A plane skidded off the runway Wednesday at Istanbul’s Sabiha Gokcen Airport, crashing into a field and breaking into pieces. Passengers were seen evacuating through cracks in the plane and authorities said at least 21 people were injured.

Television footage showed serious damage to the plane, with the fuselage appearing to be broken into three pieces. NTV television reported that the plane caught fire after skidding but said the blaze had been extinguished.

The Istanbul Governor’s office says at least 21 people were injured in the accident and have been hospitalized.

The plane, belonging to the low-cost airline Pegasus, arrived from the city of Izmir, private NTV television reported. The Transportation Ministry said 177 people were on board and there had been no deaths in what it called a “rough landing.”

According to flight tracking website Flightradar24, the plane is a Boeing 737.

The Istanbul Governor’s office said at least 21 people were injured in the accident and had been hospitalized. The office said the 177 people on board included six crew members.

The airport was shut down and flights were being diverted to Istanbul’s main airport, he said.

The accident comes a month after another Pegasus plane skidded off the runway in Istanbul at the same airport. There were no deaths or injuries in that incident on Jan. 7.

…

Amid the worldwide spread of the novel coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, the World Health Organization (WHO) said Tuesday the outbreak is a “global health emergency” and “an epidemic with multiple locations” but not yet a pandemic. 

Where is the virus spreading? 

As of Feb. 4, WHO says as of Tuesday there are 20,630 confirmed cases in 24 countries, and the virus has claimed 426 lives. Most of the infections were reported in China with 20,471 cases, and 13,522 cases from the Hubei province. So far, no confirmation has been made across Africa or Latin America. China’s National Health Commission says about 80% of those who died from the virus were over the age of 60 and 75% of them had pre-existing health conditions.

Why does WHO say the outbreak is not yet a pandemic?

WHO officials say the virus is currently considered to be an epidemic in multiple locations, and they are hopeful the transmission of the virus can be contained. Dr. Sylvie Briand, director of the World Health Organization’s Infectious Hazards Management Department said at a press conference Tuesday an estimated 78% of cases are coming from the Hubei province in China. She said cases outside of Hubei are “spillover cases” with people infected in Hubei moving to other places with the disease. “We believe it (stopping transmission) can be done, so that’s why we’re not in a pandemic,” said Briand.

Coronavirus Has Not Reached Pandemic Status, Says WHO

UN health agency’s assessment comes as death toll soars above 400, including first reported death in Hong Kong

What does it mean to be a ‘global health emergency’?

On January 30, the WHO declared the outbreak of a novel coronavirus a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The decision was taken primarily because of the signs of human-to-human transmission outside China, and what might happen if the virus were to spread in a country with a weaker health system. The decision was an acknowledgment the risk is “serous, unusual or unexpected.” This is only the fifth time the WHO has declared a global health emergency. Previous emergencies have included Ebola, Zika and H1N1.

When is a pandemic declared?

Calling the virus a pandemic refers to a more global outbreak than an epidemic. The WHO defines a pandemic as “the worldwide spread of a new disease.” This description is reserved for an infectious disease that can greatly increase morbidity and mortality over a wide geographic area. The last pandemic declared was the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009.

How likely is it that a pandemic will be declared?

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus says the spread outside of China so far appears to be “minimal and slow.” But Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, believes we could be heading toward a pandemic. Dr. Fauci told The New York Times that “It’s very, very transmissible, and it almost certainly is going to be a pandemic.”

What would a pandemic declaration mean for global travel?

Already, 19 countries had formally notified the U.N. of measures or restrictions taken in connection with the outbreak and the declaration of a pandemic may further fuel anxiety. The U.S. also has suspended entry for foreigners who have visited China in the 14 days before arriving in the U.S. In the past, several countries also imposed travel restrictions during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003 and the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009. 

What are WHO’s next moves?

The WHO will hold a meeting Wednesday with travel and tourism industry representatives to draw up further recommendations to protect their crews so they can resume flights to China. WHO is against travel bans. “There is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade,” said WHO Director-General Ghebreyesus. 

…

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed Friday that the Trump administration would not waver in its support for Ukraine and denied charges at the heart of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

Pompeo met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday and denied allegations that vital military aid and a White House visit were conditioned on a probe into former Vice President Joe Biden’s family.

“It’s just simply not the case. We will find the right time, we will find the appropriate opportunity (for the visit),” Pompeo said at a press conference after a meeting with Zelenskiy.

