ReportWire

Tag: Democracy

  • China threatens retaliation if Tsai and McCarthy meet

    China threatens retaliation if Tsai and McCarthy meet

    [ad_1]

    BEIJING — China has threatened “resolute countermeasures” over a planned meeting between Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and Speaker of the United States House Speaker Kevin McCarthy during an upcoming visit in Los Angeles by the head of the self-governing island democracy.

    Diplomatic pressure against Taiwan has ramped up recently, with Beijing poaching Taipei’s dwindling number of diplomatic allies while also sending military fighter jets flying toward the island on a near daily basis. Earlier this month, Honduras established diplomatic relations with China, leaving Taiwan with only 13 countries that recognize it as a sovereign state.

    Tsai framed the trip as a chance to show Taiwan’s commitment to democratic values on the world stage, as she left Taiwan Wednesday afternoon to begin her 10-day tour of the Americas.

    “I want to tell the whole world democratic Taiwan will resolutely safeguard the values of freedom and democracy, and will continue to be a force for good in the world, continuing a cycle of goodness, strengthening the resilience of democracy in the world,” she told reporters before she boarded the plane. “External pressure will not obstruct our resolution to engage with the world.”

    Tsai is scheduled to transit through New York on March 30 before heading to Guatemala and Belize. On April 5, she’s expected to stop in Los Angeles on her way back to Taiwan, at which time the meeting with McCarthy is tentatively scheduled.

    The U.S. stops are the most closely watched of her trip.

    Spokesperson for the Cabinet’s Taiwan Affairs Office Zhu Fenglian at a news conference Wednesday denounced Tsai’s stopover on her way to diplomatic allies in Central America and demanded that no U.S. officials meet with her.

    “We firmly oppose this and will take resolute countermeasures,” Zhu said. The U.S. should “refrain from arranging Tsai Ing-wen’s transit visits and even contact with American officials, and take concrete actions to fulfill its solemn commitment not to support Taiwan independence,” she said.

    Transit visits through the United States during broader international travel by the Taiwanese president have been routine over the years, senior U.S. officials in Washington and Beijing have underscored to their Chinese counterparts.

    In such unofficial visits in recent years, Tsai has met with members of Congress and the Taiwanese diaspora and has been welcomed by the chairperson of the American Institute in Taiwan, the U.S. government-run nonprofit that carries out unofficial relations with Taiwan.

    Tsai transited through the United States six times between 2016 and 2019 before slowing international travel with the coronavirus pandemic. In reaction to those visits, China lashed out rhetorically against the U.S. and Taiwan.

    However, the planned meeting with McCarthy has triggered fears of a heavy-handed Chinese reaction amid heightened frictions between Beijing and Washington over U.S. support for Taiwan, trade and human rights issues.

    Following a visit by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan in 2022, Beijing launched missiles over the area, deployed warships across the median line of the Taiwan Strait and carried out military exercises in a simulated blockade of the island. Beijing also suspended climate talks with the U.S. and restricted military-to-military communication with the Pentagon.

    McCarthy, R-Calif., has said he would meet with Tsai when she is in the U.S. and has not ruled out the possibility of traveling to Taiwan in a show of support.

    Beijing sees official American contact with Taiwan as encouragement to make the island’s decades-old de facto independence permanent, a step U.S. leaders say they don’t support. Pelosi, D-Calif., was the highest-ranking elected American official to visit the island since then-Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997. Under the “One China” policy, the U.S. acknowledges Beijing’s view that it has sovereignty over Taiwan, but considers Taiwan’s status as unsettled. Taipei is an important partner for Washington in the Indo-Pacific.

    U.S. officials are increasingly worried about China attempting to make good on its long-stated goal of bringing Taiwan under its control by force if necessary. The sides split amid civil war in 1949 and Beijing sees U.S. politicians conspiring with Tsai’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party to make the separation permanent and stymy China’s rise as a global power.

    The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which has governed U.S. relations with the island, does not require Washington to step in militarily if China invades but makes it American policy to ensure Taiwan has the resources to defend itself and to prevent any unilateral change of status by Beijing.

    Tensions spiked earlier this year when President Joe Biden ordered a Chinese spy balloon shot down after it traversed the continental United States. The Biden administration has also said U.S. intelligence findings show that China is weighing sending arms to Russia for its ongoing war in Ukraine, but has no evidence Beijing has done so yet.

    China, however, has provided Russia with an economic lifeline and political support, and President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping met in Moscow earlier this month. That was the first face-to-face meeting between the allies since before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine more than a year ago.

    The Biden administration postponed a planned visit to Beijing by Secretary of State Antony Blinken following the balloon controversy but has signaled it would like to get such a visit back on track.

    ___

    AP reporter Huizhong Wu in Taipei, Taiwan, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A threat to democracy or much-needed reform? Israel’s judicial overhaul explained | CNN

    A threat to democracy or much-needed reform? Israel’s judicial overhaul explained | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Jerusalem
    CNN
     — 

    For months hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been taking to the streets across the country to regularly protest far-reaching changes to the Israel’s legal system some say threaten the country’s democratic foundations.

    At its core, the judicial overhaul would give the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, and therefore the parties in power, more control over Israel’s judiciary.

    From how judges are selected, to what laws the Supreme Court can rule on, to even giving parliament power to overturn Supreme Court decisions, the changes would be the most significant shakeups to Israel’s judiciary since its founding in 1948.

    The proposed reforms do not come out of nowhere.

    Figures from across the political spectrum have in the past called for changes to Israel’s judiciary.

    Israel has no written constitution, only a set of quasi-constitutional basic laws, making the Supreme Court even more powerful. But Israel also has no check on the power of the Knesset other than the Supreme Court.

    Here’s what you need to know.

    The judicial overhaul is a package of bills, all of which need to pass three votes in the Knesset before they become law.

    One of the most important elements for the Netanyahu government is the bill that changes the makeup of the nine-member committee that selects judges, in order to give the government a majority of the seats on the committee.

    Netanyahu and his supporters argue that the Supreme Court has become an insular, elitist group that does not represent the Israeli people. They argue the Supreme Court has overstepped its role, getting into issues it should not rule on.

    But the anger has also reached the business community, academia and even the military

    Defending his plans, the prime minister has pointed to countries like the United States, where politicians control which federal judges are appointed and approved.

    Another significant element of the changes is known as the override clause, which would give the Israeli parliament the power to pass laws previously ruled invalid by the court, essentially overriding Supreme Court decisions.

    Supporters say the Supreme Court should not interfere in the will of the people, who vote the politicians into power.

    “We go to the polls, vote, and time after time, people we did not elect decide for us,” Justice Minister Yariv Levin said while unveiling the reforms at the beginning of January.

    Another bill, now voted through, makes it more difficult for a sitting Prime Minister to be declared unfit for office, restricting the reasons to physical or mental incapacity and requiring either the prime minister themselves, or two-thirds of the cabinet, to vote for such a declaration.

    Although several bills could affect Netanyahu it is the one about declaring a prime minister “unfit for office” that has the biggest implication for the Israeli prime minister.

    Critics say Netanyahu is pushing the overhaul forward because of his own ongoing corruption trial, where he faces charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. He denies any wrongdoing.

    That bill is largely seen by opposition leaders as a way to protect Netanyahu from being declared unfit for office as a result of the trial.

    As part of a deal with the court to serve as a prime minister despite being on trial, Netanyahu accepted a conflict of interest declaration. The Attorney General determined that the declaration meant Netanyahu could not be involved in the policy-making of the judicial overhaul. A petition is currently in front of the Israeli Supreme Court to declare Netanyahu unfit for office on the grounds he has violated that conflict of interest declaration and the attorney general has written an open letter to Netanyahu saying he is in breach of the deal and the law.

    Critics also argue that if the government has a greater say in which judges are appointed, Netanyahu’s allies will appoint judges they know will rule in Netanyahu’s favor.

    Netanyahu is accused of self-interest in pursuing the legal shake-up

    Netanyahu, it should be said, has completely denied this and has claimed his trial is “unraveling” on its own.

    In the past, Netanyahu has publicly expressed strong support for an independent judiciary. Asked why he’s supporting such an overhaul despite those public proclamations, Netanyahu told CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I haven’t changed my view. I think we need a strong, independent judiciary. But an independent judiciary doesn’t mean an unbridled judiciary, which is what has happened here, I mean, over the last 25 years.”

    Weakening the judicial branch could limit both Israelis and Palestinians in seeking the court’s defense of their rights if they believe they are compromised by the government.

    Palestinians in the occupied West Bank could be affected, and of course Palestinian citizens of Israel or those who hold residency cards would be directly affected. Israel’s Supreme Court has no influence on what happens in Gaza, which is ruled by the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

    Critics of the changes worry that if the politicians have more control, the rights of minorities in Israel, especially Palestinians living in Israel, would be impacted.

    Last year, for example, the court halted the evictions of Palestinian families in the flashpoint neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, where Jewish groups have claimed ownership of land the families have lived on for decades.

    The protesters have vowed to fight on, but Netanyahu has given no indication he will back down

    At the same time, Palestinian activists have argued that the high court has further entrenched Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, having never considered the legality of Israeli settlements there, even though they’re considered illegal by most of the international community.

    The high court has also been the subject of complaints from Israel’s far right and settlers, who say it is biased against settlers; they have condemned the court’s involvement in approving the eviction of settlers from Gaza and the Northern West Bank in 2005.

    The overhaul has caused concern across Israel’s financial, business, security and academic sectors.

    Critics say the overhaul goes too far, and will completely destroy the only avenue available to provide checks and balances to the Israeli legislative branch.

    They warn it will harm the independence of the Israeli judiciary, and will hurt rights not enshrined in Israel’s quasi-constitutional basic laws, like minority rights and freedom of expression.

