortion is outlawed.

"My patients are sick. We already have doctors at other hospitals that don't have obstetrics coverage ... Patients are dying from ruptured ectopics, dying from head entrapment -- babies that should have been born, but they don't have the [obstetrical] coverage," Conry said. "People will die because of this, and our AMA needs to be on the right side, and swiftly speaking, on this topic."

"Physicians Should Not Be Penalized"

Conry was testifying in favor of a resolution from the Young Physicians Section that the AMA "advocate for the reinstatement of federal guidance affirming hospitals' obligation under EMTALA to provide necessary emergency pregnancy care, including, but not limited to, abortion care." The resolution also calls for the AMA to "support legal and policy measures that protect physicians and other healthcare providers from criminal, civil, or professional repercussions when providing necessary emergency pregnancy care" and to develop recommendations for hospitals trying to navigate conflicting state and federal regulations on emergency pregnancy care.

"Physicians should not be penalized for providing necessary life-saving care," said Sean Figy, MD, of Omaha, Nebraska, a delegate for the Young Physicians Section who was speaking for the delegation. "Physicians should not have to double-check with their lawyers to make sure what they can and cannot do to save their patients, no matter the scenario. This resolution will make sure that our AMA continues to advocate for our protection of our patients in emergency situations."

Rachel Solnick, MD, MSc, of New York City, an alternate delegate from the Women Physicians Section, said the resolution "addresses a critical threat to women's health." She noted that although patients are entitled to stabilizing care -- including abortions -- under EMTALA, since the Dobbs decision that returned control of abortion laws to the states, "physicians in restrictive states face fear of prosecution for providing medically necessary treatment. The result is delayed or non-care for women experiencing miscarriage, hemorrhage, and other life-threatening complications. These delays can lead to harm to fertility, infertility, and death, particularly among women of color, low-income populations and those in rural areas."

"As an [emergency department] doctor that worked in South Dakota at a critical access hospital, I can tell you, if I had to send an unstable pregnant woman to the next state, that would be an over 8-hour drive," she added. "We need to see more from the AMA in terms of speaking out for this completely unacceptable state of affairs."

There were no speakers in opposition to the resolution.

Concerns About WHO Withdrawal

The AMA received criticism for its failure to speak out about the U.S. withdrawing from the World Health Organization opens in a new tab or window(WHO). "It is remarkable to myself and many other AMA members that it's even necessary for our AMA membership to call for this policy of opposition," said Charles Lopresto, DO, of Long island City, New York, a member of the New York delegation who was speaking for himself. "It should seem obvious that our AMA would oppose the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization. However, in our divided political atmosphere, the Board of Trustees has taken a 'watch and wait' approach rather than take action and state the obvious."

Lopresto spoke in favor of a resolution from the Senior Physicians Section calling for the AMA to oppose the withdrawal from the WHO. "Our AMA stands alone as a major medical organization without strong statements against this madness," Lopresto said. "Countless other membership-based physician organizations have made strong statements opposingopens in a new tab or window these and other actions of the current administration that are contrary to advancing the art and science of medicine and public health. And it is high time that our AMA uses the bully pulpit as the largest representative organization of physician voices in the United States to oppose the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO."

The resolution also asked the AMA to oppose cuts to funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). "The USAID has educated and provided medical care to many smaller and less-monetarily-endowed countries," said Virginia Hall, MD, of Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, who spoke on behalf of the Senior Physicians Section. "This has made friends for our country, and indeed, many ... medical care recipients have become government friends to our USA. So it's important that we restore the monies back and let these agencies work as they have been." As with the EMTALA resolution, no one spoke in opposition to the WHO resolution.

Protecting Immigrant Physicians

Delegates also spoke out in favor of a resolution from the Organized Medical Staff Section (OMSS) and the International Medical Graduate (IMG) Section calling on the AMA to develop model workplace policies to address unfair treatment or targeting of physicians and other healthcare workers, based upon migration status or country of origin, and also to develop model policies for hospitals and other health workplaces to address situations in which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers seek entry into "protected areas" such as hospitals and healthcare settings.

"Our physician colleagues are now in need of urgent help and action," said Alan Klitzke, MD, of Buffalo, New York, a delegate from the American College of Nuclear Medicine who spoke for the OMSS. "There are many IMGs and other immigrant physicians who now live and work in continual fear of being targets of harassment or detention or even possible deportation based upon their country of origin ... There are resident physicians who are now advised to carry their papers...at all times for their protection. Our physicians in training should be able to perform their training duties and patient care without such threats to their protection and personal safety."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/115955

Chinese-Owned Firm Halts Construction On Battery Plant In America's EV Heartland

 Chinese-owned AESC has halted construction of its $1.6 billion battery plant in America's emerging "Battery Belt," citing economic uncertainty tied to President Trump's trade war and tariffs and the potential early termination of federal clean energy subsidies.

