World News
Less than half of EU travellers are aware of EU Passenger Rights

The European Commission today released the results of a Eurobarometer survey on passenger rights in the European Union (EU). According to the survey, 43% of EU citizens who have travelled by air, long-distance rail, coach, ship or ferry in the previous 12 months (‘travellers’) know that the EU has put in place rights for passengers.
Commissioner for Transport Adina Vălean said: “The European Union is the only area in the world where citizens are protected by a full set of passenger rights. However, these rights need to be better known and easier to understand and enforced. Our rules should also provide more legal certainty to passengers and the industry. This is why the Commission proposed to modernise air and rail passenger rights.We now need Council and the European Parliament to swiftly reach agreement on them to ensure that people travelling in the EU are effectively protected.”
Passenger rights are defined at EU level. They are applied by transport providers and enforced by national bodies. Disparities between national practices can make it hard for passengers to get a clear picture of what to do and to whom to turn, especially as passengers often move across EU borders.
The Commission has already stepped up efforts to make passenger rights clearer, and to raise awareness about these rights. The Commission has done so through legislative proposals for air and rail passenger rights, through guidelines, and through regular communication about relevant case law. The Commission also launched an awareness-raising campaign.
More results from the survey:
32% of all respondents (including those who did not travel with one of the transport modes referred to above in the last 12 months) know passenger rights exist in the EU, for air, rail, coach or ship or ferry transport. But only 14% are specifically aware for air travel, 8% for rail, 5% for coach and 3% for travel by ship or ferry. Respondents who have travelled by at least one of these modes are more likely to be aware of passenger rights (43% vs 32%), although this remains below 50%.
The percentage of travellers who feel they were well informed about their rights by transport companies before travelling varies by transport mode: 40% for air passengers, 29% for ship or ferry passengers, 26% for rail passengers and 26% for coach passengers. Percentages are even lower for information received during and after travel.
Respondents who have experienced disruption during air travel are more likely to have complained than those using other modes: 37% of air passengers vs 26% of coach passengers, 24% of rail passengers, and 18% of ship or ferry passengers complained. All modes combined: 26%. Among respondents who experienced a travel disruption but did not make an official complaint (72%), the most likely reason for not complaining was the feeling that it was useless to do so (45%), followed by the amount of money involved being seen as too small (25%).
Of those who have experienced air travel disruption over the last 12 months, 53% indicated that the airline offered some form of help (either food and drinks or alternative flight, reimbursement, financial compensation, accommodation, etc.), whether passengers complained or not. Only 43% of rail passenger respondents, and 38% who had travelled by coach, ship or ferry indicated that transport companies offered help in case of disruptions.
55% of respondents who complained to the transport company about disruption say they were satisfied by the way their complaint was dealt with, but only 37% of those who had experienced a disruption claimed to be satisfied with the way the transport company informed them about complaints procedures.
A large majority (81%) of those who have at some point requested assistance for a person with a disability or reduced mobility (i.e. 8% of respondents) declare themselves satisfied with the transport company’s response. Fewer (60%) expressed satisfaction when more than one mode was used.
Next steps
The survey results will feed into two ongoing legislative procedures, on rail and air passenger rights, as well as evaluations of the rights of bus & coach passengers, the rights of ship and ferry passengers, and the rights of air passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility. Accessibility to multimodal transport for these passengers, as well as other travellers, will also be considered in this context.
Background information
The survey was conducted between 19 February and 4 March 2019, and involved interviewing 27,973 EU citizens.
EU legislation to protect passenger rights and ensure they are not lost in a myriad of national rules has been introduced for all transport modes – this is unique in the world, no other continent offers passengers of all modes such protection.
World News
Gen. Li Shangfu: “When jackals or wolves come, we will face them with shotguns”

In his first international public address since becoming defense minister in March, General Li Shangfu told the Shangri-La Dialogue that China doesn’t have any problems with “innocent passage” but that “we must prevent attempts that try to use those freedom of navigation (patrols), that innocent passage, to exercise hegemony of navigation.”