    According to polling released in February by the Israel Democracy Institute, only a minority of Israelis support the reforms. The vast majority – 72% – want a compromise to be reached and, even then, 66% think the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down lawa and 63% of Israelis think the current method of appointing judges should stay as it is.

    Members of the typically apolitical high-tech sector have also spoken out against the reforms. Assaf Rappaport, CEO of cybersecurity firm Wiz, has said the firm won’t be moving any of the $300 million capital it recently raised to Israel because of the unrest over the overhaul.

    Israel’s Central Bank Governor Amir Yaron told CNN’s Richard Quest that the reforms are too “hasty” and risk harming the economy.

    Several former Mossad chiefs have also spoken out against the reforms, warning division over the issue is harming Israeli security. Hundreds of reservists in Israel’s army have warned they will not answer the call to serve if the reforms pass, saying they believe Israel will no longer be a full democracy under the changes.

    Israeli President Isaac Herzog said the government’s legislation was “misguided, brutal and undermines our democratic foundations,” and warned Israel was potentially on the brink of a “civil war.” Although the Israeli presidency is largely a ceremonial role, Herzog has been actively speaking with all parties calling for negotiations.

    And on the international front, Israel’s allies, including the United States, have also expressed concern about the overhaul.

    According to the White House, US President Joe Biden told Netanyahu in a mid-March phone call “democratic societies are strengthened by genuine checks and balances, and that fundamental changes should be pursued with the broadest possible base of popular support.”

    Protest organizers say they plan to intensify their demonstrations until the legislation is halted. But the government says it received a mandate from voters to pass the reform when it was elected last November.

    But in mid-March, the coalition government softened its plans for the first time, announcing that it had amended the bill that would reform the committee that selects judges. Instead of having the vast majority of the appointed seats on the committee, the government-appointed members would have a one-seat majority.

    On March 23, even after his own defense minister nearly gave a speech calling for the legislation to be halted out of concern for how it would affect Israeli national security, Netanyahu vowed to keep advancing the reforms.

    He called for opposition politicians to meet with him to negotiate, something they have said they will only do if the legislative process is halted.

    Complicating matters further, should the bills pass parliament the Supreme Court must then potentially decide on laws curbing its own power. This raises the possibility of a constitutional standoff. Would the Supreme Court strike down the laws, and if so, how would the government respond?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Artwork that secretly honored Hong Kong dissidents removed

    Artwork that secretly honored Hong Kong dissidents removed

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — A Hong Kong department store took down a digital artwork that contained hidden references to jailed dissidents, in an incident the artist says is evidence of erosion of free speech in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

    It was unclear whether the government played a role in the decision to remove the artwork, it came just days after a slasher film featuring Winnie the Pooh, a figure often used in playful taunts of China’s President Xi Jinping, was pulled from local cinemas.

    Patrick Amadon’s “No Rioters” was put on display on a billboard at the SOGO Causeway Bay Store for an exhibition that started last Friday, as the city was promoting its return as a vibrant cultural hub following years of pandemic travel restrictions. Art Basel Hong Kong, a prominent art fair in Asia, began this week, alongside other art events.

    Hong Kong is a former British colony that returned to China’s rule in 1997, promising to retain its Western-style freedoms. The city was rocked by a massive pro-democracy protest movement in 2019, which ended after China imposed a “National Security Law” that criminalized much dissent. The city’s government has since jailed and silenced many activists.

    Amadon said he had followed the protests in Hong Kong closely, and he wanted his work to show solidarity with the protesters and remind people about the new reality of the city.

    “It was too much watching Art Week in Hong Kong pretend the Chinese government didn’t crush a democracy and turn Hong Kong into a vassal surveillance state… because it’s a convenient location for a good market,” the Los Angeles-based artist said.

    Amadon said he knew the work would be controversial and was surprised it had been displayed in public for days. It featured a panning surveillance camera.

    Flashes of Matrix-like text showcased the names and prison sentences of convicted activists and other prominent figures in the pro-democracy movement, including legal scholar Benny Tai and former student leader Joshua Wong, who were both charged with subversion in the biggest case brought under the National Security Law.

    These details were shown too fast to be seen by the naked eyes Amadon said, but viewers could see the details if they used a camera to capture stills. It also referred to journalist-turned activist Gwyneth Ho who was assaulted when she was live-streaming a mob attack in July 2019 during the massive protests sparked by an extradition bill.

    The gallery that arranged the exhibit did not know whether the government ordered the work taken down, Francesca Boffetti, CEO at Art Innovation Gallery said in an email.

    “Our intermediary told us that the owners of SOGO were concerned about the sensitive political content hidden behind Patrick’s work, so they decided to remove the work from the exhibition immediately,” Boffetti said.

    No one mentioned any law or threatened them with fines, she added, but SOGO’s legal team asked the gallery whether it was aware of the content and message of Amadon’s work.

    Local police and SOGO did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau told the Associated Press that it did not contact SOGO.

    Amadon said the gallery told him in an urgent call that it was very concerned about its legal exposure after a conversation with SOGO.

    Since the passage of the National Security Law, the city’s art and media communities have learned to be wary of crossing vaguely defined red lines. Pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily was forced to close after authorities arrested its top editors and executives and accused them of foreign collusion. Some artists known for their political work left Hong Kong under the shadow of the law. Some filmmakers have stopped showing their work in the city. Even those producing non-political content have become cautious. But the government insisted that its residents continue to enjoy promised freedoms after the enactment of the law.

    Amadon said what happened to his work showed that the city had lost its freedom of expression and artistic freedom.

    “This objectively shows that they are no longer here in the same way that they once were,” he said. “From a narrative standpoint, I mean, it did have to get censored and taken down, I feel like, to be a completed piece.”

    ___

    Find more AP Asia-Pacific coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/asia-pacific

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After Macron, le déluge

    After Macron, le déluge

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Anyone looking at France right now could be forgiven for thinking the country was on the edge of a revolution.

    Major cities from Paris to Lyon erupted in riots overnight on Thursday, with black-clad protesters lighting bonfires and hurling projectiles at riot police after President Emmanuel Macron rammed an unpopular reform of the pension system through parliament. More than 400 police were injured.

    The violence capped weeks of mass protests as millions marched through French cities to oppose the reform, which will raise the legal age of retirement to 64 from 62 currently. More protests are already planned for next week, piling pressure on Macron’s already embattled government and prompting Britain’s King Charles to cancel a highly-awaited visit.

    Yet for all the sound and fury of the protests, which could yet worsen if students join in, there’s nearly zero risk that Macron himself will have to leave office. Having narrowly survived a vote of no confidence, he may seek to reshuffle his cabinet and sack his prime minister, Élisabeth Borne — but the presidential system is so designed that the leader is nearly guaranteed to remain president until the last day of his term, in 2027.

    The bigger question, then, is about what happens after Macron, whose hyper-personal style of leadership has often been described as king-like, even by the standards of France’s monarchical Republic, leaves the stage for good. 

    Barred from seeking a third term by the constitution, Macron will leave behind a leaderless and rudderless ruling party that may well cease to exist without him, creating a power vacuum that far-left and far-right leaders, including three-time presidential contender Marine Le Pen, are itching to fill. 

    And while Macron has a solid hold on power now, the parliamentary rebellion his government faced down this week — and the chaos engulfing the country — raise ominous questions about the future for anyone who hopes to see France stay firmly anchored to the pro-EU, pro-NATO liberal camp.

    In other words, after Macron, le déluge

    Macron’s shaky platform

    The first danger sign flashing over French democracy is the state of Macron’s own party, the centrist Renaissance group. In many systems, ruling parties have deep roots and an ideological foundation that, at least in theory, give them a raison d’être beyond exercising power. 

    But this isn’t the case for Macron’s party, which was born for the sole purpose of hoisting its founder into the Elysée presidential palace and then supporting his government. As such, it’s docile by nature and, with a few exceptions, hasn’t produced bold personalities who would in other circumstances be natural successors to the president. 

    And while the party is already short of a majority in parliament, the rebellion against the pension reform this week revealed Renaissance to be much weaker even than was previously thought — more of a hollow platform for Macron to stand on than a launchpad for future leaders. Indeed, Prime Minister Borne believed that she could rely on support from the center-right Les Républicains party to provide the necessary votes to pass the reform, as part of an informal coalition arrangement.

    Yet this hope vanished suddenly and unexpectedly when a group of 19 Les Républicains, led by southern lawmaker Aurélien Pradié, defied orders from their own party leadership and announced they would support a motion of no confidence in Macron’s government. As rebellions go, it revealed not just the weakness of Renaissance, but the continued disarray of the mainstream center-right in France — which has produced most of the country’s leaders since World War II and is now a shadow of its former self.

    “The political landscape isn’t just fractured; it doesn’t offer any hope for the president, the government or their supporters,” said Jean-Daniel Lévy, a political analyst with pollster Harris Interactive. “There is no such thing as a Macron doctrine or an ideological successor to Macron.”

    The rebellion against the pension reform this week revealed President Emmanuel Macron’s party to be much weaker even than was previously thought | John Macdougall/AFP via Getty Images

    The second alarm bell ringing is how much the pension crisis has emboldened the far-right and far-left factions in parliament. Take Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a far-left firebrand who’s made two failed bids for the presidency, and is now the most recognizable face in the NUPES, a recently-formed left-wing coalition gathering what’s left of the Socialist party, Mélenchon’s hard-left France Unbowed group and the Greens.

    Having faded from view, Mélenchon has roared back into the limelight during the pension reform battle, appearing constantly in the media. Anti-NATO, Euroskeptic and calling for an end to France’s 5th republic (his 6th Republic would end the presidential monarchy), the ex-socialist whose sympathies lean more toward Venezuela than Brussels is ideally suited to produce revolutionary soundbites.