Pompeo is the highest-ranking American official to visit Ukraine since the impeachment process began last year. That process started with revelations about a July 25 phone call between Zelenskiy and Trump.

Zelenskiy said the impeachment had not had a negative effect on U.S.-Ukraine relations and thanked the Trump administration for its financial and military support that impeachment prosecutors say the president withheld in order to extract a personal favor from Ukraine.

Pompeo’s meetings in Kyiv come as t he GOP-majority Senate prepared to vote  on whether to hear witnesses who could shed further light on Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. The vote appeared likely to fail, however, as a key Republican said he would vote against allowing new testimony, boosting odds the Senate will vote to acquit in a matter of days.

A senior U.S. official in the meeting said Pompeo and Zelenskiy mainly discussed investment and infrastructure and that there was no talk of impeachment or corruption investigations. The official was not authorized to publicly discuss the private conversation and spoke on condition of anonymity.

At a press conference after the meeting, Pompeo assured Zelenskiy of Washington’s unwavering support.

“The United States understands that Ukraine is an important country. It’s not just the geographic heart of Europe, it’s a bulwark between freedom and authoritarianism in eastern Europe. It’s fields feed the European continent and its pipelines keep Europe warm in the winter,” he said.

Zelenskiy, in turn, expressed hope that the U.S. would more actively participate in resolving a separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine that has killed more than 14,000 people in the past five years. Zelenskiy also said he still wanted to meet Trump in DC as long it would be productive. “I am ready to go tomorrow,” he said.

In addition to Zelenskiy, Pompeo is meeting Ukraine’s prime, foreign and defense ministers as well as civic leaders, and touring several Ukrainian Orthodox churches.

Trump is accused of obstructing Congress and abuse of office for withholding a White House meeting with Zelenskiy and critical military aid to the country in exchange for an investigation into Biden, a political rival, and his son, Hunter.

Ukraine has been an unwilling star in the impeachment proceedings, eager for good relations with Trump as it depends heavily on U.S. support to defend itself from Russian-backed separatists. Trump, who has still not granted Zelenskiy the White House meeting he craves, has offered that support to some degree. Although the military assistance was put on hold, it was eventually released after a whistleblower complaint brought the July 25 call to light. The Trump administration has also supplied Ukraine with lethal defense equipment, including Javelin anti-tank weapons.

Pompeo has stressed the importance of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, a sentiment long shared by Republicans and Democrats who see the former Soviet republic as a bulwark against Russian ambitions. But it’s a view that now has partisan overtones, with Democrats arguing that withholding aid from such a critical ally for political purposes is an impeachable offense.

The Senate is to vote on hearing impeachment witnesses later Friday. Democrats want to hear from former national security adviser John Bolton, whose forthcoming book reportedly says that Trump withheld the aid in exchange for a public pledge of a probe into the Bidens. That would back witnesses who testified before the House impeachment inquiry.

Ukraine has been a delicate subject for Pompeo, who last weekend  lashed out at a National Public Radio reporter for asking why he has not publicly defended the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. She was removed from her post after unsubstantiated allegations were made against her by Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani.

Pompeo has been criticized for not publicly supporting Yovanovitch, her now-departed successor as chief of the Kyiv embassy, William Taylor, and other diplomats who testified before House impeachment investigators. Yovanovitch and Taylor have been attacked by Trump supporters and, in some cases, have been accused of disloyalty.

In the NPR interview, Pompeo took umbrage when asked if he owed Yovanovitch an apology, and maintained that he had defended all of his employees. In an angry encounter after the interview, he also questioned if Americans actually cared about Ukraine, according to NPR.

That comment prompted Taylor and Pompeo’s former special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who also testified to the impeachment panel, to write opinion pieces discussing the importance of the country to U.S. national security and why Pompeo should be explaining its role to Americans as their top diplomat.

Pompeo brushed aside his reported comment, telling reporters aboard his plane that “of course, the American people care about the people of Ukraine” and said his message to American diplomats in Ukraine would be the same he gives to those at other embassies.

“The message is very similar to every embassy that I get a chance to talk to when I travel,” he said. “I almost always meet with the team and tell them how much we love them, appreciate them, appreciate their family members and their sacrifice.”

He said he would “talk about the important work that the United States and Ukraine will continue to do together to fight corruption inside of that country and to ensure that America provides the support that the Ukrainian people need to ensure that they have a free and independent nation.”

