ReportWire

Tag: Foreign policy

  • Trump teases tariffs on imported furniture

    [ad_1]

    Trump teases tariffs on imported furniture

    President Donald Trump has announced an investigation into tariffs on foreign-made furniture, which could affect prices and manufacturing in the U.S.

    Updated: 7:31 AM EDT Aug 23, 2025

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    President Donald Trump said on Friday that new tariffs on foreign-made furniture are coming later this year following an investigation.”Within the next 50 days, that Investigation will be completed, and Furniture coming from other Countries into the United States will be Tariffed at a Rate yet to be determined,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “This will bring the Furniture Business back to North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, and States all across the Union.”A White House official clarified that the president is referencing a previously announced investigation that “will assess the national security risks arising from the United States’ increasing dependence on imported timber, lumber, and derivative products like paper, furniture, and cabinetry.”Nevertheless, the president’s comments on Friday sank some furniture stocks, from Wayfair to Williams-Sonoma. An industry coalition, called “Furniture for America,” expressed concerns about steeper tariffs earlier this year in written comments to the Commerce Department.”There is no rational relationship between imports of wood products or furniture and the national security of the United States,” the coalition wrote. “Second, no amount of tariffs will bring back American furniture manufacturing back to its prior levels. Tariffs will harm manufacturing still being done in the United States.” The White House said new tariffs on this sector would not stack on top of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs that are already targeting a wide range of countries, including major furniture suppliers like China and Vietnam. Federal data suggests those tariffs may be starting to show up in some furniture prices for consumers. The latest Consumer Price Index shows that, while overall inflation held steady between June and July 2025, furniture and bedding prices increased by 0.9 percent month-to-month. Some experts have identified this as an early warning sign, while conceding that the impact of tariffs on prices has generally been less severe than anticipated, perhaps because many businesses are absorbing added costs instead of passing them on to consumers. It remains to be seen how Trump’s latest batch of tariffs on most trading partners that took effect earlier this month will impact these trends.

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump said on Friday that new tariffs on foreign-made furniture are coming later this year following an investigation.

    “Within the next 50 days, that Investigation will be completed, and Furniture coming from other Countries into the United States will be Tariffed at a Rate yet to be determined,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “This will bring the Furniture Business back to North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, and States all across the Union.”

    A White House official clarified that the president is referencing a previously announced investigation that “will assess the national security risks arising from the United States’ increasing dependence on imported timber, lumber, and derivative products like paper, furniture, and cabinetry.”

    Nevertheless, the president’s comments on Friday sank some furniture stocks, from Wayfair to Williams-Sonoma.

    An industry coalition, called “Furniture for America,” expressed concerns about steeper tariffs earlier this year in written comments to the Commerce Department.

    “There is no rational relationship between imports of wood products or furniture and the national security of the United States,” the coalition wrote. “Second, no amount of tariffs will bring back American furniture manufacturing back to its prior levels. Tariffs will harm manufacturing still being done in the United States.”

    The White House said new tariffs on this sector would not stack on top of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs that are already targeting a wide range of countries, including major furniture suppliers like China and Vietnam.

    Federal data suggests those tariffs may be starting to show up in some furniture prices for consumers.

    The latest Consumer Price Index shows that, while overall inflation held steady between June and July 2025, furniture and bedding prices increased by 0.9 percent month-to-month. Some experts have identified this as an early warning sign, while conceding that the impact of tariffs on prices has generally been less severe than anticipated, perhaps because many businesses are absorbing added costs instead of passing them on to consumers.

    It remains to be seen how Trump’s latest batch of tariffs on most trading partners that took effect earlier this month will impact these trends.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. condemns Israeli airstrikes that killed dozens of civilians in Gaza

    U.S. condemns Israeli airstrikes that killed dozens of civilians in Gaza

    [ad_1]

    U.S. condemns Israeli airstrikes that killed dozens of civilians in Gaza – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza said dozens of civilians were killed in an Israeli airstrike. CBS News senior foreign correspondent Holly Williams reports on the U.S. response and de-escalation efforts in the Middle East.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iran aided Russia against Ukraine. Now it needs to call in the favor

    Iran aided Russia against Ukraine. Now it needs to call in the favor

    [ad_1]

    Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) enters the hall during the meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian (not pictured), October 11, 2024, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.

    Contributor | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Iran has been one of Russia’s few staunch allies throughout the war against Ukraine, but Tehran now faces the strain of indirectly fighting its nemesis Israel on two fronts.

    Under pressure — but still defiant — Iran could start looking to Russia for help, given its need for greater air defense capabilities and military intelligence to detect a highly-anticipated but yet-to-materialize direct Israeli attack on Iran, analysts told CNBC.

    Russia is well-positioned to provide Tehran with such capabilities, but the extent to which it will assist the Islamic Republic remains uncertain.