    With his pension reform, Macron has “lit a fire and blocked all the exits,” Mélenchon quipped this week.

    Le Pen eyes the crown

    Yet Mélenchon’s prospects of taking power in 2027 look slim. According to an IFOP poll published in early March, just 21 percent of the French believe he’s best-positioned to lead the opposition — suggesting he’s not very well-loved by other adherents of the NUPES coalition.

    Much better positioned is Marine Le Pen, the far-right chief whom Macron defeated twice in the final rounds of two presidential elections. Indeed, since her last defeat, Le Pen has made further strides toward making herself look presidential while continuing to try to detoxify her party’s image.

    Not only has Le Pen ditched the “National Front” party name that was associated with her Holocaust-minimizing father, Jean-Marie Le Pen; she has abandoned an electorally-disastrous plan to exit the euro currency zone and she’s established herself as the leader of her party’s 88-strong delegation in the French parliament, placing her at the center of the action against the pension reform.

    She hasn’t confirmed that she’ll make a fourth bid for the presidency. But there’s no reason to believe she wouldn’t. And this time, Macron won’t be around to stop her.

    “After Macron, it will be us,” she told BFMTV this week, referring to her National Rally party.

    Aside from Le Pen, the obvious choice to succeed Macron would be Édouard Philippe — his remarkably beloved one-time prime minister. Since leaving office in 2017, Philippe has been quietly biding his time as mayor of Le Havre, a mid-sized port city on France’s northern coast, and nurturing his own center-right political platform, Horizons.

    The fact that Philippe, in an interview earlier this month, came out to address the fact that he’s suffering both from alopecia and vitiligo only seemed to bolster his popularity with the French, who rate him as their preferred political personality, according to this ranking.

    But Philippe’s stance on retirement, backing an increase in the legal age to 67 — above and beyond what Macron proposed — has not done him any favors. According to a poll by Odoxa, 61 percent of the French weren’t happy with his attempt to defend the pension reform.

    He still hasn’t said for sure whether he will run in 2027, and the past week’s action suggests his association with Macron could turn out to be a drag on his prospects once campaigning gets started, should he decide to enter the race.

    [ad_2]

    Nicholas Vinocur

    Source link

  • Finland on course for NATO membership after Hungarian vote

    Finland on course for NATO membership after Hungarian vote

    [ad_1]

    The Hungarian parliament ratified Finland’s NATO membership on Monday, putting Helsinki one step closer to joining the alliance but leaving Sweden waiting in the wings. 

    Members of Hungary’s parliament voted by a margin of 182 to 6 in favor of Finnish accession.

    Helsinki now only needs the Turkish parliament’s approval — expected soon — to become a NATO member. 

    Hungary’s move comes after repeated delays and political U-turns. 

    Hungarian officials spent months telling counterparts they had no objections and their parliament was simply busy with other business. 

    Budapest then changed its narrative last month, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — who has an iron grip over his ruling Fidesz party — arguing the point that some of his legislators had qualms regarding criticism of the state of Hungarian democracy. 

    Finland and Sweden have been at the forefront of safeguarding democratic standards in Hungary, speaking out on the matter long before many of their counterparts.

    But earlier this month — just as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced that he will support Finland’s NATO membership — the Fidesz position flipped again, with its parliamentary group chair then announcing support for Helsinki’s bid.

    Turkey’s parliament is expected to ratify Finnish membership soon. But it is keeping Sweden in limbo, as Turkish officials say they want to see the country implement new anti-terror policies before giving Ankara’s green light. 

    Following in Turkey’s footsteps, Hungary is now also delaying a decision on Sweden indefinitely — prompting criticism from Orbán’s critics. 

    Attila Ara-Kovács, a member of the European Parliament from Hungary’s opposition Democratic Coalition, said that Orbán’s moves are part of a strategy to fuel anti-Western attitudes at home. 

    The government’s aim is “further inciting anti-Western and anti-NATO sentiment within Hungary, especially among Orbán’s fanatical supporters — and besides, of course, to serve Russian interests,” he said. 

    “This has its consequences,” Ara-Kovács said, adding that “support for the EU and NATO in the country is significantly and constantly decreasing.”

    A recent Eurobarometer poll found that 39 percent of Hungarians view the EU positively. A NATO report, published last week, shows that 77 percent of Hungarians would vote to stay in the alliance — compared to 89 percent in Poland and 84 percent in Romania.

    But Hungarian officials are adding the spin that they do support Sweden’s NATO membership. 

    The Swedish government “constantly questioning the state of Hungarian democracy” is “insulting our voters, MPs and the country as a whole,” said Balázs Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister’s political director (no relation to the prime minister).

    It is “up to the Swedes to make sure that Hungarian MPs’ concerns are addressed,” he tweeted on Sunday. “Our goal,” he added, “is to support Sweden’s NATO accession with a parliamentary majority as broad as possible.” 

    [ad_2]

    Lili Bayer

    Source link

  • Digital literacy: Can the republic ‘survive an algorithm’?

    Digital literacy: Can the republic ‘survive an algorithm’?

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE — Shawn Lee, a high school social studies teacher in Seattle, wants to see lessons on the internet akin to a kind of 21st century driver’s education, an essential for modern life.

    Lee has tried to bring that kind of education into his classroom, with lessons about the need to double-check online sources, to diversify newsfeeds and to bring critical thinking to the web. He’s also created an organization for other teachers to share resources.

    “This technology is so new that no one taught us how to use it,” Lee said. “People are like, ‘There’s nothing we can do,’ and they throw their hands in the air. I disagree with that. I would like to think the republic can survive an algorithm.”

    Lee’s efforts are part of a growing movement of educators and misinformation researchers working to offset an explosion of online misinformation about everything from presidential politics to pandemics. So far, the U.S. lags many other democracies in waging this battle, and the consequences of inaction are clear.

    But for teachers already facing myriad demands in the classroom, incorporating internet literacy can be a challenge — especially given how politicized misinformation about vaccines, public health, voting, climate change and Russia’s war in Ukraine has become. The title of a talk for a recent gathering of Lee’s group: “How to talk about conspiracy theories without getting fired.”

    “It’s not teaching what to think, but how to think,” said Julie Smith, an expert on media literacy who teaches at Webster University in Webster Groves, Missouri. “It’s engaging about engaging your brain. It’s asking, ‘Who created this? Why? Why am I seeing it now? How does it make me feel and why?’”

    New laws and algorithm changes are often offered as the most promising ways of combating online misinformation, even as tech companies study their own solutions.

    Teaching internet literacy, however, may be the most effective method. New Jersey, Illinois and Texas are among states that have recently implemented new standards for teaching internet literacy, a broad category that can include lessons about how the internet and social media work, along with a focus on how to spot misinformation by cross-checking multiple sources and staying wary of claims with missing context or highly emotional headlines.

    Media literacy lessons are often included in history, government or other social studies classes, and typically offered at the high school level, though experts say it’s never too early — or late — to help people become better users of the internet.

    Finnish children begin to learn about the internet in preschool, part of a robust anti-misinformation program that aims to make the country’s residents more resistant to false online claims. Finland has a long history of combating propaganda and misinformation spread by one of its neighbors, Russia, and expanded its current efforts after Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea set off another wave of disinformation.

    “Media literacy was one of our priorities before the time of the internet,” Petri Honkonen, Finland’s minister of science and culture, said in a recent interview. “The point is critical thinking, and that is a skill that everybody needs more and more. We have to somehow protect people. We also must protect democracy.”

    Honkonen spoke with The Associated Press earlier this year during a trip to Washington that included meetings to discuss Finland’s work to fight online misinformation. One recent report on media literacy efforts in western democracies placed Finland at the top. Canada ranked seventh, while the U.S. came in at No. 18.

    In Finland the lessons don’t end with primary school. Public service announcements offer tips on avoiding false online claims and checking multiple sources. Additional programs are geared toward older adults, who can be especially vulnerable to misinformation compared to younger users more at home on the internet.

    In the U.S., attempts to teach internet literacy have run into political opposition from people who equate it to thought control. Lee, the Seattle teacher, said that concern prevents some teachers from even trying.

    Several years ago, the University of Washington launched MisinfoDay, which brought high schoolers and their teachers together for a one-day event featuring speakers, exercises and activities focused on media literacy. Seven hundred students from across the state attended one of three MisinfoDays this year.

    Jevin West, the University of Washington professor who created the event, said he’s heard from educators in other states and as far away as Australia who are interested in creating something similar.

    “Maybe eventually, someday, nationally here in the United States, we have a day devoted to the idea of media literacy,” West said. “There are all sorts of things we can do in terms of regulations, technology, in terms of research, but nothing is going to be more important than this idea of making us more resilient” to misinformation.

    For teachers already struggling with other classroom demands, adding media literacy can seem like just one more obligation. But it’s a skill that is just as important as computer engineering or software coding for the future economy, according to Erin McNeill, a Massachusetts mother who started Media Literacy Now, a national nonprofit that advocates for digital literacy education.

    “This is an innovation issue,” McNeill said. “Basic communication is part of our information economy, and there will be huge implications for our economy if we don’t get this right.”

    The driver’s education analogy comes up a lot when talking to media literacy experts. Automobiles first went into production in the early 20th century and soon became popular. But it was nearly three decades before the first driver’s education courses were offered.

    What changed? Governments passed laws regulating vehicle safety and driver behavior. Auto companies added features like collapsible steering columns, seat belts and air bags. And in the mid-1930s, safety advocates began to push for mandated driver’s education.

    That combination of government, industry and educators is seen as a model by many misinformation and media literacy researchers. Any effective solution to the challenges posed by online misinformation, they say, must by necessity include an educational component.