Pompeo twice postponed earlier planned trips to Ukraine, most recently in early January when developments with Iran forced him to cancel. Pompeo said he plans to discuss the issue of corruption but demurred when asked if he would specifically raise the Bidens or the energy company Burisma, for which Hunter Biden worked.

“I don’t want to talk about particular individuals. It’s not worth it,” he told reporters. “It’s a long list in Ukraine of corrupt individuals and a long history there. And President Zelenskiy has told us he’s committed to it. The actions he’s taken so far demonstrate that, and I look forward to having a conversation about that with him as well.”

Pompeo traveled to Kyiv  from London, which was the first stop on a trip to Europe and Central Asia that will also take him to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

…

Democrats in Iowa are grappling with many issues as they weigh who to support in the Feb. 3 Iowa Caucuses, meetings where party voters choose their preferred candidate. As VOA’s Kane Farabaugh reports, it’s the first test for Democratic presidential hopefuls seeking to defeat Republican President Donald Trump in the November election, and comes during a time of low unemployment and a strong economy.
 

…

There were questions about quid pro quos and whisteblowers, the Constitution and an unpublished book.

Senators in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial posed dozens of questions to White House lawyers and to House Democrats prosecuting the case. The questions, written on paper and read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts, provided a window into the thinking of senators who until now had been silent inside the chamber.

A look at some of the more notable exchanges:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: “Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney and the other key eyewitnesses, or without seeing the relevant documentary evidence?”

This was the first Democratic question of the evening and it encapsulated the principal unresolved issue of the impeachment trial: Will there be enough votes to allow witnesses?

Democrats are clamoring to hear from John Bolton, the former Trump administration national security adviser who writes in a forthcoming book that Trump wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until it helped with investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. They also asked multiple questions about White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who bluntly acknowledged a quid pro quo with Ukraine at a news conference last year.

Rep. Adam Schiff, the chief House prosecutor, said there was no way to have a complete trial without documents or witnesses. Referring back to an earlier question about the president’s motives, Schiff told senators they had a chance to hear from a witness who could provide first-hand testimony on motive. He told them they didn’t need to wait for the book’s March release.

Pat Philbin, the deputy White House counsel, said inviting new witnesses into the trial would create a dangerous precedent and leave the Senate “effectively paralyzed for months on end” because it would have to do investigative work the House never did.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, D-VT.: “The president’s counsel argues that there was no harm done, that the aid was ultimately released to Ukraine, the president met with Zelenskiy at the U.N. in September and that this president has treated Ukraine more favorably than his predecessors. What is your response?”

This question to House managers sought to tee up a rebuttal to a White House defense that Democrats have derisively referred to as the “no harm/no foul” argument but that has clearly resonated with Republican senators.

Since the aid was released without Ukraine ever announcing an investigation into the Bidens, was there anything really improper about the whole affair?

The answer is yes, at least according to Democratic Rep. Val Demings, who pointed out that it took the work of Congress to ensure that Ukraine “didn’t miss out on” the aid to which it was entitled.
 “There was harm and there was foul, and let us not forget that Ukraine is not an enemy,” Demings said. “They’re not an adversary, they are our friends.”

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-MAINE, and SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI, R-ALASKA: “Before Vice President Biden formally entered the 2020 presidential race in April 2019, did President Trump ever mention Joe or Hunter Biden in connection with corruption in Ukraine to former Ukrainian President [Petro] Poroshenko or other Ukrainian officials, President Trump’s Cabinet members or top aides, or others. If so, what did the president say, to whom, and when?”

This question was important not only for the content but for the questioners.

Both Republicans are being closely watched for their views on witnesses and acquittal, though they’ve been reluctant to publicly telegraph much.

But in this question, they’re testing one of the Trump legal team’s most persistent defenses — that Trump’s request for Ukraine to conduct investigations wasn’t limited to Biden, but reflected his broader concerns about corruption in the former Soviet republic.

Philbin said he was limited to what was in the record put forward by the House.

“I can’t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time mentioning specifically something related to Joe or Hunter Biden,” he added. “It is in the record that he spoke to President Poroshenko twice about corruption in the Ukraine, both in June of 2017 and again in September of 2017.”

Hours later, a Democrat, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, re-upped the question, as if to press the point.

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS: “As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?”

This question was important because it appeared to say “so what?” to the central allegation of the impeachment case — that Trump had made military aid contingent on Ukraine investigating Biden.