Construction of AESC's electric-vehicle battery plant in Florence, South Carolina, began in 2023 after securing a deal with BMW to make battery cells. 

On Thursday, the company sent a letter to employees regarding the construction halt, as obtained by The Wall Street Journal. The letter laid out:

Tariffs on Chinese-made machinery, steel, and aluminum, which significantly raise costs.

• A proposed tax bill in Congress that would end EV battery production subsidies early and restrict eligibility for China-linked companies.

• Broader industry pressure as automakers slow or cancel EV rollouts.

"Our intent is to finish construction of the facility once stability and predictability have returned to the market," Knudt Flor, AESC's chief executive for the U.S. and Europe, wrote in the memo.

Current and former employees told WSJ that construction of the building has been completed, but all work on installing equipment and battery cell assembly lines has been halted.

Sources noted that AESC would face steep tariffs on EV battery machinery imported from China and said that recent steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have further compounded the company's cost challenges.

In recent years, Biden-era green energy policies fueled a surge in battery factory construction across parts of the Midwest and Southeast, driven by cheap land, proximity to major automotive hubs, and generous state-level incentives. This region—stretching from Tennessee and Alabama to the Carolinas, Ohio, and Michigan—has become known as America's "Battery Belt."

Some major projects across the belt include:

• Ford and SK On: $11.4B battery and EV campuses in Tennessee and Kentucky

• LG Energy Solution: Multiple joint ventures with GM, Stellantis, and Honda in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana

• Hyundai and SK: $5B EV battery plant in Georgia

• Toyota: Expanding EV battery production in North Carolina

"Now many of those subsidies are being targeted by Republicans at the same time regulations and tax credits aimed at driving EV sales are also at risk," WSJ noted, adding, "The current version of a tax bill before Congress would end EV battery production subsidies a year early and make them unavailable to companies with ties to certain countries, including China."

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/chinese-owned-firm-halts-battery-plant-americas-ev-heartland

Wikipedia Advances Anti-Israel Narratives

by Aaron Bandler

 Wikipedia, the world’s go-to site for information that professes to take a neutral point of view, is coming under fire for alleged anti-Israel bias in the sources it favors and content it delivers to millions of readers. 

The criticism is coming from several quarters, including a bipartisan group of 23 members of Congress who, in an April letter, expressed “deep concern regarding antisemitism” found in the online encyclopedia. The entries routinely highlight the work of anti-Zionist scholars and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), according to a review by RealClearInvestigations, while dismissing the views of Israel’s defenders. Amnesty International, which casts Israel as genocidal, is considered a reliable source for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while the Anti-Defamation League, which rejects that view, is not. 

A vigil for victims of antisemitic violence, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, gunned down last month in Washington, D.C.

AP

The controversy has emerged during a sharp rise in antisemitism around the world, including the recent murders of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., and the firebombing in Boulder of protesters demanding the release of hostages taken by Hamas. Critics argue that the online encyclopedia is fueling this hatred by publishing biased entries that are presented as objective statements of fact. 

Wikipedia is produced by volunteer editors who are instructed to follow a set of rules as they summarize the work of authoritative sources, which can include those that appear to be biased. Its consensus model encourages editors to work out their differences collegially and reach a compromise that balances the different viewpoints of sources to ensure neutrality. But critics say that so many academics and NGOs hold left-leaning views that cast Israel as the oppressor and Palestinians as the oppressed that it is hard for editors to avoid publishing biased statements as neutral ones. 

Consider Wiki’s entry for “Gaza genocide” – a title that, critics argue, takes sides. It begins with this statement: “According to a United Nations Special Committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organizations, Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war.” The entry then lists several paragraphs of evidence, including large-scale deaths of Palestinians, the forced displacement of most of the population, and starvation. 

Where’s the other side of the story to establish neutrality? Not until the seventh paragraph do readers learn that Hamas’ attack in Israel, killing 1,139 people, sparked the invasion of Gaza. But rather than calling Hamas a terrorist group – a classification used by the U.S., EU, U.K., Canada, and other democratic nations – whose avowed goal is the destruction of Israel, the entry describes the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas as a response to Israel’s historic treatment of Palestinians. 

Leading With Bias 

Critics say that, as in the case of the “Gaza genocide,” bias is often revealed in the opening lines of entries. This can skew readers’ understanding because, as Wikipedia reports, about 60% of people don’t scroll past the lead. In the Hamas entry, readers would have missed the terrorist designation of the organization that controls Gaza. It appears in the very last line of the opening section. 