    Media literacy in Canadian schools began decades ago and initially focused on television before being expanded throughout the digital era. Now it’s accepted as an essential part of preparing students, according to Matthew Johnson, director of education at MediaSmarts, an organization that leads media literacy programs in Canada.

    “We need speed limits, we need well-designed roads and good regulations to ensure cars are safe. But we also teach people how to drive safely,” he said. “Whatever regulators do, whatever online platforms do, content always winds up in front of an audience, and they need to have the tools to engage critically with it.”

    ___

    Klepper reported from Washington.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Digital literacy: Can the republic ‘survive an algorithm?’

    Digital literacy: Can the republic ‘survive an algorithm?’

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE — Shawn Lee, a high school social studies teacher in Seattle, wants to see lessons on internet akin to a kind of 21st century driver’s education, an essential for modern life.

    Lee has tried to bring that kind of education into his classroom, with lessons about the need to double-check online sources, to diversify newsfeeds and to bring critical thinking to the web. He’s also created an organization for other teachers to share resources.

    “This technology is so new that no one taught us how to use it,” Lee said. “People are like, ‘There’s nothing we can do’ and they throw their hands in the air. I disagree with that. I would like to think the republic can survive an algorithm.”

    Lee’s efforts are part of a growing movement of educators and misinformation researchers working to offset an explosion of online misinformation about everything from presidential politics to pandemics. So far, the U.S. lags many other democracies in waging this battle, and the consequences of inaction are clear.

    But for teachers already facing myriad demands in the classroom, incorporating internet literacy can be a challenge — especially given how politicized misinformation about vaccines, public health, voting, climate change and the war in Ukraine has become. The title of a talk for a recent gathering of Lee’s group: “How to talk about conspiracy theories without getting fired.”

    “It’s not teaching what to think, but how to think,” said Julie Smith, an expert on media literacy who teaches at Webster University in Webster Groves, Missouri. “It’s engaging about engaging your brain. It’s asking, ‘Who created this? Why? Why am I seeing it now? How does it make me feel and why?’”

    New laws and algorithm changes are often offered as the most promising ways of combating online misinformation, even as tech companies study their own solutions.

    Teaching internet literacy, however, may be the most effective method. New Jersey, Illinois and Texas are among states that have recently implemented new standards for teaching internet literacy, a broad category that can include lessons about how the internet and social media work, along with a focus on how to spot misinformation by cross-checking multiple sources and staying wary of claims with missing context or highly emotional headlines.

    Media literacy lessons are often included in history, government or other social studies classes, and typically offered at the high school level, though experts say it’s never too early — or late — to help people become better users of the internet.

    Finnish children begin to learn about the internet in preschool, part of a robust anti-misinformation program that aims to make the country’s residents more resistant to false online claims. Finland has a long history of combating propaganda and misinformation spread by its neighbor, Russia, and expanded its current efforts after Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea set off prompted another wave of disinformation.

    “Media literacy was one of our priorities before the time of the internet,” Petri Honkonen, Finland’s minister of science and culture, said in a recent interview. “The point is critical thinking, and that is a skill that everybody needs more and more. We have to somehow protect people. We also must protect democracy.”

    Honkonen spoke with The Associated Press earlier this year during a trip to Washington that included meetings to discuss Finland’s work to fight online misinformation. One recent report on media literacy efforts in western democracies placed Finland at the top. Canada ranked seventh, while the U.S. came in at No. 18.

    In Finland the lessons don’t end with primary school. Public service announcements offer tips on avoiding false online claims and checking multiple sources. Additional programs are geared toward older adults, who can be especially vulnerable to misinformation compared to younger users more at home on the internet.

    In the U.S., attempts to teach internet literacy have run into political opposition from people who equate it to thought control. Lee, the Seattle teacher, said that concern prevents some teachers from even trying.

    Several years ago, the University of Washington launched “MisinfoDay,” which brought high schoolers and their teachers together for a one-day event featuring speakers, exercises and activities focused on media literacy. Seven hundred students from across the state attended one of three MisinfoDays this year.

    Jevin West, the University of Washington professor who created the event, said he’s heard from educators in other states and as far away as Australia who are interested in creating something similar.

    “Maybe eventually, someday, nationally here in the United States, we have a day devoted to the idea of media literacy,” West said. “There are all sorts of things we can do in terms of regulations, technology, in terms of research, but nothing is going to be more important than this idea of making us more resilient” to misinformation.

    For teachers already struggling with other classroom demands, adding media literacy can seem like just one more obligation. But it’s a skill that is just as important as computer engineering or software coding for the future economy, according to Erin McNeill, a Massachusetts mother who started Media Literacy Now, a national nonprofit that advocates for digital literacy education.

    “This is an innovation issue,” McNeill said. “Basic communication is part of our information economy, and there will be huge implications for our economy if we don’t get this right.”

    The driver’s education analogy comes up a lot when talking to media literacy experts. Automobiles first went into production in the early 20th century and soon became popular. But it was nearly three decades before the first driver’s education courses were offered.

    What changed? Governments passed laws regulating vehicle safety and driver behavior. Auto companies added features like collapsible steering columns, seat belts and air bags. And in the mid-1930s, safety advocates began to push for mandated driver’s education.

    That combination of government, industry and educators is seen as a model by many misinformation and media literacy researchers. Any effective solution to the challenges posed by online misinformation, they say, must by necessity include an educational component.

    Media literacy in Canadian schools began decades ago and initially focused on television before being expanded throughout the digital era. Now it’s accepted as an essential part of preparing students, according to Matthew Johnson, director of education at MediaSmarts, an organization that leads media literacy programs in Canada.

    “We need speed limits, we need well-designed roads and good regulations to ensure cars are safe. But we also teach people how to drive safely,” he said. “Whatever regulators do, whatever online platforms do, content always winds up in front of an audience, and they need to have the tools to engage critically with it.”

    ___

    Klepper reported from Washington.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s why one judge who oversees Jan. 6 cases is afraid for American democracy

    Here’s why one judge who oversees Jan. 6 cases is afraid for American democracy

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a warning about the risk of future political violence and the dangers of ongoing misinformation and denialism regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.  

    At a sentencing hearing for 21-year-old Aiden Bilyard, a North Carolina man who admitted deploying bear spray against police during the Jan. 6 insurrection — and smashing open a Capitol window with a metal bat — Judge Reggie Walton said that the U.S. is in a “scary moment” in which democracy remains endangered.

    “It’s scary going forward as a country where we end up,” said Walton, who has handled a series of Jan. 6 cases. “Because what happened on Jan. 6 is not something that’s just in the past. It, unfortunately, is something that still haunts us because the individuals who instigated what occurred are still engaging in the same rhetoric that resulted in the frenzy that took place on that day. This is a very serious situation because it goes to the root of what we are supposed to be as a democracy.”

    Bilyard’s defense attorneys unsuccessfully sought a sentence of home confinement during Friday’s hearing, arguing he was remorseful for his actions. Defense lawyers also said Bilyard has been exposed to unwelcomed propaganda and influence by other Jan. 6 defendants — including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes — while in pretrial detention in Virginia. But Walton said the offenses committed by Bilyard, who sprayed officers with a gel form of bear spray that was considered particularly dangerous, were too serious for the leniency of home detention. Walton sentenced Bilyard to 40 months in prison, after also warning of the danger of the spread of misinformation about the Capitol riot.

    Walton, a 2001 appointee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said he’s unsure how people “live with themselves” when they call Jan. 6 defendants “political prisoners,” or sow misinformation about what happened inside the Capitol that day.

    Though Walton didn’t name anyone specific, Jan. 6 defendants and their sympathizers have held nightly protests outside the Washington, D.C., jail, in which defendants are frequently referred to as political prisoners. At a protest on Thursday, a Jan. 6 defendant called the Capitol attack an entrapment operation by the FBI and Antifa.   

    Multiple members of Congress, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, have referred to Jan. 6 defendants at “political prisoners.” Fox News host Tucker Carlson has also been accused of making baseless and “cherry picked” claims about the attack.

    “A democracy can’t survive if you have a significant number of people who are prepared to subvert the electoral process because the result is not the result that they wanted,” Walton said during Bilyard’s hearing. “I mean that. That’s a sad state of affairs that we’re in at this point where someone loses — and loses by 7 million votes — but nonetheless, espouses that they did win. And there are enough people who believe that was the case, despite any evidence that would suggest that the allegations have any merit. There have been 60-something court cases that have rejected the proposition that the election was somehow stolen.” 

    Walton criticized people who are following “the calls of a demagogue.”

    There was an outburst in the courtroom as Walton announced his sentence of Bilyard. His mother said “this isn’t right,” in protest of his decision. 

    “He made his bed,” Walton responded about Bilyard. “Now he has to lie in it.”

    “Bilyard pointed the nozzle of the canister at officers who were attempting to prevent the mob from proceeding further towards the Capitol Building,” according to a news release from the Justice Department Friday following the sentencing. “He then discharged the chemical irritant towards the group of officers. Immediately after he sprayed the irritant, Bilyard and other rioters overwhelmed the police line, causing the officers to retreat through a stairwell to the Lower West Terrace.”

    At the hearing, prosecutors said BIlyard’s actions helped rioters gain entry into the Senate conference room. They said some of the people in the mob stole furniture from the room and shared it with rioters who were attacking police, including a conference room door that was used as a shield by attackers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Macron on the brink: How French pensions revolt could wreck his presidency

    Macron on the brink: How French pensions revolt could wreck his presidency

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron will face a moment of reckoning Thursday as lawmakers gear up for a final vote on the government’s deeply unpopular pension reform.

    The controversial bill, a centerpiece of Macron’s second term, has sparked weeks of nationwide protests led by trade unions and faced intense criticism from both the far left and the far right in the National Assembly.