Cruz’s question suggested that people could accept Bolton’s reported account — that Trump wanted to tie up the money until Ukraine announced the investigations — and nonetheless reject it as irrelevant.

It also set off a compelling back-and-forth between Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz and Schiff. Dershowitz said many elected officials equate their election with public good, and so long as they’re not motivated solely by personal financial gain, they shouldn’t be challenged on their motive.

“That’s why it’s so dangerous to try to psychoanalyze a president,” Dershowitz said.

Schiff appeared stunned, invoking a hypothetical in which Democratic President Barack Obama asked Russia to dig up dirt on 2012 opponent Mitt Romney in exchange for the U.S. withholding aid to Ukraine.

“All quid pro quos are not the same,” Schiff retorted. Some might be acceptable, some not. “And you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which. For one thing, you can ask John Bolton.” 

…

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Thursday defended President Donald Trump’s response to American troops being diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries from Iran’s missile strike, saying he cared about the service members.

Last week, Trump appeared to play down the injuries, saying he “heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things,” prompting criticism from lawmakers and a U.S. veterans group.

The Pentagon has said that 50 U.S. service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury and that number could rise.

“I’ve had the chance to speak with the president; he is very concerned about the health and welfare of all of our service members, particularly those who were involved in the operations in Iraq, and he understands the nature of these injuries,” Esper said during a news conference.

Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the service members suffering from traumatic brain injuries had been diagnosed with mild cases. He added that the diagnosis could change as time went on.

Pentagon officials have said there had been no effort to minimize or delay information on concussive injuries, but its handling of the injuries following Tehran’s attack has renewed questions over the U.S. military’s policy regarding how it deals with suspected brain injuries.

“[Traumatic brain injury] manifests itself over time. … I still believe that morning there were no casualties reported,” Esper said.

Since 2000, about 408,000 service members have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, according to Pentagon data.

Iran fired missiles at the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq in retaliation for the U.S. killing of a top Revolutionary Guard general, Qassem Soleimani, in a drone strike at Baghdad airport on Jan. 3.

The missile attacks capped a spiral of violence that had started in late December. Both sides have refrained from further military escalation.

…

The spotlight on brain injuries suffered by American troops in Iraq this month is an example of America’s episodic attention to this invisible war wound, which has affected hundreds of thousands over the past two decades but is not yet fully understood.

Unlike physical wounds, such as burns or the loss of limbs, traumatic brain injuries aren’t obvious and can take time to diagnose. The full impact — physically and psychologically — may not be evident for some time, as studies have shown links between TBI and mental health problems. They cannot be dismissed as mere “headaches” — the word used by President Donald Trump as he said the injuries suffered by the troops in Iraq were not necessarily serious.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, told reporters Thursday that the number of service members diagnosed with TBI from the Jan. 8 Iranian missile attack in Iraq has now grown beyond the 50 reported earlier this week, although he provided no specific number. Milley said all are categorized as “mild” injuries, but in some cases the troops will be monitored “for the rest of their lives.”

Speaking alongside Milley, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the Pentagon is vigorously studying ways to prevent brain injuries on the battlefield and to improve diagnosis and treatment. Milley said it’s possible, in some cases, that symptoms of TBI from the Iranian missile attack on an air base in Iraq on Jan. 8 will not become apparent for a year or two.

“We’re early in the stage of diagnosis, we’re early in the stage of therapy for these troops,” Milley said.

William Schmitz, national commander for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, last week cautioned the Trump administration against taking the TBI issue lightly.

“TBI is known to cause depression, memory loss, severe headaches, dizziness and fatigue,” sometimes with long-term effects,” he said, while calling on Trump to apologize for his “misguided remarks.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., a New Jersey Democrat and founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force, faulted Trump for displaying “a clear lack of understanding of the devastating impacts of brain injury.”

When it announced earlier this week that the number of TBI cases in Iraq had grown to 50, the Pentagon said more could come to light later. No one was killed in the missile attack, which was an Iranian effort to avenge the killing of Qassem Soleimani, its most powerful general and leader of its paramilitary Quds Force, in an American drone strike in Baghdad.

Details of the U.S. injuries have not been made public, although the Pentagon said Tuesday that 31 of the 50 who were diagnosed with traumatic brain injury have recovered enough to return to duty. The severity of the other cases has not been disclosed.