    “I fully expect that the Iranians have high expectations of the Russians to provide them with something,” Bilal Y. Saab, associate fellow in the Middle East and North Africa Programme at think tank Chatham House, told CNBC Thursday, noting that reputation is of the utmost importance in international relations — even among authoritarian countries.

    “So if the Russians are going to bail on this, it’s going to have consequences with regards not only to its relationship with the Iranians, but to any other partner, such as the Chinese,” he said.

    “They’ve got to maintain some kind of reputation that they are good for it, and so I have medium-to-high expectations that they would actually provide them with what they need. Now, whether they provide them with everything they need, this is what nobody knows.”

    Russia is unlikely to offer military intervention against Israel on behalf of the Iranians, Saab said, given it is already “too bogged down in Ukraine.”

    “It’s also too risky of a game to go against the United States over the Iranians … so I think that [it’s] more likely they would stay on the sidelines and try to help from as far away as possible,” he said.

    CNBC has contacted the Kremlin and Iranian foreign ministry for comment and has yet to receive a response.

    ‘Strategic alliance’

    Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian (L) during their meeting, October 11, 2024, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.

    Contributor | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Arms transfers between the two allies have led the U.S. to describe Iran as Russia’s “top military backer,” although both countries deny drone and missile transfers have taken place. Tehran has conceded that it sent drones to Russia before the war began, however.

    Russia also denies using drones to attack Ukrainian infrastructure, although there have been numerous instances of Iranian-made drones damaging Ukrainian infrastructure or being intercepted during the war.

    In the meantime, Tehran has turned to Russia to help build up its own military capabilities, looking to procure sophisticated Russia air defense systems and a variety of combat aircraft, according to reports, although the details surrounding the delivery of such hardware remain hazy.

    “The provision of Iranian drones and, more recently, missiles to Russia for its campaign in Ukraine marked a significant evolution in the Russia-Iran relationship. In part, the war itself served as an accelerant to the already burgeoning Russia-Iran ties, propelling their cooperation to new heights,” Karim Sadjadpour and Nicole Grajewski from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank noted in analysis earlier this month.

    In return for Iran’s support, Russia has bolstered Iran’s military capabilities in several areas, they noted: “Iran has made notable progress in acquiring advanced conventional weaponry from Russia, allowing it to achieve some of its defense officials’ long-standing goals. In November 2023, Tehran secured deals for Su-35 fighter jets, Yak-130 training aircraft, and Mi-28 attack helicopters, though only the Yak-130s have been delivered so far.”

    Russia has been offering Iran “an unprecedented level of military and technical support that is transforming their relationship into a full-fledged defense partnership,” National Security Council Spokesperson John Kirby said in late 2022. “This partnership poses a threat, not just to Ukraine, but to Iran’s neighbors in the region,” he said at the time.

    Fast forward to October 2024 and Russia’s appetite to bolster Tehran’s military capabilities might be waning as its war against Ukraine drags on, while Iran’s ability to supply Russia with weaponry could now be limited.

    Tehran is indirectly fighting its nemesis Israel on two fronts with its regional proxies, the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, coming under heavy and sustained Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip and in Lebanon, respectively, and looking severely weakened after the deaths of the militant groups’ leaders.

    Iranian protesters shout anti-Israeli slogans while burning an Israeli flag in a celebration for Iran’s missile attack against Israel, in Tehran, Iran, on October 1, 2024. 

    Morteza Nikoubazl | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    The factions, along with Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, make up what Tehran refers to as the “Axis of Resistance,” which Iran backs in order to oppose Israeli and U.S. influence in the region. That shared antipathy toward the U.S. and desire to create a “new world order” are what largely binds Iran and Russia.

    This week could bring more clarity on their deepening economic and strategic cooperation, when Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian meet on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Russia.

    Both countries have said they are close to signing a “strategic partnership agreement” — negotiations over which began in early 2022 — and this could be finalized at forum. It remains to be seen what the partnership will entail.

    An alliance, with limits

    Russia is likely watching the expansion of Israel’s military action in the Gaza enclave and Lebanon carefully given its own military, economic and geopolitical interests in the Middle East.

    It has, so far, maintained generally good relations in the region, including with arch rivals Iran and Israel, as well as deepening strategic ties with Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

    Mikhail Svetlov | Getty Images

    As such, the fighting between Israel and Iran’s proxies could be starting to encroach on Russia’s interests in the area.

    The most recent example of this is Israel’s Oct. 3 bombing of Iranian forces near Syria’s Khmeimim Air Base, which has been operated by Russia since it propped up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government during the country’s civil war a decade ago.

    Analysts say it remains unclear what Russia would do to support Iran in the event of a wider and direct war between Iran and Israel, questioning the depth of the alliance and given the fact that Moscow is already enmeshed in the war in Ukraine, which is a massive draw on manpower and military resources.

    “The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is beginning to impact Russian interests in the Middle East, as well as threaten a whole range of Russian-Iranian projects,” Nikita Smagin, an Iran expert with the Russian International Affairs Council, said in analysis Monday.