    The French president wants to increase the legal age of retirement to 64 from 62 and extend contributions for a full pension in an effort to balance the accounts of France’s state pensions system — among the most generous in the world. According to projections from France’s Council of Pensions Planning, the finances of the pensions system are balanced in the short term but will go into deficit in the long term.

    Despite government concessions on various aspects of the bill in recent weeks, opposition to the reform remains very high, with polls saying two-thirds of French citizens oppose it.

    Speculation is running high that Macron might not have enough support in the National Assembly, and may choose a constitutional maneuver to bypass parliament — in a move that could unleash a political storm in France.

    On Thursday, the French Senate and the National Assembly are expected to cast a crucial vote on the second reading of the bill, after the Senate voted in favor last week. The outcome will determine the shape of Macron’s second term and stands to bear heavily on his legacy.

    The worst case: Macron loses the vote in parliament

    Losing the parliamentary vote would be a stunning defeat for the French president, who pinned his bid for a second term on his promises to reform France’s pensions system. But political commentators have been speculating in recent days that Macron’s Renaissance party doesn’t have enough votes to pass the bill.

    The French president lost its absolute majority in the National Assembly in parliamentary elections last June. He has since been forced into making ad-hoc deals with MPs from France’s conservative party Les Républicains. But the once-mighty conservatives appear split on the reform, despite assurances this week from their leader Olivier Marleix that there was “a clear majority” backing the bill.

    A defeat in parliament would have seismic and long-term repercussions for Macron’s second term and it is likely that the president’s trusted lieutenant Prime Minister Elizabeth Borne would have to resign in such a scenario. Party heavyweights however say they will not shy away from seeking a vote.

    “There will be a vote, we want a vote, everyone must take its responsibilities,” said Aurore Bergé, leader of the Renaissance group in the National Assembly.

    “There can be an accident … we’ll manage it as we can,” admitted Jean-Paul Mattei, a centrist MP who belongs to Macron’s coalition, with reference to a defeat in parliament.

    However, this is the most unlikely scenario as expectations are that the government will bypass a vote if they sense that they are short on votes.

    Protestors hold an effigy of French President Emmanuel Macron, during a demonstration on the 8th day of strikes and protests across the country against the government’s proposed pensions overhaul in Paris on March 15, 2023 | Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images

    Pretty bad: Macron bypasses parliament and loses credibility

    In the face of a potential defeat in the National Assembly, Macron has a nuclear option: invoke article 49.3 of the French constitution. This mechanism allows the government to force through legislation without submitting it to a vote.

    While the constitutional maneuver may seem like an easy way out, it’s a highly risky move as it allows lawmakers to table a motion of no confidence within 24 hours. Macron’s government has faced down motions of no confidence in the past but the stakes are much higher this time around.

    Beyond surviving a motion of no-confidence, Macron and Borne will also come under fire for refusing to submit to the democratic process.

    According to Frédéric Dabi, general director of the IFOP polling institute, the impact on public opinion if the government uses the 49.3 article as opposed to passing a tight vote in parliament would be “radically different.”

    “Public opinions on the 49.3 article have changed … it is regarded as a tool to brutalize the National Assembly: it’s now seen as authoritarian instead of merely authoritative. People want more transparency, more democracy today,” he said.

    France’s hardline unions would no doubt use this to stoke unrest and call for further strike action.

    Trade union leader Laurent Berger has warned the government against using the 49.3 article, saying that it would be “incredible and dangerous.”

    “Nobody can predict what will happen, the protest movement seems to be running out of steam, but if the government invokes article 49.3 it could be read as forcing the issue and may relaunch the protest movement,” said Dabi.

    Still not great: Macron wins vote but faces mass protests

    If the French president wins the vote in parliament, it’ll be seen as a victory but one that may completely drain his political capital, and whip up protests on the streets.

    “It’ll be a victory for Macron, but it’ll only bear its fruit in the long term. In the short term, he’ll face a tense country where relations have become very strained,” said Chloé Morin, a writer and political analyst.

    Trade union leader Berger has said that he would “take on board” the result of Thursday’s vote in parliament. But protests, which have been almost weekly since January, may continue nonetheless across the country in an effort to force the government into backing down and withdrawing the text.

    Morin thinks it is unlikely there will be “an explosion of protests” after the vote as people are resigned to seeing it pass.

    French police officers intervene during a protest by local council employees against the government’s retirement reform in front on the prefecture in Seine Saint-Denis, in Bobigny, a surburb of Paris on March 14, 2023 | Thomas Samson/AFP via Getty Images

    “However, the protest movement might become more radical with lightning protests or sabotages, led by a minority in the citizens’ movement,” said Morin.

    In October last year, industrial action in France’s refineries led to nationwide shortages at petrol stations, forcing the government to intervene in what was seen as Macron’s biggest challenge since his re-election last year.

    There are dangerous precedents for Macron too. In December 2019, the government was forced to abandon a new green tax when faced with the explosive Yellow Vests protests that shook the political establishment.

    [ad_2]

    Clea Caulcutt

    Source link

  • EU seals deal to send Ukraine 1 million ammo rounds

    EU seals deal to send Ukraine 1 million ammo rounds

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    The EU has reached a deal to send Ukraine 1 million rounds of ammunition within the next 12 months. 

    The plan — seen by POLITICO — will see the EU both donate ammunition from its own stockpiles and also jointly purchase new shells for Ukraine. It also leaves open the possibility that the EU could help countries collectively buy missiles for Ukraine. And it sets a goal to “jointly procure” these munitions “in the fastest way possible” before October. 

    Diplomats and ministers finalized the strategy during meetings in Brussels on Sunday and Monday. EU leaders are expected to give their final blessing at a summit in Brussels later this week. 

    The deal represents a landmark juncture for the EU, marking the first time the self-described peace project has plotted to jointly buy arms for a country at war. Officials have argued the EU must evolve to meet the extraordinary moment — no less than the fate of democracy on European soil is at stake, they insist.

    “A historic decision,” tweeted Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, once the deal was clinched Monday. 

    The plan has come together rapidly in recent weeks amid fears that Kyiv is running out of shells to hold off Russia’s unyielding assault. Ukrainian officials have said they need at least 1 million 155-millimeter shells to restock and maintain their defenses — a figure that far outstrips Europe’s annual production capacity. 

    To make up for the shortfall, the EU has drafted a multi-stage blueprint. 

    First, it will dedicate €1 billion to countries able to either donate ammunition immediately from their own stockpiles or redirect existing orders. Then, it will set aside another €1 billion to jointly buy more ammunition (and possibly missiles) for Ukraine and replace Europe’s donated shells. Finally, it wants to explore ways to boost Europe’s ability to manufacture the arms it needs for years to come.

    Borrell in his final remarks speaking to journalists said countries had agreed to the €2 billion total. But diplomats said the legal texts were still being finalized. 

    Funding for the endeavor is expected to come from the so-called European Peace Facility, formerly an obscure program that has become the EU’s main wartime vehicle to partially reimburse countries for their weapons donations to Ukraine.

    Less firm is what the EU plans beyond the €2 billion meant to jointly buy ammunition and cover donations of existing munitions. EU countries did not put forward anything about how to fund the last phase of its plan: growing industrial capacity for years to come. The document circulating Monday merely invited the European Commission to explore the issue and “present concrete proposals.” 

    “We have an industrial problem,” one senior official conceded late last week, referring to Europe’s struggles to bolster homegrown defense manufacturing.

    The €2 billion, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu agreed Monday, is “a clear and solid step further but it won’t be enough.”

    Still, the ammunition agreement is a victory for Estonia, which first floated the idea of quickly providing Ukraine with 1 million fresh rounds as part of its push to get EU countries to send more weapons to Kyiv.

    It’s also poised to be a boon for France and its many defense firms, as well as numerous defense companies across the EU. France, which has the bloc’s strongest defense sector, has long led the charge to augment European defense spending within EU borders, and the plan approved Monday will essentially do just that, instructing all joint EU contracts to go to EU firms. The only exception is Norway, which is already closely integrated into the EU market.

    Several diplomats said French officials were also the ones pushing to include missiles in the scheme, although others chalked it up to Ukraine’s need for the weapons. 

    Despite the agreement, officials still need to hammer out exactly how the program will operate in practice. Officials have been going back and forth over whether the joint contract negotiations should go through EU agencies, or whether countries should just band together on their own.

    EU officials were keen to see the plan identify a role for the European Defense Agency (EDA), the EU body meant to help countries cooperate on national security issues. But some countries have been wary about empowering Brussels to essentially become Europe’s arms negotiator. 

    The final decision, in classic EU fashion, is an all-of-the-above approach.

    Ultimately, only 18 countries signed an agreement to work with the EDA on “the collaborative procurement” of ammunition. On the list are EU heavyweights like Germany, France and the Netherlands (as well as Norway), but not Italy or Spain. The pact envisions two parallel efforts — “a two-year, fast-track procedure for 155mm artillery rounds and a seven-year project to acquire multiple ammunition types.”

    But countries will also be able to form groups of three or more to jointly negotiate contracts on their own. Three diplomats said the Netherlands and Denmark, for instance, have expressed interest in joining Germany in its national efforts to procure more ammunition.  

    Officials acknowledged that considerable work lay ahead. 

    “Definitely there are many details to be solved,” said Hanno Pevkur, Estonia’s defense minister.

    Gregorio Sorgi and Nicolas Camut contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Jacopo Barigazzi

    Source link

  • Macron narrowly survives crucial no-confidence votes in parliament

    Macron narrowly survives crucial no-confidence votes in parliament

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    PARIS — Emmanuel Macron’s government narrowly survived a no-confidence vote in the French parliament Monday, after it pushed through a deeply unpopular pensions overhaul without a vote last week, sparking outrage and spontaneous protests across the country.

