 Hello and welcome to the International Daily Roundup by People's Dispatch, where we bring you major news and elements from across the world. Our headlines? UK Bands, Huawei's 5G infrastructure as US-China trade was heightened. Rights groups from around the world call on UN to investigate the killing of Ahmad Erakat in Pakistan. As protests in the US continue, Philadelphia residents sue the city for police violence. Workers at Indian airport, approved retrenchments, claimed union busting attempts. The United Kingdom government, led by Boris Johnson, has announced a ban on Huawei's equipment and 5G networks. The announcement was made by UK's digital secretary Oliver Dowden, reversing an earlier decision by the same government in January. That decision had allowed for limited operations for the company. The UK-based companies have been given until 2027 to remove all Huawei equipment from the British networks. Despite the government's denial that the move was influenced by the US, Dowden did admit that going back on the January decision was in response to new sanctions imposed by the Trump administration. Newspix, Prabir Pulkajasa explains the politics and economics behind the move. Today we are joined by Prabir Pulkajasa and we will be talking about the decision by the United Kingdom to phase out Huawei's equipment from their 5G network. Now this decision basically implies that British firms will not be allowed to purchase equipment from Huawei after December 31st of this year and by 2027 they need to remove all of the company's equipment from their networks. So Prabir, to start with, to just get a technical understanding of really what's happening here, what exactly does it mean when we say that Huawei's equipment is being moved out of the 5G network in a country? Well, as you know, the 5G network has become the bone of contention because this is one area China is clearly ahead of the rest. Both in terms of the technology itself, they have been the pioneers of this technology. In terms of rolling out the network and rolling out the entire gamut of equipment which is necessary for the networks, from the phones to the network to all the other components which make it interface with other systems. So Huawei, they had that technical lead as systems, but they also, and it's important to understand this, they also have set much of the standards in that area. In fact, I think Chinese contributions are almost 60% of the total standard, standard that were emanated from the standardization committee, which of course is all a lot of other countries and a lot of other companies as well. And the third part is the patents, Huawei still holds, currently holds a very large number of patents on 5G technologies. So all these three areas, the Chinese had a Chinese company, Huawei had a lead. And of course with the recent tech or trade war between China and the United States, the United States really launched, Huawei has been a target and it's a target because it's also a threat to a lot of other Western companies in telecom and certainly the American companies because America really at the moment is nothing comparable to what Huawei can deliver to any country in the world. So to keep them out is a defensive war at first. Okay, even if it postpones 5G technology introduction to a number of countries, so be it, including the United States, but so be it, while this lead cannot be translated, the tech lead cannot be translated in terms of market share. That seems to be the intent of the Huawei ban specifically because Huawei 5G ban is also what shall we say, also strategic, it only talks about one particular area where the United States and other Western countries are behind. And therefore not letting the 5G technology be, market be dominated by Huawei seems to be the intention of the ban. Of course, there is a larger trade or tech war at play and which we'll talk about. So this is one issue where the United Kingdom is a part of 5Is Alliance, as you know the Stooping Alliance, the Global Stooping Alliance, that the UK not accepting the American decision to not allow 5G and also the passive implicit threat the US made, that if it doesn't, then will it be able to do information sharing with UK, means that UK has now rethought their options. And with UK going out of the European common European Union, there is also the issue that their obvious alliance is now the United States, they're not a part of the European Union, economically they will have to find other partners. And finding a big partner in the world today, if it is not European Union, is either China or the United States. And clearly the UK is far more comfortable with the United States. It has always been a very close ally within Europe of the United States, there are talks about it being America's poodle and so on, which will not refer to here. But the reality is, it is the United States closest ally in the European Union and probably in the world. And therefore it's finally falling in line means at least the 5Is Alliance now is solidified against allowing, who are we in? And therefore there is a market now for other companies. What will the European Union countries do? As of now, as you know, European Union does not take a unified position on any of these things. These are country by country decisions. And it as of date, this is still very opaque. Which countries will go the United States, which countries won't? Because effectively they'll have to wait for new 5G technologies to emerge against something which is already available, which can speed up the networks enormously, which has a lot of what is called IOT, Internet of Things applications. So a whole bunch of things then technologically, those countries which do adopt 5G later will then be behind. In our next story, a group of 83 rights organizations from around the world have written an urgent letter to the United Nations Special Procedures, appealing for a thorough investigational to the extrajudicial killing of Ahmad Rakhat. In an appeal published on Tuesday, the group has urged the UN to make sure that justice is delivered in the case and those responsible be held accountable as per law. The group highlighted Israel's shoot to kill policy, which is routinely used by security forces and Palestinians with no lawful cause of justification. 27-year-old Ahmad Rakhat was shot dead by Israeli soldiers at a military checkpoint in the occupied West Bank last month. The Israeli military claimed that he had attacked soldiers at the checkpoint and posed a threat. Family members and witnesses have denied these claims. Moreover, Ahmad's body is yet to be released to his family. This is a common practice that the occupying forces employ as a form of collective punishment on the victim's family. In total, Israel is still withholding the bodies of 63 Palestinians killed by its forces. Such practices are deemed a prohibited ill treatment by the UN Committee Against Tortures in 2016. The joint appeal also asks the UN to put pressure on Israel to unconditionally release the bodies of all the Palestinians that are currently in its custody. They have also asked for the perpetrators of Ahmad's killing and others to be tried under international laws for war crimes and crimes against humanity. We now move to the United States, where as anti-racist and anti-police protests continue. On Tuesday, three class-action lawsuits were filed by protesters against the city of Philadelphia. The lawsuits were filed by a group of national and local civil rights groups and advocates, including the Abolitionist Law Center and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on behalf of 146 people. The lawsuits are in response to the violent crackdown on protesters by the city police on June 1. The petitioners, residents of Philadelphia, have claimed that various injuries and damages were caused because of police violence, though they also include a few bystanders who faced attacks from the police. The charges include violation of protesters' constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, disproportionate targeting of black protesters and establishments, and the use of military-grade tools for crowd control. According to reports, the police made use of armored vehicles, tear gas, rubber bullets, and pepper spray to quell the protests. The lawsuit is the latest in the pushback against police departments across the United States for their violence on peaceful protests. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against city administrations and their police departments, 40 of which took place in the first month of the ongoing protests. And finally, on Sunday, airport workers had a demonstration outside the Delhi airport in India to protest their retrenchment. The employees were workers of Salibi Airport Services. The demonstration was carried out by the Salibi Employees Union, which is alleged that its leaders and members have been targeted with reprisals over the past three years. The union also alleged that Salibi Airport Services India has now used the pandemic as a pretense to get rid of unionized workers. Ground handling operations at the airport have been outsourced since 2010 to the company owned by the Turkey-based Salibi Aviation Holding. Citing laws of business, due to the pandemic, it reduced its 1800-odd workforce by 708 last month. The retrenchment will leave only around 200 union members among the remaining 1100 or so workers. On June 12th, Salibi's HR department personnel allegedly called and informed the workers of the retrenchment. They were offered compensation of one extra month's pay in addition to the salaries calculated in the first 12 days of the month. Among the retrenched are a small number of managerial staff, but a vast majority of workers whose tasks include cleaning the aircraft, luggage handling and wheelchair assistance. That's all we have in this episode of the International Daily Roundup. We'll be back tomorrow with major news developments from around the world. Until then, keep watching People's Dispatch.