A U.S. guided-missile destroyer and a Canadian frigate were intercepted by a Chinese warship as they transited the strait between the self-governed island of Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory, and mainland China. The Chinese vessel overtook the American ship and then veered across its bow at a distance of 150 yards in an “unsafe manner,” according to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
Additionally, the U.S. has said a Chinese J-16 fighter jet late last month “performed an unnecessarily aggressive maneuver” while intercepting a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance aircraft over the South China Sea, flying directly in front of the plane’s nose.
Those and previous incidents have raised concerns of a possible accident occurring that could lead to an escalation between the two nations at a time when tensions are already high.
Li suggested the U.S. and its allies had created the danger, and should instead should focus on taking “good care of your own territorial airspace and waters.”
“The best way is for the countries, especially the naval vessels and fighter jets of countries, not to do closing actions around other countries’ territories,” he said through an interpreter. “What’s the point of going there? In China we always say, ‘Mind your own business.’”
He accused the U.S. and others of “meddling in China’s internal affairs” by providing Taiwan with defense support and training, and conducting high-level diplomatic visits.
“China stays committed to the path of peaceful development, but we will never hesitate to defend our legitimate rights and interests, let alone sacrifice the nation’s core interests,” he said.
“As the lyrics of a well-known Chinese song go: ‘When friends visit us, we welcome them with fine wine. When jackals or wolves come, we will face them with shotguns.’”
In his speech U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin broadly outlined the U.S. vision for a “free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific within a world of rules and rights.”
Li scoffed at the notion, saying “some country takes a selective approach to rules and international laws.” “It likes forcing its own rules on others,” he said. “Its so-called ‘rules-based international order’ never tells you what the rules are and who made these rules.”
World News
Republicans accuse Biden of corruption

Biden whistleblowers ‘fear for their lives’: Republicans say FBI won’t hand over alleged $5 million ‘bribery’ document because key informant’s safety could be in jeopardy, writes London “Daily Mail”. The FBI allowed leaders of the House Oversight Committee to view the FD-1023 form Republicans say proves President Biden was involved in a $5 million criminal bribery scheme.
House Republicans say that the FBI is violating a subpoena to turn over an alleged Biden ‘bribery’ document because the original informant’s life could be in danger if they are ‘unmasked’ – despite the names being redacted.
According to a ‘highly credible’ whistleblower, an internal FD-1023 memo created in 2020 based off information from a highly-paid FBI informant apparently details a $5 million ‘arrangement’ for an exchange of money for policy decisions between then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., told DailyMail.com that the foreign nation involved in the $5 million money exchange was Ukraine, and that it happened seven years ago. Greene added that the FBI could take measures to protect the informant’s life if they ‘cared about doing the right thing.’
The Georgia congresswoman added that it is necessary to move forward with contempt charges against Wray because the information contained in the document is ‘so damaging and so dangerous to our national security’ that Americans need the facts.
After reviewing the document, House Oversight Committee Republicans Chairman James Comer told reporters the accusations contained in the form ‘suggests a pattern of bribery’ consistent with findings the committee has put out publicly.
It’s called ‘money laundering,’ he said, saying it fits within the pattern of over $1 million in Romanian-linked payments to the Biden family revealed last month.
The White House has also pushed back, calling the Republican-led investigation ‘unfounded’ and ‘politically motivated.’
World News
China takes leadership role in Central Asia

The China-Central Asia Summit, which took place recently in Xi’an on May 18-19 was every bit a geopolitical event as much as the G7 summit in Hiroshima that it overlapped. The symbolism was profound, notes M.K. Bhadrakumar, Indian Ambassador and prominent international observer.
China and Russia were the elephants in the room for both summits but the Xi’an summit distinguished itself as an inclusive affair, whereas, the G7 event was, regrettably, an exclusive gathering of wealthy countries of the Western World dripping with cold war-era animosities, and it didn’t hide its intentions even in its choice of “special invitees” — one ASEAN country; two BRICS countries; one tiny African state; a Pacific island etc. — borne out of the old colonial mindset of “divide and rule.”
The biggest difference was that the Xi’an summit was substantive and focused on a positive agenda that is quantifiable, while the Hiroshima summit was largely prescriptive and partly declarative and only marginally tangible. This was because the China-Central Asia summit took place on native soil while the G7 has no habitation and name in Asia except that one of the seven member countries is of Asian origin and the summit itself was a thinly-veiled attempt to insert the alien Western agenda into the Asian setting.