    In a high-stakes vote in France’s lower house of parliament, 278 MPs, mostly from the left and the far right, voted in favor of a cross-party motion of no confidence, falling just short of the 287 votes needed to topple the government. A second motion, backed only by the far-right National Rally, did not garner enough votes.

    The outcome of the first vote was much tighter than anticipated and increases the pressure on Macron to withdraw his reform. It may also give a boost to the protest movement led by trade unions against the measures. The French president will also be under pressure to respond either by addressing the country or reshuffling his government.

    Speaking ahead of the votes, the centrist MP Charles de Courson, one of the authors of the cross-party motion, accused Macron’s government of lacking “courage” during the parliamentary debates.

    “You could have submitted [your reform] to a vote, and you probably would have lost it, but that’s the game when you are in a democracy,” he told MPs.

    The leader of Macron’s Renaissance parliamentary group Aurore Bergé lashed out at accusations the government had failed to seek compromises with MPs and accused opposition parties of working against the common good.

    “When people speak of a grand coalition, it should be so that people work together for the good of the country. It’s the opposite that you are offering us … you want to bring our country to a halt, in our institutions and … in the street,” she said.

    The motions of no confidence were proposed last week after Macron authorized the use of a controversial constitutional maneuver on Thursday to bypass a vote in parliament on his pensions reform bill. The French president wants to raise the legal age of retirement to 64 from 62, in an effort to balance the accounts of France’s indebted state pension system and to bring France’s retirement age in line with other European countries such as Spain and Germany where it ranges from 65 to 67 years old.

    The no-confidence motions were voted on in the National Assembly as industrial action disrupted flights, public transport, waste collection and refineries ahead of a nationwide day of protests on Thursday. Trade union leaders hope for a show of force against the government and have also warned that social unrest risks spiraling after several protests in Paris turned violent in recent days.

    “I send this alert to the president, he has to withdraw the bill before there’s a disaster. [Our protests] have been very controlled since the beginning, but the temptation of violence, of radicalization … is there,” said CFDT trade union leader Laurent Berger on Sunday.

    While the government has survived efforts to topple it, speculation is now running high that Macron will want to replace his beleaguered Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne in a government reshuffle aimed at refreshing his image. According to an IFOP-JDD poll published on Sunday, Macron’s popularity rating fell by 4 points in one month to 28 percent.

    A tight win for Macron

    Monday’s no-confidence motions had been widely seen as unlikely to pass ahead of the vote because the French National Assembly has been deeply divided since parliamentary elections last year. While Macron’s Renaissance party has lost its absolute majority, opposition parties backing the no-confidence motion failed to get enough votes because most MPs from the conservative Les Républicains refused to support it.

    Still, more conservative MPs than expected decided to ignore the party line and back the cross-party motion of no confidence, exposing the deep divides within Les Républicains.

    Elisabeth Borne will live to see another day as French Prime Minister | Pool photo by Gonzalo Fuentes/AFP via Getty Images

    On Monday, one of the leading rebels, conservative MP Aurélien Pradié, said voting in favor of the motion of no-confidence was needed to “emerge from the chaos.”

    “The Macron club has not understood what is going on. And if we need to jolt them with a motion of no-confidence, I will back it and lend my voice to the people who feel disdained,” he told Europe 1 radio.

    This article has been updated with more details on the votes.

    CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of MPs who voted in favor of a cross-party motion of no confidence.

    [ad_2]

    Clea Caulcutt

    Source link

  • Activists urge UN Security Council to refer Myanmar to court

    Activists urge UN Security Council to refer Myanmar to court

    [ad_1]

    UNITED NATIONS — Human rights activists urged the U.N. Security Council on Monday to refer Myanmar‘s military rulers to the International Criminal Court and urged neighboring Southeast Asian countries to support the opposition pro-democracy movement.

    The leaders of two women’s rights organizations spoke to reporters ahead of a closed council meeting on Myanmar. Members heard briefings by U.N. special envoy for Myanmar Noeleen Heyzer and Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, whose country chairs the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

    May Sabe Phyu, director of the Gender Equality Network, a coalition of organizations promoting women’s rights in Myanmar, accused Myanmar’s military of conducting “a terror campaign” and committing “heinous acts” that constituted crimes against humanity. She said the Security Council should refer the junta’s actions to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

    Myanmar’s military has long been accused of human rights violations, most notably during a brutal 2017 counterinsurgency campaign against Rohingya Muslims in the western state of Rakhine. International courts are considering whether that crackdown was genocide.

    In 2021, the military ousted Myanmar’s elected civilian government, then moved to violently suppress public opposition to the takeover. Some experts now consider the situation in Myanmar to be a civil war in which the army has conducting major offensives against widespread armed resistance.

    ASEAN adopted a five-step consensus on restoring peace in April 2021 to which Myanmar agreed but has not implemented, leading to Myanmar’s exclusion from some top-level ASEAN meetings since then.

    The Security Council approved its first-ever resolution on Myanmar in December, demanding an immediate end to violence, urging its military rulers to release all “arbitrarily detained” prisoners including ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi and to restore democratic institutions. It also reiterated a call for dialogue and reconciliation and urged all sides “to respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.”

    The activists called for an arms embargo, for the U.N. special envoy to have public engagements with pro-democracy actors, and for accountability for crimes perpetrated by the military.

    Phyu, who left Myanmar after the takeover and is now based in the United States, asked the Security Council to pressure Myanmar’s neighbors not to support the government but to publicly support democratic forces, including the National Unity Government, which she said has the support of the people of Myanmar.

    And she criticized U.N. envoy Heyzer for meeting Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing but not meeting publicly with pro-democracy groups including the National Unity Government, which operates underground and calls itself the country’s legitimate government.

    Naw Hser Hser, head of the Women’s League of Burma, said supporters of democracy feel forgotten by the international community.

    Before Monday’s council meeting, Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward said the Security Council fully supports ASEAN and the five-point council, but stressed that it’s time for progress now.

    “The people of Myanmar have been suffering for too long,” Woodward said. “Myanmar is the second deadliest place in the world for civilians and the people of Myanmar really can’t wait.”

    France’s deputy U.N. ambassador Nathalie Broadhurst told The Associated Press after the council meeting that Marsudi presented the implementation plan which calls for action on all five points in parallel, not sequentially.

    “They say they don’t want megaphone diplomacy,” Broadhurst added, expressing hope that the ASEAN effort will eventually lead to a national inclusive effort and end the “desperate situation” in Myanmar.

    Brazil’s U.N. Ambassador Ronaldo Costa Filho told AP that council members supported ASEAN, and some said the Security Council should be prepared for further action, but no new council action is expected “for the time being.”

    The Security Council in New York has been increasingly divided due to a major rift among its five permanent members: China and Russia on one side, Britain, France and the United States on the other.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong activists behind Tiananmen vigil jailed for months

    Hong Kong activists behind Tiananmen vigil jailed for months

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — Three former organizers of Hong Kong’s annual vigil in remembrance of victims of China’s 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protests were jailed Saturday for four and a half months for failing to provide authorities with information on the group in accordance with a national security law.

    Chow Hang-tung, Tang Ngok-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong were arrested in 2021 during a crackdown on the city’s pro-democracy movement following massive protests more than three years ago. They were leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and were found guilty last week.

    The now-defunct alliance was best known for organizing candlelight vigils in Hong Kong on the anniversary of the 1989 Chinese military’s crushing of Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests, but it was voted to disband in 2021 under the shadow of the Beijing-imposed national security law.

    Supporters say its closure has shown freedoms and autonomy that were promised when Hong Kong returned to China in 1997 are diminishing.

    Before its disbandment, police had sought details about its operations and finances in connection with alleged links to democracy groups overseas, accusing it of being a foreign agent. But the group refused to cooperate, arguing the police did not have a right to ask for its information because it was not a foreign agent and the authorities did not provide sufficient justification.

    Under the security law’s implementation rules, the police chief can request a range of information from a foreign agent. Failure to comply with the request could result in six months in jail and a fine of 100,000 Hong Kong dollars ($12,740) if convicted.

    In her mitigation, Chow said the alliance was not a foreign agent and that nothing had emerged that proved otherwise, so sentencing them was about punishing people for defending the truth.

    She said national security is being used as a pretext to wage a war on civil society.

    “Sir, sentence us for our insubordination if you must, but when the exercise of power is based on lies, being insubordinate is the only way to be human,” she said.

    Handing down the sentences, principal magistrate Peter Law said the case is the first of its kind under the new law and the sentencing has to send a clear message to society that the law does not condone any violation.

    Law, who was approved by the city’s leader to oversee the case, said he saw no justification for reducing the four-and-a-half-year sentence.

    In previous legal proceedings, the court ordered a partial redaction of some information after prosecutors argued that a full disclosure of information would jeopardize an ongoing probe into national security cases. Hence, some crucial details, including the names of groups that were alleged to have links with the alliance, were redacted.

    Defense lawyer Philip Dykes said he could not say “how strong or weak” the alleged links were and that made mitigation difficult.

    The annual vigil organized by the alliance was the only large-scale public commemoration of the June 4th crackdown on Chinese soil and was attended by massive crowds until authorities banned it in 2020, citing anti-pandemic measures.

    Chow, along with two other former alliance leaders, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho, were charged with inciting subversion of state power under the security law in 2021. The alliance itself was charged with subversion.

