 Hello and welcome to daily debrief brought to you by People's Dispatch. I'm Pragya. Ignoring multiple local protests, the United States is expanding its military presence in the Philippines. We look at why people are against this and the implications for the region. The ongoing meeting of the Executive Board of the World Health Assembly has flagged the language used to discuss sex and gender issues and there's an exhibition with an unusual theme. We bring you updates from the debates in Switzerland. And in our final segment, Russia's chess federation, the world's biggest, is leaving the European chess union for Asia. We'll discuss the latest in the divide in the chess world ever since the Ukraine war. The Philippines and the United States have announced an enhanced defense cooperation agreement ignoring protests in multiple cities. People are against expanded military ties with the United States, but it is bent upon viewing China as a threat. There will be regional repercussions to the growing US presence, which Anish from People's Dispatch has been tracking. Let's ask him about it. Anish, thanks a lot for joining us. Anish, what is the EDCA, the agreement between the United States and the Philippines in the military arena? What are they planning to do? Yeah, so this was an agreement that was signed in 2014 when the Philippines gave US military access to some of its bases for a very specific set of reasons, including training and logistical purposes and so on. These are not exactly the kind of conventional bases that we understand. They're sort of like a temporary base access. But in the current, in the way things run right now, it pretty much is like giving at least US setting up a sort of a temporary base, a proper temporary base in these military bases that the Philippines owns. And this is sort of like a new way because historically, the Philippines had had a very terrible past and history with US military presence. We must remember that it was under US colonial rule until the 1950s. And it was only after that, and after that, they had this colonial presence continued under the Marcos dictatorship for a very long time. So during the democratization process, this was one of the things that was removed. And so to pretty much basically appease the people at the time and not to attract too much protest and anger, they had this sort of a new kind of basing agreement. Now the thing is like at the time when the EDCA was signed, there were many protests and many people had, you know, and it wasn't just the progressive and the left wing groups, it was also a large number of, you know, the more liberal, more conservative groups who were also concerned about how it might affect sovereign decisions of the country. But the understanding was that it will not go beyond what was agreed upon at the time, which was like access to five bases. That's it. Right now, the thing is they are going to actually go ahead with another five bases, access to another five bases in more strategic allocations, including in Luzon, towards the, which is closer to the Taiwan Island and also to Palawan Island, which we talked about very recently where US Vice President Kamala Harris had made a visit. And this location is quite close to Philippines dispute with China in the South China Sea. So it is sort of like these sort of very strategic locations are being earmarked. We do not know the exact details of how they're going to expand and what sort of things that they're going to do right now. But this sort of is concerning at this point at a time when US is very clearly trying to encircle China. Right, and each and there are early protests against this in the Philippines, but they seem to have chosen to ignore that. Can you talk about what could be the aims, the strategic or other motives that both these countries have? Yeah, we have to remember that as much as a lot of criticism stand against the Duterte administration, there was in foreign policy wise, he had this sort of balancing act and we're trying to not be too involved in the kind of conflict, the diplomatic and trade conflicts that the two giants, essentially two superpowers had at the time and try to keep Philippines out of this conflict without taking a stand. Now that sort of policy is being slowly eroded away under the current Marcus Junior administration, who has shown more closeness to the current US administration and also towards creating close ties with the United States, which is concerning because over time, this is definitely going to have its own impact. So even when we talk about the South China Sea dispute, despite it being a multilateral dispute, it is not something that countries like us from Japan has any stakes in the matter. But nevertheless, the other ones who are being more involved in this matter, there is a very clear, as you pointed out, there is a very clear tendency in the Philippines right now, especially in the Philippines ruling class to actually move towards or to align towards the United States and the whatever kind of current conflict situation or dispute situation arises between the two countries in the region. And that is concerning because this is just part of, you know, we have seen for the past two or three years how the United States not only under the current Biden administration, but the previous Trump administration have tried to encircle with expanding its military footprint in the Asia Pacific. It is not just Philippines, but also Taiwan, Japan, very recently, where they're trying to expand its bases across the country in South Korea, where the president is now calling for nuclear weapon deployment into the peninsula or Taiwan, Australia, and so on. So