    “Nevertheless, Moscow prefers to adapt to the evolving situation rather than to get directly involved. Russia cannot — and will not — save Iran in its confrontation with Israel and the United States,” he noted.

    Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (R) welcomes Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) at Al Yamamah Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on December 06, 2023. 

    Royal Court of Saudi Arabia | Anadolu | Getty Images

    Moscow’s war in Ukraine means it has “no time” for another war, according to Smagin, who added that Russia would only be motivated to involve itself indirectly in the conflict with Israel if the end result were to weaken the U.S.

    “Russia could seek to support Iran by supplying weapons to Iranian proxy forces, including Hezbollah and the Houthis,” Smagin said. “However, for the Kremlin, that would be more logical if such deliveries were going to harm the United States, rather than Israel.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer vows to slash regulatory red tape in bid to boost investment

    UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer vows to slash regulatory red tape in bid to boost investment

    [ad_1]

    Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivers a speech on stage during the International Investment Summit, held at The Guildhall, in central London, on October 14, 2024.

    Jonathan Brady | Afp | Getty Images

    LONDON — The U.K.’s Labour government said Monday that it had secured £63 billion ($82 billion) in fresh investment at the close of a summit aimed at wooing overseas capital.

    Finance Minister Rachel Reeves hailed the “shovel ready” spending commitments — from companies including Blackstone, MacQuarie, Iberdrola, Amazon Web Services, ServiceNow and Eli Lilly — which she said would create almost 40,000 new jobs across the country.

    “We are bringing investment and jobs back to this country. Britain is open for business again,” she said during closing remarks at the summit.

    The announcement comes after Prime Minister Keir Starmer earlier on Monday vowed to slash regulatory red tape to boost anemic investment in the country.

    “We’ve got to look at regulation across the piece, and where it is needlessly holding back investment … mark my words, we will get rid of it,” he told delegates at the government’s inaugural International Investment Summit, held at London’s Guildhall.

    “It’s time to upgrade the regulatory regime. We will rip up the bureaucracy that blocks investment,” he added.

    Starmer did not say exactly which regulations would be changed. However, the government said in a statement that it was “reviewing the focus” of major regulators, with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in particular being charged to “prioritise growth, investment, and innovation.”

    The regulatory overhaul is just one part of the Labour Party’s plans to place Britain at the forefront of emerging opportunities.

    Last week, it launched a new Regulatory Innovation Office to reduce the burden of red tape for businesses working on “game-changing” technologies. Meanwhile, ministers have been introducing changes to the planning system to boost new building projects.

    Growth as Labour’s “No.1 test”

    The prime minister restated that growth was the “No. 1 test of this government,” and reiterated plans for the U.K. to become the fastest-growing G7 economy.

    Starmer also outlined stability, strategy, regulation and improving Britain’s global standing as “four crucial areas” in his pitch for Britain.

    “Private sector investment is the way we rebuild our country and pay our way in the world,” he said.

    Speaking during a panel discussion with Starmer on Monday, Google‘s former CEO Eric Schmidt said he was “shocked” when he heard that the Labour party had become strongly in favor of growth.

    Schmidt added that he was waiting to see “how you pull it off,” urging the government to invest further in artificial intelligence to achieve its wider growth goals.

    Some have expressed concern over the government’s proposed regulatory rollback, warning that certain measures could risk harming growth and innovation.

    “There are regulations that are bad for innovation, productivity and growth and there are regulations that are absolutely necessary for them,” Ali Nikpay, partner co-chair of the antitrust and competition group at law firm Gibson Dunn, told CNBC via email.

    “Take merger control: The government wants the CMA to be more hands off. That might give a few sectors a sugar rush in the short run as deals that would have been blocked in the past are cleared. But in the longer run that’ll reduce innovation and growth across the economy,” he added.

    Labour has been attempting to paint a more positive picture of the economy after being accused of doom-mongering in its early months in office. It is also seeking to position itself as a reliable partner after years of upheaval — including Brexit — a slew of prime ministers and a bond market selloff.

    Opening the summit, Business and Trade Minister Jonathan Reynolds heralded a “new era of stability, of openness, [and] of commitment to use our mandate” to remove barriers to business.

    The government on Sunday announced the launch of a new industrial strategy, designed to focus on eight “growth-driving sectors.” Those include the creative industries, financial services, advanced manufacturing, professional services, defense, tech, life sciences and clean energy industries. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China-linked security breach targeted U.S. wiretap systems, WSJ reports

    China-linked security breach targeted U.S. wiretap systems, WSJ reports

    [ad_1]

    People observe the scenery near Chinese national flags displayed for National Day celebrations on October 3, 2024 in Chongqing, China. National Day Golden Week is a holiday in China commemorates the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. 

    Cheng Xin | Getty Images

    U.S. broadband providers had their networks breached in a cyberattack tied to the Chinese government that targeted wiretap requests, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

    The attack may have allowed China to gain information on the American federal government’s court-authorized network wiretapping requests, the newspaper found.