Wikipedia claims to use a "consensus model" that balances different viewpoints to ensure neutrality.

Wikipedia

“Fundamentally the policy for reliability is based on the views of editors, and not more rigorous metrics,” explained a Wikipedia editor who says they have edited hundreds of articles. “There is also a conflict between reliability and the ideas of [the] ideological fringe.” “Pro-Hamas editors,” added this editor, who insisted on anonymity, selectively choose “their preferred academic sources.”

Wikipedia’s impact is amplified because its entries are usually high on the list of links offered by top search engines Google and Bing, which often reprint the first few lines in their query responses. A Wikipedia article is dedicated to the longstanding relationship between Google and Wikipedia, discussing how Google utilizes Wikipedia to combat misinformation on YouTube and how Google has made donations to the Wikimedia Foundation, the San Francisco-based nonprofit that oversees Wikipedia. 

The Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the site, did not respond to RCI’s repeated requests for comment. In March,  a spokesperson said, “The Foundation takes seriously allegations of bias on Wikipedia.  “We categorically condemn antisemitism and all forms of hate.  

Katherine Maher, who led the Foundation from 2016-2021 and is now CEO of National Public Radio, recently walked back controversial statements, including that America was “addicted to white supremacy” and that “our reverence for the truth might become, might have become, a bit of a distraction.”

Questionable Sources

The plethora of anti-Israel academics makes it easy to present anti-Israel narratives under the guise of neutrality. The entry for the Nakba – Arabic for catastrophe – describes the 1948 war after the UN created the state of Israel as “the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war.” This echoes the claim in the Zionism entry that “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.” Neither article presented balancing perspectives in the all-important top parts of the lead sections. 

Two of the sources for these claims are Columbia University Professor Emeritus Rashid Khalidi and University of Exeter Professor Ilan Pappé. Both professors are seen by critics as anti-Israel activists. 

Despite his reported ties to the PLO, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi's views are considered mainstream by Wikipedia. 

Wikipedia

Several newspapers have reported that Khalidi was associated with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when he was in Beirut in 1976-83; at the time, the PLO was widely considered to be a terrorist organization. In 1976,  the Los Angeles Times described Khalidi as “a PLO spokesman.” In 1978, the New York Times said he “works for the PLO” (the article misspells his name as “Khalidy”), and in 1979 the paper re-reported that he was “close to Al Fatah” (which controls the PLO). A 1981 Christian Science Monitor article refers to Khalidi as having “good access to PLO leadership.” None of the papers has corrected these statements. 

Wikipedia’s entry on Khalidi includes his reported links to the PLO and his denial of being a spokesman for the group, saying in 2004 that he “often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it.” He also said that he didn’t have much time for anything outside of his academic work, writing, and research while he was in Beirut in that timeframe.

Asaf Romirowsky, a historian who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for the Study of the Middle East and North Africa, has tracked Khalidi and Pappé’s work. A defender of Israel, he reports that Khalidi has at various times described Israel as a “racist state” and an “apartheid system in creation.” Romirowsky told RCI that Khalidi supported Columbia’s anti-Israel encampment in the spring of 2024 and has become increasingly anti-American and anti-Western in his books.

Whatever the truth, critics say enough questions surround Khalidi’s past that it is hard to view him as a neutral source. Khalidi did not respond to RCI’s requests for comment.

Complicated History

Pappé belongs to a group of Israeli historians who challenged Israel’s version of the 1948 war. In June 2024, Pappé said that the “hope for me is the end of Israel and a creation of a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

According to Romirowsky, Pappé’s 2006 book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” – which Wikipedia cites in both the “as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” and “ethnic cleansing” lines – is premised on the belief that Israel had a “master plan” in 1948 to eradicate the Arab Palestinian community and that its policies are still motivated by an ethnic cleansing agenda. Romirowsky disputes that narrative, calling such claims “sensationalist.”  

“Don’t get me wrong: wars are difficult,” Romirowsky said. “The history is not black and white, there were a lot of mistakes made in ’48, but … [historians like Pappé] have selectively chosen quotes without giving context as to the position of the Jewish Agency – the Yishuv – at the time as it comes to the Arab Palestinian population.” 

Wikipedia considers the veiws of  Ilan Pappé, a historian who said he hopes for "an end to Israel," mainstream.

Wikipedia

Pappé did not respond to RCI’s requests for comment.