The China-Central Asia Summit was motivated by the growing realisation that the countries of the Eurasian region must play a proactive role in the common task of pushing back the United States, the driving force of the G7, which they perceive to be attempting to destabilise the common neighbourhood of Russia and China in Central Asia. Simply put, the Xi’an summit tacitly signalled that Russia and China are unitedly circling the wagons for a common purpose — to borrow an idiom which was employed by the Americans in the 19th century to describe a defensive manoeuvre.
From a historical perspective, it is for the first time ever that Russia and China are explicitly joining hands to stabilise the Central Asian region — a momentous happening by itself — with Beijing assuming a leadership role, given Russia’s preoccupations in Ukraine. This paradigm shift belies the western propaganda that Russian and Chinese interests collide in the Central Asian region. There is a strategic convergence between Moscow and Beijing that stability in Central Asian region, which is vital for both capitals in their own interests, is best achieved through ensuring security, boosting economic development or international political backing.
The Xi’an Declaration released after the summit includes 15 points, divided into several blocks of issues: security, logistics, trade and economic cooperation, humanitarian cooperation and ecology.
China’s thesis is that security is best strengthened through economic development and for that reason, therefore, the region is important from the point of view of economic cooperation and regional development — although in aggregate terms, Central Asian economic resources are nowhere near sufficient for meeting China’s needs.
Suffice to say, terrorist threats emanating from the region, posing threat to Xinjiang, are China’s main concern and Beijing is willing to openly invest its resources in the security of the region and take part in the training of the anti–terrorist forces of the Central Asian states. Geographically, three out of the five Central Asian countries, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, share borders with China. As for Russia, it has long regarded the region as its traditional sphere of influence and a strategic buffer zone, and thus prioritised the security of its southern border. Therefore, a safe and secure Central Asia aligns with China and Russia’s respective national interests.
In the context of the Ukraine crisis, Central Asia has emerged as a frontline for the US strategy to contain and weaken Russia. However, although Central Asian countries have adopted a neutral stance on the Ukraine situation, Russia’s influence in the region remains strong and is unlikely to be largely disrupted. Three key factors are at work here.
First, Russia is seen as the provider of security and Russia’s defence capabilities continue to play a crucial role in maintaining stability in the region.
Second, Central Asian states heavily depend on Russia in regard of labor migration, market access, transportation, and energy resources, and no other outside power foots the bill.
Third, do not underestimate that the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union continues to systematically build up regional economic integration.
The Xi’an Declaration talks about resisting religious extremism and attempts by external forces to impose their own rules on the region.
It stands to reason that China and the Central Asian states and Russia felt the need to create more effective mechanisms and plans in their common space so as to impart a new quality of cooperation, and supplement the SCO if need arises.
So far, Russia was engaged in strengthening political integration, while China systematically and powerfully interacted with the governments of Central Asian countries for the development of energy and infrastructure projects within the framework of a full-fledged economic expansion. That division of labour worked rather well, but then, the regional security environment changed dramatically of late.
For example, it has become vital for Moscow in the context of the rupture of Russia’s energy ties with Europe to divert its oil and gas exports to the Chinese market, and that requires Central Asian infrastructure in transit mode — a novel idea altogether.
Suffice to say, a high level of harmonisation and synchronisation of the national plans of the Central Asian countries is needed. Currently, there are no agreed common strategies in the Central Asian region, which has a population of 75 million, M.K. Bhadrakumar stresses.
-
Central Asia3 days ago
The China-Central Asia Summit Downsizes Russian Role in the Region
-
Defense4 days ago
Rising Powers in the Asia-Pacific: Implications for Global Stability
-
Finance3 days ago
Bloomberg: Backlash against weaponized dollar is growing across the World
-
Diplomacy4 days ago
Water Diplomacy – A Tool for Peace and Well Being
-
Southeast Asia4 days ago
China’s Stranglehold on South East Asia: Shaping the Future of the Region
-
World News4 days ago
BRICS meet with ‘friends’ seeking closer ties amid push to expand bloc
-
Finance3 days ago
Sanctions against Russia like a “tiger without fangs”
-
World News4 days ago
FT: CIA chief made secret visit to China