    It’s possible the hackers had access for months or longer to networks the U.S. uses to make lawful requests for communications data, the WSJ wrote, citing people familiar with the matter.

    China denies allegations from Western governments and technology companies that it uses hackers to access government information.

    Government officials have been concerned these cyberattacks could be used to disrupt U.S. systems in the event of a conflict between China and the U.S., the newspaper said.

    The cyber breach, carried out by the Chinese hacking group known as Salt Typhoon, poses serious national security risks, the WSJ reported.

    The F.B.I. declined to respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

    Read The Wall Street Journal’s article here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • India rules out joining world’s largest trade deal, accuses China of ‘very opaque’ trade practices

    India rules out joining world’s largest trade deal, accuses China of ‘very opaque’ trade practices

    [ad_1]

    Indian flag and Chinese flag displayed on screen.

    Anadolu | Anadolu | Getty Images

    India’s commerce minister rejected the idea of joining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the world’s largest trade deal, maintaining that it is not in the country’s interest to be part of a free trade agreement with China.

    “India is not going to join the RCEP because neither did it reflect the guiding principles on which ASEAN was started, nor is it in the nation’s interest to do a free trade agreement with China,” India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal told CNBC’s Tanvir Gill in an interview.

    The RCEP deal was signed in 2020 by 15 Asia-Pacific countries — which makes up out 30% of global GDP — and came into force in January 2022. The countries are the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and five of their largest trading partners, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

    Negotiations for the RCEP started in 2013 and initially included India, which some members viewed as a counterbalance to China. However, in 2019, India chose not to join RCEP, citing unresolved “core interest” issues. Back then, India did not expand on what some of those core unresolved interests were.

    Goyal noted that at that time, India already had a free trade agreement with ASEAN, Japan and Korea, as well as a bilateral trade with New Zealand worth $300 million.

    “It was not in our farmers’ interest, RCEP did not reflect the aspirations of our small and micro medium industries and sector, and in some form, was nothing but a free trade agreement with China,” he said.

    “When you see from the lens sitting outside the country, you don’t realize how difficult it is to compete against a non-transparent economy,” the minister continued, in reference to China.

    “Certainly nobody back home would like to have an FTA with [a] non-transparent economy, very opaque in its economic practices, where both trading systems, political systems, the economy — the way it is managed — is completely different from what the democratic world wants.”

    Goyal also accused China of using the World Trade Organization’s policies to its advantage, flooding various economies with goods at low prices which often do not meet quality standards. 

    From solar panels to cars to steel, China has recently been churning out more goods in an economy that has been slow to absorb, resulting in a surge of cheap exports to foreign markets. 

    Semiconductor ambitions

    The minister also made a strong case for India to become a Taiwan “plus one” semiconductor country.

    “China Plus One” is a phrase used to describe a supply chain strategy that sees companies diversifying manufacturing and sourcing, by continuing operations in the mainland while also expanding into other countries. This approach aims to reduce risks linked to complete reliance on a single country’s market or supply chain.

    Spinning off that idea, Goyal thinks India can become an alternative place in the region for companies that want to diversify outside of Taiwan for semiconductors.

    “We are encouraging [the] semiconductor industry in a big way. We started building up the ecosystem, which is essential before we can see more and more foundries coming into the country for the actual chip making,” Goyal said.

    “We expect the demand for semiconductor products to be about $100 billion by 2030, and will grow exponentially thereafter,” he said, adding that interest in India’s semiconductor industry is expanding “by leaps and bounds.”

    India aims to establish itself as a major chips hub similar to the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, actively seeking foreign companies to set up their operations in the country.

    Earlier this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated three semiconductor plants, bringing the total count of plants under development in India to four. One of those plants is a joint venture between Tata Electronics and Taiwan’s Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp. The plant, which is set up in Dholera, Gujarat state, is expected to deliver its first batch of semiconductors by late 2025 or early 2026.

    Asked if India can be Taiwan’s “plus one” in the semiconductor space, Goyal said that his country’s size, democracy and rule of law means it is a “safe habor.”

    “It provides an alternative where you will always have a youthful population in life, huge demand, and you will have the rule of law to back it. I think that’s a very compulsive case,” he said.

    The world recognizes that excessive concentration in any one region is fraught with serious risks, Goyal added.

    India’s chip strategy has two main components: attracting foreign companies to establish operations and invest in the country, as well as forming partnerships with other major semiconductor nations, such as the U.S. In 2021, the government approved a $10 billion incentive program for the sector, which is also available to foreign companies.

    As of 2024, Taiwan, the world’s chipmaking powerhouse, is expected to hold around 44% of global market share, followed by China with 28% and South Korea with 12%, according to a report. The U.S. and Japan account for 6% and 2%, respectively.