A second Wikipedia editor, self-described as being disillusioned after making thousands of edits, told RCI anonymously that “it’s at best naive to use sources everyone knows are biased” to make statements “in the encyclopedia's neutral voice,” and such sources should always be properly attributed. 

The first editor informed RCI that while sources like Khalidi and Pappé can be used, “it should be noted that not everyone agrees with them” and should be balanced with academics who hold opposing views.

Comparing Hamas and Likud

Wikipedia’s page on Hamas similarly draws upon what critics see as partisan sources. The article compares the Hamas charter to the platform of Likud, a right-wing Israeli political party, stating: “Many scholars have pointed out that both the 1988 Hamas charter and the Likud party platform sought full control of the land, thus denouncing the two-state solution.” These “many scholars,” according to the authorities cited, include the journalist Peter Beinart and politically active linguist Noam Chomsky, both of whom are well-known left-wing critics of Israel. 

It does not note that other scholars reject this equivalence. Romirowsky said that “there is nothing in the Likud party platform that talks about the eradication of the Arab Palestinian population,” while the Hamas charter calls for the eradication of Jews and Zionists, and the charter uses “Jews” and “Zionists” interchangeably.

The first editor told RCI anonymously that the wording of the Hamas-Likud comparison violates the site’s policy. “Unless you have an academic review article that says that academic consensus is x, y, and z, you can’t write, ‘many scholars think x, y, and z’ and then cite it to your own cherry-picked list of scholars,” the editor said. 

Double Standards

Pro-Israel academics are cited on Wikipedia, but they often face hurdles. The 2018 book “The Zionist Ideas” by McGill University professor Gil Troy - who identifies himself as “American Historian, Zionist Thinker” on his personal website – was rejected from inclusion on an editor-compiled list of “Best Sources” providing an overview of Zionism in Wikipedia. The stated reasoning: Troy is an American presidential historian whose book is better suited for discussing different types of Zionism. 

Wikipedia deems Shahid Alam, a professor who advises Northeastern University's chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a "best source." 

Northeastern University

By contrast, Shahid Alam, an emeritus professor of economics at Northeastern University who serves as faculty advisor for the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, was included in the “Best Sources” list and is cited twice in the Zionism page, including in the opening section. Alam wrote a controversial column for CounterPunch in 2004, drawing parallels between the American revolutionaries and the 9/11 hijackers in that “both insurgencies seek to overthrow what they perceive to be foreign occupations,” though he acknowledged that the colonists did not target civilians and the 9/11 hijackers did. 

Wikipedia editors also rely on NGOs that appear to be biased in some reports as neutral observers. The lead of the “Use of human shields by Hamas” page states that Amnesty International found no evidence to support Israel’s claims that Hamas used human shields in the 2008-2009 and 2014 Gaza Wars, while Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Hamas used human shields in the 2008-2009 war.

Max Abrahms, a political science professor at Northeastern University and terrorism expert, found the groups’ claims that Hamas did not use human shields during those prior wars “laughable.” He said that there is photo evidence to the contrary, and even the Palestinian Authority has said that Hamas uses human shields. 

While Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are considered reliable sources, some organizations more sympathetic to Israel are not. The Heritage Foundation was recently blacklisted on Wikipedia (meaning its URL is blocked from the online encyclopedia) following a report from The Forward that Heritage had proposed unmasking antisemitic Wikipedia editors. 

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has also been downgraded to being generally unreliable on all topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel, or Zionism (although the ADL’s hate symbol database is considered reliable). The downgrade occurred following a formal discussion among editors last year in which they stated their position on the reliability of ADL; three uninvolved Wikipedians in good standing then “closed” the discussion and rendered a verdict based on the numbers and strength of the arguments. In this discussion, editors cited critics of Israel like The Nation, The Guardian, and Jewish Currents as evidence that the ADL conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism and thus its reliability should be downgraded. 

One source that is generally considered reliable on Wikipedia is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has been criticized for casting mainstream conservatives as extremists. On May 24, a formal discussion was launched reexamining the SPLC’s reliability on Wikipedia, which remains ongoing as of publication time.

Although Wikipedia credits its volunteer editing for making it a vast encyclopedia with tens of millions of pages, it lacks the policies and tools to achieve neutrality on hotly contested topics like the Israel-Palestine conflict, according to a third editor who requested anonymity. “The system is remedial at best: if it is from a plausibly reliable academic source, publication, institution, or individual, it is usually allowed without question, and is incredibly hard to contest,” a longtime editor said. “Just because a person is staffed at a university or is publishing work in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that it should be considered by default a reliable or neutral point-of-view source.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/06/06/taking_sides_wikipedia_advances_anti-israel_narratives_1115040.html