this is sort of like a multilateral or a multi-pronged approach by the United States to expand its military presence in the region, where it really doesn't have territories or any kind of stakes, but it just has interest, very clear interest that it wants to protect and obviously allies with very problematic past. And this is sort of a part of that. And that can, you know, that will only create more flash point. The China's flash point in Southeast Asia has been almost mill, despite the South China Sea dispute, but with US involvement in such instances can actually only aggravate whatever disputes exist and create more flash points in the future. All right, Anish, thanks a lot for joining us. And I'm glad you could stay on despite the power troubles that seem to be plaguing your end of the internet. Thanks a lot. The World Health Assembly's executive board is meeting in Geneva, Switzerland these days, while the decision-making body of the WHO will convene this summer to pick a director general and firm up its budget. A lot of contentious and important issues are being debated by the executive board as well. Jyotsna from the People's Health Movement is in Geneva for this discussion. She brings us an interesting update. Right, Jyotsna, great to have you join us all the way from Switzerland. I think you're in the middle of a lot of very long meetings. Can you tell us, you know, what we discussed earlier, you were saying that there is going to be a sort of discussion on the language when we speak about gender, when we speak about sex, what was that discussion about? Yeah, hi. So yeah, this is today's the fifth day of like really hectic and intense meetings that are happening, not just meetings and what is happening on the floor. So before that, maybe if I can just explain how it is, it works here generally, is that there are agenda items which are given to the member states. The countries are called member states because they are the members of the WHO. That's what WHO is, right? And so the agendas are being set. And then after the director general presents something on that agenda item, it can be a report or a proposal or a note taking report, just noting what has happened in the last one year. Every country gets three minutes to speak. So they have a statement, they respond to it. And after the countries have spoken is the term of the non-government related organization speed, NGOs or other stakeholders like associations and parma associations, etc. So that's how it goes. The point is, it is, when you attend these, it is very interesting to see how the understanding of foreign policy or the understanding regarding sex and gender that exists within a country that comes out through in these statements. It may or may not be at times related to the agenda item, but then in this time of social media and this creating an image at every point of time you can. So you try to push it through. So for example, we are seeing and it is not only in this particular executive body board meeting, but last year also in World Health Assembly, the language around gender and sex is always something in across all the documents that becomes a matter of controversy and concern. So for example, there was a particular agenda being discussed today and Russia very clearly said that there is no consensus among the countries on use of language regarding gender and sex. We will not have that language in our document at all. And these are some very important points for last year. The example I'm giving is regarding guidelines for HIV treatment and control and management. And in that, and it is very much related to your sexual priorities and it is the sexual minorities are worst affected, the sex workers are worst affected, but there also there were a lot of countries who would not agree to that language. And I do not remember exactly, but if I'm not wrong, the language regarding men who have sex with men, any reference to homosexuality and non heteronormative sexual behavior that had to be taken out because countries would not accept it. And that just waters down everything that you know people need for treatment. US under Trump administration constantly spoke against any reference to sexual and reproductive rights because they did not believe that because they said abortion cannot be a right. So there were though there were so many countries who would work towards it. And the WHO wanted it that language could not come. The US has changed is a stand now with Biden administration it is better. But that's what you see this, it might sound like dynamic and dynamism. But the problem I think is in most of these cases than the conservatives take over because if you have to build consensus and this doesn't happen. So we are seeing it this time also in many of the documents. And they do not specifically relate to sexual health or reproductive health, but it's still the references become a problem. And it becomes a problem because then you are not letting sexual minorities and women get that attention, which they do across board. So yeah. You also referred to a sort of interesting conference or a sort of exposition on the women who have been victims of sexual violence, their clothes being sort of on display sounds like a very controversial idea. Also interesting, what did you make of it? Yeah. So I mean, that's what you feel that on the one hand, you are having these discussions inside, which can actually change the policy and these are policy matters. And on the other end, WHO is trying to build that kind of an understanding. So there is an exhibition right where the room is for discussions. And these are clothes of survivors of sexual violence. And and and the