    The authors of the report, Taiwan consultancy Trendforce, said Taiwan’s global capacity share in advanced manufacturing processes is expected to decrease to 40% by 2027, while South Korea’s could see a 2% decline. In the same time period, China’s is expected to increase by 3% to 31%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba tenders resignation, parliament speaker says

    Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba tenders resignation, parliament speaker says

    [ad_1]

    Dmytro Kuleba at the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Berlin, Germany, on Tuesday, June 11, 2024. 

    Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Ukraine’s wartime Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba tendered his resignation, Ukrainian Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk said Wednesday.

    “The application will be considered at one of the nearest plenary sessions meetings,” the Parliament speaker added in a Google-translated post on the Facebook social media platform.

    Kuleba, 43, took on the post of Ukraine’s minister of foreign affairs in March 2020 and has been a stalwart figure at the forefront of Kyiv’s concerted campaign to curry international favor in its efforts to fight back Ukraine’s ongoing invasion at the hands of neighboring Russia since February 2022. He was previously appointed as permanent representative of Ukraine to the Council of Europe over 2016-2019.

    CNBC has reached out to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment.

    Kuleba’s potential resignation follows similar steps to stand down on Tuesday from a swathe of Ukrainian ministers reported by state news agency Ukrinform, including Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories Iryna Vereshchuk, the Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Olga Stefanishyna, Minister for Strategic Industries Oleksandr Kamyshin and Minister of Justice Denys Maliuska.

    David Arakhamia, head of the Servant of the People faction in Parliament, had foreshadowed a wide-spread and “major reboot of the government” this week.

    “More than 50% of the staff of the [Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine] will undergo changes,” he said Tuesday in a Google-translated post on Telegram. “Tomorrow is the day of layoffs, and the day after tomorrow is the day of appointments.”

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signaled the tide was also set to change in Ukraine’s highest political echelons in his nightly address of Tuesday.

    “Autumn will be extremely important for Ukraine. And our state institutions must be set up in such a way that Ukraine will achieve all the results we need — for all of us. To do this, we need to strengthen some areas in the Government — and personnel decisions have been prepared, ” he said, adding that the anticipated changes in office will lead to “certain areas” of Kyiv’s foreign and domestic policies gaining a “slightly different emphasis.”

    “We need a new level of simultaneous information work, cultural and diplomatic. And a new level of relations with the global Ukrainian community. Now is the time to give new strength to Ukraine’s Governmental institutions, and I am grateful to everyone who will help,” he said.

    Zelenskyy did not disclose any of the names slated for dismissal or appointment at the time.

    Mirroring its battlefield efforts, Ukraine has been fighting a diplomatic war on multiple fronts, balancing a tenuous courtship of international financial and military backing, along with attempts to clean up its domestic record on corruption and pursue accession to the European Union.

    The potential change at the helm of Ukraine’s foreign affairs comes a mere two months ahead of the election of new leadership in key ally Washington. The U.S. administration of Joe Biden — including Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris — has so far staunchly backed Ukraine throughout its battle against Russia, but the long-term support of former President and Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has previously pledged to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours, remains to be seen.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russian attacks on Ukraine injure at least 29, local authorities say

    Russian attacks on Ukraine injure at least 29, local authorities say

    [ad_1]

    Ukrainian emergency services conduct a search and rescue operation among the rubble of a destroyed hotel following a Russian strike in the town of Kramatorsk early in the morning on August 25, 2024.

    Genya Savilov | Afp | Getty Images

    Russia launched several missiles and drones overnight targeting northern and eastern Ukraine, injuring at least 29 people, Ukrainian military and local authorities said on Sunday.

    The attack targeted Ukraine’s frontline regions of Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv and Donetsk, Ukraine’s air force said on the Telegram messaging app.

    Russia has been pummelling Ukrainian border regions with strikes, and Kyiv said its surprise incursion earlier this month into Russia’s Kursk region aimed to hinder Moscow’s ability to stage such attacks.

    “Most of the missiles did not reach their targets,” the air force said, adding that Russia launched an Iskander-M ballistic missile, an Iskander-K cruise missile and six guided air missiles. It did not specify how many missiles were destroyed.

    Russia struggles to respond to Ukraine’s incursion as advancing forces destroy key bridges and war potential

    A missile attack on the northern region of Sumy killed one person, injuring at least 16 more, including three children, local authorities said on Telegram.

    Oleh Sinehubov, governor of the Kharkiv region in the east, posted on Telegram that at least 13 people were injured in the Russian attacks, including a 4-year-old child.

    Ihor Terekhov, mayor of Kharkiv city, said a gas pipeline was damaged in the city and at least two houses were destroyed and 10 damaged.

    The air force said Russia launched nine attack drones, with Ukraine’s air defence systems destroying eight of them over the Ukraine’s Mykolaiv region.

    Reuters could not independently verify the reports. There was no immediate comment from Russia.

    Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched with a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia struggles to respond to Ukraine’s incursion as advancing forces destroy key bridges and war potential

    Russia struggles to respond to Ukraine’s incursion as advancing forces destroy key bridges and war potential

    [ad_1]

    A soldier fixes a drone underground in a Ukrainian military position, and former Russian military position, in Ukrainian-controlled territory on August 18th 2024, in Kursk, Russia. Ukrainian forces operating in Russia’s Kursk Region have destroyed a second key bridge, the commander of the Ukrainian Air Force said, as they attempt to push further into Russia. 

    The Washington Post | The Washington Post | Getty Images

    Ukrainian forces say they’ve blown up a second strategically-significant bridge in the Kursk region of Russia as Kyiv continues its incursion, while Moscow has yet to mount a robust response to the ambitious cross-border operation.

    As many as 5,000 Ukrainian soldiers are taking part in the incursion into Russian territory that began almost two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reports. Kyiv claims it has taken control of 82 settlements in the region over an area of 1,150 square kilometers (444 square miles) since the border raid began.

    Ukrainian forces have concentrated a number of their assaults on key transport and fuel infrastructure in Kursk, in a bid to make it harder for Russia to resource and resupply its troops fighting in eastern and southern Ukraine.

    Last Friday, Ukraine said its forces had destroyed a key bridge over the Seym river in Kursk, with the bridge reportedly used to transport equipment to the front line. Russian officials confirmed the attack took place and said the bridge’s destruction would hamper efforts to continue evacuating thousands of citizens out of Kursk.

    Citizens being evacuated from border settlements to safe areas as clashes between the Russian and Ukrainian armies continue in the Kursk region, Russia on August 17, 2024. The Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations is carrying out the evacuation with the help of Russian Railways and the volunteer organizations. 

    Anadolu | Anadolu | Getty Images

    On Saturday night, Ukrainian forces struck a Russian oil depot in the Rostov region that supplies oil to the Russian military. Ukraine’s General Staff commented on the attack that “measures to undermine the military and economic potential of the Russian Federation continue.”

    Ukraine’s air force on Sunday claimed it had destroyed a second bridge in Kursk, which Russia used to supply its troops. Aerial footage posted on social media purported to show the blast creating a large hole in the bridge in Zvannoe. CNBC could not independently verify the footage.

    “Minus one more bridge,” Ukrainian Air Force commander Lt Gen Mykola Oleschuk commented on Telegram.

    Ukraine’s air force “continues to deprive the enemy of logistical capabilities with precise strikes from the air, which significantly affects the course of hostilities,” he added, in comments translated by NBC News.

    Ukrainian servicemen operate a Soviet-made T-72 tank in the Sumy region, near the border with Russia, on August 12, 2024, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

    Roman Pilipey | Afp | Getty Images

    Russia has yet to mount a robust counter-offensive against the Ukrainian incursion, and even Russian military bloggers have criticized the military’s failure to anticipate the incursion, and the sluggish response to the operation.

    Defense analysts say that the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk continues to force Russia to redeploy forces from elsewhere in the theater of war, and analysts at the Institute for the Study of War think tank noted that it’s likely that “subsequent phases of fighting within Russia will require more Russian manpower and materiel commitments to the area.”

    ISW analysts further said Sunday that Russian redeployments to Kursk have allowed their forces to slow the initially rapid Ukrainian gains in the region and to start containing the extent of the Ukrainian offensive.

    However, they stressed, “containment is only the first and likely least resource-intensive phase of the Russian response in Kursk.”

    A Ukrainian military vehicle drives from the direction of the border with Russia carrying blindfolded men in Russian military uniforms, in the Sumy region, on August 13, 2024, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

    Roman Pilipey | Afp | Getty Images

    “Russian forces will likely launch a concerted counteroffensive effort to retake territory in Kursk Oblast [region] that Ukrainian forces have seized, although it is too early to assess when Russian forces will stop Ukrainian advances in Kursk Oblast completely and seize the battlefield initiative to launch such an effort,” the ISW said.

    “This likely future Russian counteroffensive effort will very likely require Russia to commit even more manpower, equipment, and materiel to Kursk,” the ISW added, outlining that the exact extent of the elements needed for sustained counteroffensives to push Ukrainian forces back across the border will depend on how heavily Kyiv’s military defends occupied positions in Russia.

    ‘War potential’

    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday that Ukraine’s primary aim was to destroy “Russian war potential” and to create a “buffer zone” to prevent Russian attacks on its border regions.

    “It is now our primary task in defensive operations overall: to destroy as much Russian war potential as possible and conduct maximum counteroffensive actions. This includes creating a buffer zone on the aggressor’s territory – our operation in the Kursk region,” Zelenskyy said in his nightly address.

    “Everything that inflicts losses on the Russian army, Russian state, their military-industrial complex, and their economy helps prevent the war from expanding and brings us closer to a just end to this aggression – a just peace for Ukraine,” he added.