The Pentagon did not announce the first confirmed cases until more than a week after the Iranian attack; at that point it said there were 11 cases. The question of American casualties took on added importance at the time of the Iranian strike because the degree of damage was seen as influencing a U.S. decision on whether to counterattack and risk a broader war with Iran. Trump chose not to retaliate, and the Iranians then indicated their strike was sufficient for the time being.

The arc of attention to TBI began in earnest, for the U.S. military, in the early years after it invaded Iraq in 2003 to topple President Saddam Hussein. His demise gave rise to an insurgency that confounded the Americans with crude but devastatingly effective roadside bombs. Survivors often suffered not just grievous physical wounds but also concussions that, along with psychological trauma, became known as the invisible wounds of war.

“For generations, battlefield traumatic brain injuries were not understood and often dismissed,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat.

The injuries have often been dismissed in part because the problem is not fully understood, although the Pentagon began focusing on the problem in the early 1990s when it established a head injury program that grew into today’s Defense and Veteran’s Brain Injury Center. Among its work, the center provides published reviews of research related to TBI, including links between severe TBI and behavioral issues such as alcohol abuse and suicide.

A study published this month by University of Massachusetts Amherst health services researchers concluded that military members who suffered a moderate or severe TBI are more likely than those with other serious injuries to experience mental health disorders.

Concern about TBI has recently given rise to questions about whether military members may suffer long-term health damage even from low-level blasts away from the battlefield, such as during training with artillery guns and shoulder-fired rockets.

“We’re finding that even a mild blast can cause long-term, life-changing health issues,” said Riyi Shi, a professor of neuroscience and biomedical engineering at Purdue University.

A 2018 study by the federally funded RAND Corp. found a dearth of research and understanding of potential damage to the nervous system from repeated exposure to these lower-level blasts. That same year, the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank, released a study urging the Pentagon to conduct a blast surveillance program to monitor, record, and maintain data on blast pressure exposure for “any soldier, in training or combat, who is likely to be in a position where he or she may be exposed to blasts.” It said this should include brain imaging of soldiers who have been exposed to blasts as part of the study to better understand how blasts affect the brain.

…

The U.N.’s refugee agency in Libya announced Thursday it is suspending its operations at a jam-packed migrant facility over safety concerns as deadly fighting near the capital intensifies.

The U.N. first opened its transit center in Tripoli as an alternative to Libya’s notorious detention sites for migrants ostensibly awaiting repatriation or resettlement. Detention facilities in Libya, run by a patchwork of militias, have become synonymous with the abuse and exploitation of desperate asylum-seekers at the hands of fighters and smugglers.

But even the U.N. center in Tripoli, known as Gathering and Departure Facility, soon became a complex and dangerous operation.

In December, The Associated Press reported on conditions at the facility, which presented an increasingly urgent problem for the U.N., and the people inside.

In a statement explaining the closure, the UNHCR chief of mission cited police and military training exercises taking place just a few meters (yards) from the migrants’ living quarters. Earlier this month, errant mortar shells landed in the compound.

“We fear that the entire area could become a military target, further endangering the lives of refugees, asylum seekers, and other civilians,” said Jean-Paul Cavalieri, UNHCR’s chief of mission in Libya.

Although on paper a U.N.-run facility, the center was effectively controlled by powerful local militias loosely allied with the Tripoli-based government. It held 1,200 migrants, including hundreds seeking refuge from abuse at other detention centers, more than double its capacity.

“With close to 900 individuals entering the GDF spontaneously since July, it became severely overcrowded and is no longer functioning as a transit center,” Cavalieri acknowledged in the statement.

Dozens of patients with tuberculosis languished in filthy rooms. Sewage overflowed. Armed guards turned the center into a prison. People went hungry as the U.N. warned that even emergency rations would be cut Jan. 1 for unapproved arrivals.

In preparation for closure, the UNHCR said it would relocate dozens of refugees slated for resettlement from the facility “to safer locations,” without elaborating. It promised to evacuate hundreds of others to “urban areas” in Libya, including 400 asylum-seekers who had fled a detention center hit by airstrikes in a deadly attack last July. All migrants would receive cash and medical assistance from the UNHCR.

“Other important aspects of our work in Libya continue at full pace and we hope to be able to resume our work at the GDF once safe to do so,” Cavalieri said.

Libya descended into chaos after the 2011 uprising that toppled and killed longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The fighting also transformed Libya, which sits on Africa’s Mediterranean coast, into a haven for extremists and a major conduit for migrants making perilous journeys to Europe.