    The national security law criminalizes secession, subversion, and collusion with foreign forces to intervene in the city’s affairs as well as terrorism. Many pro-democracy activists were silenced or jailed after its enactment in 2020.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In Selma, Biden puts spotlight back on

    In Selma, Biden puts spotlight back on

    [ad_1]

    In Selma, Biden puts spotlight back on “under assault” voting rights – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    President Biden used the searing memories of Selma’s “Bloody Sunday” to recommit to a cornerstone of democracy, advocating for an expansion of voting rights.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong court convicts activists behind Tiananmen vigil

    Hong Kong court convicts activists behind Tiananmen vigil

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — Three Hong Kong activists from a now-defunct group that organized annual vigils commemorating China’s 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters were convicted on Saturday for failing to provide authorities with information on the group in accordance with a national security law.

    Chow Hang-tung, Tang Ngok-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong were arrested in 2021 during a crackdown on the city’s pro-democracy movement following massive protests more than three years ago. They were leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China before it disbanded under the shadow of the Beijing-imposed law.

    The alliance was best known for organizing candlelight vigils in Hong Kong on the anniversary of the Chinese military’s crushing of the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests. Critics say its shutdown has shown freedoms that were promised when Hong Kong returned to China in 1997 are eroding.

    Before the group voted to disband, police had sought details about its operations and finances in connection with alleged links to democracy groups overseas in August 2021, accusing it of being a foreign agent.

    But the group refused to cooperate, arguing police were arbitrarily labeling pro-democracy organizations as foreign agents. It added the police did not have a right to ask for its information because it was not a foreign agent and the authorities did not provide sufficient justification.

    Under the security law’s implementation rules, the police chief can request a range of information from a foreign agent. Failure to comply with the request could result in six months in jail and a fine of 100,000 Hong Kong dollars ($12,740) if convicted.

    On Saturday, principal magistrate Peter Law ruled the defendants were obliged to answer the notice served to them, which he called “sound and legal,” and their non-compliance was unjustified.

    The alliance had been actively operating with various entities and people abroad, Law said, so it was necessary to explore their dealings and connections to determine their affiliation and ultimate purpose.

    “Such requirement for information was nothing like a broad-brush fishing exercise but rather was constrained in terms of periods of time and nature,” he said. “The police had taken an abstemious and self-restrained approach.”

    The annual vigil organized by the alliance was the only large-scale public commemoration of the June 4th crackdown on Chinese soil and was attended by massive crowds until authorities banned it in 2020, citing anti-pandemic measures.

    Chow, along with two other former alliance leaders, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho, were charged with inciting subversion of state power under the security law in 2021. The alliance itself was charged with subversion.

    The national security law criminalizes secession, subversion, and collusion with foreign forces to intervene in the city’s affairs as well as terrorism. Apart from the activists, pro-democracy publisher Jimmy Lai is also facing collusion charges under the law.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3/1: CBS News Prime Time

    3/1: CBS News Prime Time

    [ad_1]

    3/1: CBS News Prime Time – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    John Dickerson reports on explosives found in luggage at an airport, companies cutting the price of insulin, and why Mexico’s electoral reforms are drawing concerns about democracy.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • India, world’s largest democracy, leads global list of internet shutdowns | CNN Business

    India, world’s largest democracy, leads global list of internet shutdowns | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    India imposed the highest number of internet shutdowns globally in 2022, a new report has revealed, in what critics say is yet another blow to country’s commitment to freedom of speech and access to information.

    Of 187 internet shutdowns recorded worldwide, 84 took place in India, according to the report published Tuesday by Access Now, a New York based advocacy group that tracks internet freedom.

    This is the fifth consecutive year the world’s largest democracy of more than 1.3 billion people has topped the list, the group said, raising concerns about India’s commitment to internet freedom under its current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

    “The responsibility of Indian states for the majority of shutdowns globally is impossible to ignore and a deep problem on its own,” the report said. “Authorities in regions across the country are increasingly resorting to this repressive measure, inflicting shutdowns on more people in more places.”

    Nearly 60% of India’s internet shutdowns last year occurred in Indian-administered Kashmir, where authorities disrupted access due to “political instability and violence,” according to the report.

    In August 2019, the BJP revoked the autonomy of the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir and split it into two federally administered territories, bringing the region under greater control of New Delhi. The unprecedented decision sparked protests and the government has frequently restricted communication lines since, a move rights groups say is aimed at quashing dissent.

    Apart from Jammu and Kashmir, authorities in the states of West Bengal and Rajasthan imposed more shutdowns than other Indian regions in response to “protests, communal violence and exams,” according to the report.

    India has the world’s second largest digital population, following China, with more than 800 million internet users. The internet has become a vital social and economic lifeline for large swathes of the population and connects the country’s isolated rural pockets, with its growing cities.

    The disruptions “impacted the daily lives of millions of people for hundreds of hours in 2022,” the report said.

    The Access Now report comes at a time when India’s commitment to freedom of speech and expression is under increasing scrutiny.

    In January, the country banned a documentary from the BBC that was critical of Modi’s alleged role in deadly riots more than 20 years ago. Indian tax authorities raided the BBC’s offices in New Delhi and Mumbai in the weeks that followed citing “irregularities and discrepancies” in the broadcaster’s taxes.

    But critics of the government were not convinced, instead calling the raids “a clear cut case of vendetta” and accused the BJP of intimidating the media.

    Last week, police in New Delhi arrested a senior opposition politician for allegedly “disturbing harmony” after he misstated the Prime Minister’s middle name, a move Modi’s critics likened to “dictatorial behavior.”

    In recent years, the government has repeatedly justified blocking internet access on the grounds of preserving public safety amid widespread fears of mob violence.

    While the country was in the middle of its general election in 2019, with more than 900 million people eligible to vote, some Indians were denied access to the internet for days at a time as they prepared to cast their ballots.

    Authorities said the blocking was “a precautionary measure to maintain law and order,” leading many critics to question India’s grand exercise in political freedom during the world’s largest election.

    During a nearly year-long protest by angry farmers in 2021 over controversial new pricing laws, the Indian government blocked internet access in several districts after violent skirmishes broke out between demonstrators and police.

    Supporters of Aam Aadmi Party take part in a demonstration held in Amritsar on August 31, 2021 following clashes between police and farmers.

    Some individual shutdowns have been challenged in the courts, and there is an effort to change the country’s laws to make such blackouts more difficult to impose.

    Last year saw more internet shutdowns worldwide than ever before, Access Now said, prompting the group to raise fears of “digital authoritarianism” as governments continue the trend.

    Apart from India, other countries that saw internet shutdowns last year include Ukraine, Iran and Myanmar.

    During Russia’s invasion of it neighbor Ukraine, the Kremlin cut internet access at least 22 times, according to Access Now, engaging in “cyberattacks and deliberately destroying telecommunications infrastructure.”

    The Iranian regime responded to protests ignited by the death in custody of 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman Mahsa Amini by imposing 18 shutdowns – a move Access Now called “a further escalation of its repressive tactics.”

    Myanmar, which in 2021 saw the junta remove its democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi, saw seven internet blackouts, according to the report. The Southeast Asian country continues to be rocked by violence and instability, while many are grappling with shortages of fuel, food and basic supplies

    The “military persisted in keeping people in the dark for extended periods, targeting areas where coup resistance is strongest,” the report said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tens of thousands protest Mexico’s electoral law changes

    Tens of thousands protest Mexico’s electoral law changes

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Tens of thousands of people filled Mexico City’s vast main plaza Sunday to protest President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s electoral law changes they say threaten democracy and could mark a return to the past.

    The plaza is normally thought to hold nearly 100,000 people, but many protesters who couldn’t fit in the square spilled onto nearby streets.

    The marchers were clad mostly in white and pink — the color of the National Electoral Institute — and shouted slogans like “Don’t Touch my Vote!” Like a similar but somewhat larger march on Nov. 13, the marchers appeared somewhat more affluent than those at the average demonstration.

    The electoral law changes drew attention from the U.S. government.

    Brian A. Nichols, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western hemisphere affairs, wrote in his Twitter account that “Today, in Mexico, we see a great debate on electoral reforms that are testing the independence of electoral and judicial institutions.”

    “The United States supports independent, well-resourced electoral institutions that strengthen democratic processes and the rule of law,” Nichols wrote.

    López Obrador’s proposals were passed last week. Once enacted, they would cut salaries, funding for local election offices and training for citizens who operate and oversee polling stations. They would also reduce sanctions for candidates who fail to report campaign spending.

    Mexico’s president denies the reforms are a threat to democracy and says criticism is elitist, arguing the institute spends too much money. He says the funds should be spent on the poor.

    But protester Enrique Bastien, a 64-year-old veterinarian, said that with the reforms López Obrador “wants to return to the past” when “the government controlled elections.”

    “It was a life with no independence,” said Bastien, recalling the 1970s and 80s when the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, ruled Mexico with fraud and handouts.

    Fernando Gutierrez, 55, a small businessman, said López Obrador wanted to lead Mexico to a socialist government. “That’s obvious, from the aid going to Cuba,” Gutierrez said.

    López Obrador has imported coronavirus vaccines, medical workers and stone railway ballast from Cuba, but has shown little taste for socialist policies at home.

    Many other demonstrators were simply wary of the kind of vote miscounting, campaign overspending and electoral pressure tactics that were common in Mexico before the independent electoral agency was created in the 1990s.

    López Obrador said Thursday he’ll sign the changes into law, even though he expects court challenges. Many at Sunday’s protest expressed hope that Mexico’s Supreme Court would overturn some of the changes, as courts have done with other presidential initiatives.

    Lorenzo Cordova, the head of the National Electoral Institute, has said the reforms “seek to cut thousands of people who work every day to guarantee trustworthy elections, something that will of course pose a risk for future elections.”

    López Obrador has appeared nonchalant about court challenges, saying Thursday that he believed the changes would be upheld because none was “outside the law.”

    However, in the past he has frequently attacked Mexico’s judiciary and claimed judges are part of a conservative conspiracy against his administration.