    A pickup truck with Ukrainian soldiers in the back moves towards the border with Russia on August 16, 2024 in Sumy Oblast, Ukraine. The fighting in the Kursk Oblast began on August 6, 2024, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border near the city of Sudzha and began to advance deep into Russian territory, and in a few days took control of dozens of settlements in Kursk region. 

    Global Images Ukraine | Global Images Ukraine | Getty Images

    The Ukrainian president said he had been briefed on the situation in Kursk by the military’s Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi and implied that arming of Ukrainian units operating in the Russian region was proving challenging.

    He also called on Western allies to transfer weapons and ammunition pledged in military aid packages as quickly as possible to Ukraine.

    “Our guys are doing great on all fronts. However, there is a need for faster delivery of supplies from our partners. We strongly ask for this. There are no vacations in war. Decisions are needed, as is timely logistics for the announced aid packages,” Zelenskyy said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump released prisoners to free Americans detained abroad

    Trump released prisoners to free Americans detained abroad

    [ad_1]

    After a historic prisoner swap Aug. 1 among the U.S., Russia and other countries, former President Donald Trump questioned the details and compared it with deals he made during his presidency.

    “So when are they going to release the details of the prisoner swap with Russia? How many people do we get versus them? Are we also paying them cash?” Trump wrote Aug. 1 on Truth Social. “I got back many hostages, and gave the opposing Country NOTHING — and never any cash. To do so is bad precedent for the future.” 

    Three American citizens were among the released: U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, who was imprisoned in Russia for almost six years; Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who had been imprisoned in Russia for more than a year; and Alsu Kurmasheva, a Radio Liberty journalist detained in October 2023.

    In exchange for the prisoners held in Russia, the U.S. and other countries released eight prisoners, including Vadim Krasikov, who was serving a lifetime sentence in Germany for murder. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the U.S. did not exchange money in the deal.

    Trump’s administration released prisoners held by the U.S. government in exchange for having other nations free Americans held abroad. 

    “There is ALWAYS a quid pro quo in hostage diplomacy, as this issue is known,” said Anthony Wanis-St. John, an American University associate professor of peace, human rights and cultural relations who specializes in conflict zone negotiations. “It can be material, it can be a reciprocal release, or a political concession that is kept secret or is symbolic.”

    Here are some examples of prisoner exchanges and their terms during Trump’s administration.

    One U.S. citizen held in Iran exchanged for one Iranian in 2019

    In 2019, the U.S. secured the release of Xiyue Wang, a U.S. citizen who had been held prisoner in Iran since 2016. Wang was a Princeton University graduate student conducting doctoral research when he was arrested in Tehran and imprisoned on espionage charges.

    In exchange for Wang’s freedom, the U.S. agreed to release Masoud Soleimani, an Iranian scientist who was arrested and charged with violating American trade sanctions against Iran. The Justice Department had dropped the charges and Soleimani was expected to be released from prison before the exchange took place, The New York Times reported.

    One U.S. veteran held in Iran released for one Iranian American doctor in 2020

    In 2020, the Trump administration negotiated the release of Michael White, a U.S. Navy veteran who was imprisoned in 2018 after traveling to Iran to visit a woman he met online. White was serving a 10-year sentence after Iranian authorities convicted him of insulting Iran’s supreme leader and posting private information online, The Associated Press reported.

    As part of this deal, the U.S. agreed to release Matteo Taerri, also known as Majid Taheri, an Iranian American doctor who had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran. Taerri pleaded guilty and served several months in jail before he was released on bond. The Justice Department dropped its charges against Taerri.

    Two Americans held in Yemen released for more than 200 Houthi militants in 2020

    On Oct. 14, 2020, the Trump administration secured the release of two Americans whom Houthi rebels in Yemen had held captive: Sandra Loli and Mikael Gidada. The remains of Bilal Fateen, an American who died in captivity, were repatriated.

    In exchange, more than 200 Houthi militants returned from Oman to Yemen, according to news reports. The Trump administration did not link the two returns as an exchange, but The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. and Saudi Arabian officials confirmed it was.

    “We extend our sincerest thanks to Sultan Haitham bin Tariq of Oman and King Salman of Saudi Arabia for their efforts to secure the release of our citizens,” National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said then.

    U.S. agreed in 2017 to pay $2 million for U.S. citizen held in North Korea, but didn’t send the money

    In June 2017, a medical team and a State Department representative returned University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier to the U.S., after he had been detained in North Korea for more than 17 months. Warmbier was in a coma, and a few days later, he died.

    On April 25, 2019, The Washington Post reported that North Korea billed the U.S. $2 million to cover Warmbier’s hospital care. The U.S. envoy sent to retrieve Warmbier signed an agreement to pay the bill under Trump’s orders, the Post reported.

    “We did not pay money for our great Otto. There was no money paid. There was a fake news report that money was paid,” Trump said April 26, 2019.