Despite a cease-fire and intensifying international efforts to end the conflict, violence has only escalated as eastern-based opposition forces lay siege to Tripoli in a bid to wrest power from the U.N.-backed government. The most recent offensive has displaced over 150,000 people.

…

A garment factory in the small town of Bartella – east of Mosul, Iraq – employs some 550 workers; most of whom are women. The town is known by locals as ‘Small Iraq’ because workers from different religions and ethnicities live here. But while a factory of mostly women is a mark of progress, there are still issues. VOA’s Kawa Omar filed this report narrated by Bezhan Hamdard.

…

A municipal appeals court in Phnom Penh has upheld a lower-court ruling to continue investigating a pair of former Radio Free Asia reporters on espionage charges. 

Journalists Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin, who were detained for “illegally collecting information for a foreign source” in November 2017, had recently filed a motion to have the charges dropped. 

Their attorney, Sam Chamreoun, said Tuesday’s decision to reject the motion “overlooks my clients’ interests.” 

“We have one month to consider making another request to the Supreme Court,” he said in a statement quoted by the Khmer Times. 

“We are upset by the decision,” said Sothearin after the brief hearing, according to RFA, one of Voice of America’s congressionally funded sister agencies. “I think this is a political decision, not a judicial decision. I call on the court to speed up the judicial process to bring our case to trial.” 

Bureau closed

RFA’s Phnom Penh bureau was shuttered in September 2017 amid a government crackdown on news outlets. The November 2017 charges against Sothearin and Chhin allege the two men installed broadcasting equipment in a private Phnom Penh residence to continue transmitting reports to RFA’s Washington headquarters. 

During their nine months in detention, the government also charged the pair with producing pornography before releasing them on bail in August 2018. 

If found guilty of espionage, the men each face a maximum of 15 years in prison under Article 445 of the criminal code. The pornography charges carry up to one year in prison. 

Local and international rights groups have condemned the case as part of a broader crackdown on journalism and civil society in Cambodia. 

Am Sam Ath, deputy director of the Cambodian rights group Licadho, told RFA’s Khmer service that Tuesday’s ruling was “not fair” and reinforced the notion among many Cambodians that “the justice system is biased and has lost public trust.” 

Calling for the dismissal of the case, RFA President Bay Fang urged Cambodian authorities to “heed what the international community is telling them: This legal process is deeply unfair and undermines the principles of free expression and respect for a free press that are enshrined in Cambodia’s constitution.” 

“Cambodian authorities should stop treating reporters Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin like criminals and drop the bogus charges against them,” said Shawn Crispin, senior Southeast Asia representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists. “The longer their legal harassment continues, the more damage will be done to Cambodia’s already threadbare credibility as a democracy.” 

‘Up to its old tricks’

Human Rights Watch’s Phil Robertson said that the failure of the court to deliver a conclusive verdict exposed its position on political and civil rights. 

“The Cambodian government is clearly up to its old tricks. Foreign governments should interpret today’s inconclusive hearing as yet another signal the Cambodian government refuses to make any concessions on civil and political rights, and fails to respect the principle of media freedom,” he said. “More than ever, this case has been revealed as a crude tool to intimidate and silence other independent journalists in Cambodia.” 

Over the years, Cambodian journalists working for RFA have reported on corruption, illegal logging and forced evictions, among other stories largely ignored by pro-government media. Authorities had already closed independent radio stations carrying RFA reports, using a pretext of tax and administrative violations. 

The arrests of Chhin and Sothearin came after a warning from Cambodia’s Ministries of Information and Interior that any journalists still working for RFA after its office in the capital closed would be treated as spies. 

Paris-based Reporters Without Borders ranks Cambodia 143rd out of 180 countries in its 2019 World Press Freedom Index. 

Some information for this story came from RFA. 
 

…

Nigerian twin girls conjoined in the chest and abdominal regions are now living normal lives, weeks after being successfully separated at the state-owned National Hospital.  Medical experts say the operation was the most complicated case of conjoined twins separation in Nigeria. Timothy Obiezu reports from Nassarawa, near Abuja.

…

Lawyers for US President Donald Trump closed their defense Tuesday, telling the 100 senators weighing his removal from office he did nothing wrong in his dealings with Ukraine. The first phase of the Senate impeachment trial comes to a close amid a fight over admitting new evidence and witnesses – including former National Security Advisor John Bolton – into the next phase. VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports on what’s next on Capitol Hill.

…