idea actually with WHO is I mean what they're trying to say. And we we will can show it on the screen. So what they're trying to say is it does not matter what a woman were. So the first question everybody asks is what were you wearing. And it is like making the woman the way as if she asked for it that kind of a thing and not really looking at the perpetrator. And then you go through it and it's it's quite a stressful in one sense because you see all kinds of clothes. You see clothes of six year old children. So that survival like she was wearing shorts and t-shirt as a kid. And she was sexually harassed at that age. You also have there was one there is one which is which are clothes of a health worker a nurse actually. And so she was harassed and she was wearing her work dress of a firefighter. So so so these are the things and then I think in one sense it is good to create that consciousness because these things for a lot of us have become very normative to talk about that you cannot talk about clothes when you talk about harassment. But I refer to the discussions again you realize that probably that's not the case you still have to keep harping on these points again and again. And let us not forget the WHO somewhere probably is trying to do this a bit of damage control because last year in October there was an accusation of sexual misconduct at a meeting by a British doctor against the WHO staff. It is a still pending that the inquiry is there but it is a still pending and so it is also about that image that the WHO would like to maintain. And there is a lot of sexual harassment across WHO offices. There was a report actually presented by the Director General Ted Rose this time and it showed that even in the WHO headquarters where we are sitting this time a lot of sexual harassment complaints have come and it looks like WHO really has to address this problem now it is happening across their regional offices it's happening in their headquarters. So I think this is all comes to how you treat women and other sexual minorities and minorities and what do we take from here. Right Jyotsana thanks a lot for joining us. The Russian Chess Federation has over 35,000 players and 200 grandmasters but the European Chess Union has decided it is politically exposed because of political members in the RCF. Russia has already suspended from the European Chess Union since last year when the Ukraine war began. It also lost out on chances to participate in championships over the last year. Siddhanth Ani joins us with an update. So Siddhan good to have you back on the show. Siddhanth is Russia leaving the Union in Europe or are they being made to leave? I mean so I guess after being suspended they were pushed into a corner and I think we can start by saying that the Russian Chess Federation or and before that the Soviet Chess Federation is a global powerhouse. Currently there are 35,000 players including more than 200 or so grandmasters. So you know Russia and Chess are like pretty synonymous. The last Chess Olympiad was the first major event to be taken away from Russia after this suspension came into place both from the European Chess Union as well as the International Organization FIDE which runs World Chess. So Indian chess fans in that case benefited because Chennai then hosted the Chess Olympiad where over 190 countries participated. Now Chess has not gone as far as to ban individual chess players from either Russia or Belarus. Only the federations are banned so individuals are allowed to compete either under the flag of the Chess Association or by moving to other countries. For example a woman grandmaster has recently decided to compete under the Swiss flag. So similarly several players have moved to Europe or other parts of the world and are now competing with using the flags of that country. But in the long run I mean what I guess the war in Ukraine has done is it's created a divide between Asia and Europe, East and West. I think quite clearly and across sport we've seen it. We were talking a couple of days ago about Russian athletes being invited to participate in the Asian games also being held in China in 2023. There were conversations about Russia's moving its football union as well from Europe into Asia because Asian countries are still maintaining the line that there is politics and the war in Ukraine is part of that but sport is somehow separate from it. European sports bodies and to a large extent international sports bodies based on what the International Olympic Committee has actually suggested have not taken a similarly apolitical or non-aligned stance in this matter and they've gone ahead and of course put bans and suspensions etc in place. So it's a bit of both. One is to look at the benefit of the athletes in this case chess players. I'm not sure if they are called athletes as well. But also to put some kind of pressure back on those who are imposing these kind of sanctions and bans because if you take away Russia from let's say the European chess union then you take away a country that hosts a lot of events, a country that puts a lot of money into it. The international chess association president at this point is also the chairman of the Russian railways Arkady Dvorkovic. So it's interesting how this is playing out but the fact is that it's a bit of both. They are pushed into a corner and therefore they are reacting and now moving to Asia. Thanks for joining us Siddharth. And that is all we have for today. Thank you for watching Daily Debrief. Do come back to us tomorrow. You can visit our website for more People's Dispatch stories and watch our regular updates on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.