    The president’s strident pushback against the judiciary, as well as regulatory and oversight agencies, has raised fears among some that he is seeking to reinstitute the practices of the old PRI, which bent the rules to retain Mexico’s presidency for 70 years until its defeat in the 2000 elections.

    Elections in Mexico are expensive by international standards, in part because almost all legal campaign financing is, by law, supplied by the government. The electoral institute also issues the secure voter ID cards that are the most commonly accepted form of identification in Mexico, and oversees balloting in the remote and often dangerous corners of the country.

    López Obrador remains highly popular in Mexico, with approval ratings of around 60%. While he cannot run for reelection, his Morena party is favored in next year’s national elections and the opposition is in disarray.

    Part of his popular appeal comes from railing against high-paid government bureaucrats, and he has been angered by the fact that some top electoral officials are paid more than the president.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Philippines 1986 revolt marked with dictator’s son as leader

    Philippines 1986 revolt marked with dictator’s son as leader

    [ad_1]

    MANILA, Philippines — Pro-democracy protesters marked the anniversary on Saturday of the 1986 army-backed “people power” revolt in the Philippines with the son of the dictator, who was ousted in that uprising, now the president in a stunning comeback.

    About 1,400 demonstrators, some waving Philippine flags and holding placards that read “Never forget,” gathered at a democracy shrine along the main EDSA highway in the Manila metropolis. An equal number of left-wing activists, carrying an effigy that depicted Marcos Jr. as a pest, protested separately at a nearby pro-democracy monument.

    Millions of Filipinos converged in February 1986 at the usually traffic-choked thoroughfare to shield top military and defense officials who defected from the administration of then-President Ferdinand Marcos and braced for battle in two adjacent camps. The ailing president, who imposed martial rule from 1972 to 1981, was driven with his family and cronies into U.S. exile, where he died three years later.

    The uprising awed the world and became a harbinger of change in authoritarian regimes. But in the nearly four decades since the uprising, poverty, landlessness, stark inequality between the rich and poor, and injustices have remained deeply entrenched and shrouded the nearly bloodless revolt’s legacy.

    The Marcoses returned to the Philippines in 1991 and gradually rose back to political power despite the plunder and widespread human rights atrocities that forced the family patriarch from power to global infamy.

    In May last year, Marcos’s son and namesake won the presidential race in a landslide victory in one of history’s most dramatic political comebacks.

    “It’s mind-blowing in one sense, isn’t it? How did this happen? You remember those who sacrificed their lives and you feel so sad for those who were tortured, those who lost loved ones,” Judy Taguiwalo, a longtime former political detainee and torture survivor under the dictatorship, told The Associated Press.

    Now 73 and ailing, Taguiwalo said her generation of activists who fought the dictatorship was slowly fading, and many have died, but she remained optimistic and defiant.

    “There’s a new generation of fighters,” she said. “Tyranny can return but there’s no forever in tyranny so long as we don’t stop resisting even if it’s an uphill battle or we get sidetracked by disinformation.”

    Marcos Jr.’s supporters called his massive victory a political vindication but opponents said he climbed back to the top post through well-funded social media propaganda that whitewashed the family history in a country regarded as one of the top users of the internet and social media, including Facebook and TikTok.

    He had steadfastly rejected calls by anti-Marcos groups for him to apologize for the atrocities and plunder under his father’s rule and said in a TV interview at the presidential place in Manila in September that labeling his father a dictator was wrong.

    Faced with the awkward situation of issuing a statement to mark the 1986 revolt that toppled his father, Marcos Jr. called for reconciliation without any reference to the event as a democratic milestone as his predecessors did.

    “I once again offer my hand of reconciliation to those with different political persuasions to come together as one in forging a better society — one that will pursue progress and peace and a better life for all Filipinos,” Marcos Jr. said in a two-paragraph statement he posted on Facebook.

    “As we look back to a time in our history that divided the Filipino people, I am one with the nation in remembering those times of tribulation and how we came out of them united and stronger as a nation,” he said.

    Renato Reyes of the left-wing alliance Bayan said the president’s offer was a “good sound bite but lacks sincerity and substance” given Marcos Jr.’s refusal to acknowledge abuses under his father’s rule.

    The ousted president died in exile in Hawaii three years after being overthrown without admitting any wrongdoing, including accusations that he and his family amassed an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion while he was in power.

    A Hawaii court later found him liable for human rights violations and awarded $2 billion from his estate to compensate more than 9,000 Filipinos who filed a lawsuit against him for torture, incarceration, extrajudicial killings and disappearances.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appreciating Jimmy Carter, outspoken but ‘never irrelevant’

    Appreciating Jimmy Carter, outspoken but ‘never irrelevant’

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Ever the outsider, Jimmy Carter served a turbulent term in the White House. His presidency was beset by soaring interest and inflation rates, gasoline pump lines and the Iran hostage crisis that eventually led to his re-election defeat.

    But he rose to even greater heights with his post-presidential career, devoting another four decades to working as an international envoy of peacemaking and democracy. James Earl Carter Jr., a peanut farmer who became the 39th president of the United States, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

    —-

    EDITOR’S NOTE — Walter Mears, an AP special correspondent who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the 1976 presidential campaign, died in 2022. He wrote this appreciation of Carter, who entered hospice care on Feb. 18.

    —-

    Trounced by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election, Carter was, at 56, a politician with only a past and “a potentially empty life” ahead. Then, in 1982, he organized the Carter Center in Atlanta.

    It kept him traveling, negotiating, leading election observation teams and speaking out, often to the discomfort or even resentment of the government he’d once led. Carter’s Nobel citation honored “his decades of untiring effort” to resolve conflicts, promote democracy and foster economic development.

    The man who conceded that some considered him “a failed president” made himself the most active and internationally engaged of ex-presidents. “My role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents,” he said in a 2010 television interview.

    When he ran for president as a one-term former Georgia governor, Carter was so improbable a candidate that he said his mother asked him, “President of what?”

    To answer that and his all-but-invisible name recognition rating, he started campaigning early. Carter covered some 50,000 campaign miles, his garment bag draped over his shoulder.

    He won the Democratic nomination and challenged President Gerald Ford, Nixon’s appointed vice president.

    Ford had pardoned Nixon for any Watergate crimes. In the aftermath of Watergate, Carter was the anti-Richard Nixon figure. “I will never lie to you,” he told voters. But Carter was elected by only 2 percentage points.

    The newly elected president and wife Rosalynn shunned the limousine and walked from the Capitol to the White House after his inauguration and tried to drop some of the pomp surrounding the presidency. But his solo style and unintended snubs left him short of political allies when he’d need their help.

    For all that, Carter’s term left landmarks, such as the Israel-Egypt peace accord he engineered in personal negotiations at Camp David in 1978.

    He won the beginnings of an energy conservation policy. He gained ratification of the treaties that yielded U.S. control of the Panama Canal. He opened full diplomatic relations with China. The departments of energy and education were created. But his administration struggled and Carter shook up his Cabinet amid “a crisis of confidence.”

    And then things got worse.

    On Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian demonstrators invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, incited by their ayatollah to retaliate for the exiled former shah’s admission into the United States for medical treatment. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for more than a year. Carter tried to negotiate, and when that didn’t work, he ordered the military rescue attempt that failed disastrously in the desert in April 1980.

    Eight Americans were killed in the attempt. It was Carter’s bleakest hour.

    The hostage crisis shadowed and essentially crippled Carter’s re-election campaign. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy challenged him in the Democratic primaries.

    After that, it was all uphill against Reagan. Carter carried only six states to Reagan’s 44.

    Minutes after Reagan was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 1981, the hostages were freed after 444 days in captivity. Carter’s first major act as an ex-president was as Reagan’s special envoy to welcome the freed hostages in Wiesbaden, Germany, the next day.

    Jimmy Carter, the only president inaugurated by nickname, was born in tiny Plains, Georgia, where he arranged to be buried. The father for whom he was named was in the peanut business, with a farm and warehouse. His father, brother, Billy, and two sisters all died of pancreatic cancer.

    Carter graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946, the year he married Rosalynn Smith, also of Plains. They had three sons and a daughter, Amy, the youngest child, who went with them to the White House.

    Carter spent nearly seven years in the Navy’s nuclear submarine force, resigning to take over the family business after his father died in 1953. His first political stop was in the Georgia State Senate. A Democratic moderate with a New South image, Carter was elected governor of Georgia in 1970, succeeding segregationist Lester Maddox and gaining his first national note when he declared in his inauguration address “the time for racial discrimination is over.”

    After he lost his presidential re-election bid, a shaken Carter retreated to Plains, to “an altogether new, unwanted” chapter in his life.

    He began the Carter Center which, he said later, offered “superior opportunities to do good.” He and Rosalynn also worked with Habitat for Humanity, building housing for the poor in the United States and abroad.

    Carter was a tireless peacemaker who bypassed usual diplomatic channels and, as he said in 1994, went “where others are not treading” — places such as Ethiopia, Liberia and North Korea, where he secured the release of an American who had been imprisoned after wandering across the border in 2010.

    He helped oversee democratic elections in Nicaragua and Haiti, and the first Palestinian elections. Altogether, he participated in 39 of the center’s 100 election observation trips.

    Carter said his center “filled vacuums in the world. When the United States won’t deal with troubled areas, we go there.”

    And not always quietly.

    He went to Cuba in 2002, met with Fidel Castro, then delivered a televised speech calling for an end to the U.S. trade embargo. He likened Israeli policy toward the Palestinians to apartheid. He denounced the Iraq war as “based upon lies.” He said George W. Bush was the worst president in history in foreign affairs.

    That prompted a Bush White House spokesman to describe Carter as “irrelevant.”

    He could be meddlesome, a freelance diplomat who irked more than one administration.

    But never irrelevant.

    [ad_2]

    Source link