    But on April 28, 2019, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton said on “Fox News Sunday” that “it appears” North Korea did demand money from the U.S. He said “that is what I’m told” when asked whether the U.S. envoy signed a document agreeing to pay the money to get Warmbier back.

    However, Bolton, who was not working in the Trump administration at the time of Warmbier’s release, said the U.S. “absolutely” did not pay North Korea any money for the release.

    Our ruling

    Trump said in hostage releases, “(I) gave the opposing country NOTHING — and never any cash.” 

    Multiple times during Trump’s administration, the U.S. government released prisoners it held in exchange for freeing Americans held abroad.

    In one instance, the U.S. agreed to pay money to North Korea for the release of a U.S. citizen, but a White House official said the money was never sent.

    Trump’s statement contains an element of truth because he never gave cash in exchange for Americans’ release. However, the statement ignores critical facts about the terms the U.S. agreed to in these exchanges.

    We rate the statement Mostly False.

    PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Kamala Harris on U.S. energy production

    Fact-checking Kamala Harris on U.S. energy production

    [ad_1]

    Republican candidates often criticize Democrats for throttling the U.S. energy sector or blame them for high gasoline prices. But just days before she became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, stole a page from the Republican playbook and boasted about U.S. energy production during Joe Biden’s presidency.

    In July 18 remarks in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Harris said, “Today, America has record energy production and we are energy independent.”

    Harris is right about record energy production, but she’s only partly right about energy independence. By some definitions, the U.S. is energy independent, but by an important one, it’s not.

    Does the U.S. have record energy production today?

    This part of Harris’s statement is accurate.

    Overall U.S. energy production — which includes everything from heating oil to gasoline to sources used to generate electricity such as coal, natural gas and renewables — hit 102.82 quadrillion British thermal units in 2023, more than 4% higher than the 2022 level, which was the previous record.

    This reflects recent growth in U.S. energy production, which has flourished under both of the last two presidents, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Experts credit the growth in shale oil and shale gas production, increases in renewable energies such as solar and wind and improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles.

    Some definitions of energy independence have been met

    As for the other part of Harris’ statement, some definitions of “energy independence” have been met — but not all.

    One definition that was met under both Trump and Biden is the U.S. exporting more energy than it imports. 

    The Energy Information Administration, a federal office that tracks energy statistics, found that in 2019 — when Trump was president — the United States became a net exporter of overall energy for the first time since 1952. 

    That has continued ever since, with the gap widening to a record level in 2023, the most recent full year with available statistics. 

    Another, narrower, measure of energy independence is whether the U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum specifically. In 2020, the U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum for the first time since at least 1949. That has continued through 2022, the last year with available data.

    A third form of energy independence occurs when domestic energy production exceeds domestic consumption. This has been so from 2019 to 2023.

    When we asked the Harris campaign to support its claim, it pointed to these metrics, and to a March 2024 report by the financial services company J.P.Morgan that used these statistics to support its conclusion that “the U.S. has achieved U.S. energy independence for the first time in 40 years.” 

    Other signs of energy independence have not been met

    There is one important metric keeping the U.S. from complete energy independence. The data for crude oil — which is used to manufacture gasoline, which for many consumers is top of mind — has not followed the same pattern as energy overall.

    Crude oil imports outpaced exports in each of the four years Trump was president, and during Biden’s first three years in office. Crude oil and petroleum are different; the U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum, a finished product, but a net importer of crude oil, a raw product used to make petroleum and petroleum products.

    There’s a reason for the imbalance in crude oil imports and exports, experts say. Although the U.S. theoretically produces enough crude oil to satisfy its consumption, the U.S. cannot refine all of the crude oil it produces. 

    Crude is graded by its weight and its “sweetness,” a measure of the oil’s sulfur content. Most U.S.-produced oil is “light” and “sweet,” and although some U.S. refineries can process it, many cannot. 

    These refineries are built to process heavier, less sweet crude (also called heavy, sour crude) from the Middle East and other overseas suppliers. That’s a holdover from past decades, when the U.S. was primarily importing its crude.

    This mismatch keeps the U.S. from simply using its own crude production to serve all of its domestic needs. Changing the mix of refineries to accommodate U.S.-produced crude oil would be expensive and take years to complete.

    This means the U.S. is exporting a lot of its domestically produced crude on the international market. To make up for this, the U.S. still must import a substantial amount of oil for domestic use.

    Mark Finley, a fellow in energy and global oil at Rice University’s Center for Energy Studies, said a more accurate term for the U.S. position right now is “net self-sufficiency.”

    “To be self-sufficient means you produce everything you need,” Finley said. “On a net basis, that is true for the U.S. in recent years. But to be independent means that what happens around the world doesn’t matter to you. That is absolutely false.”

    For instance, much of New England relies on foreign imports of oil and natural gas because the region lacks pipeline capacity and because of laws that regulate domestic shipping, said Hugh Daigle, an associate professor of petroleum and geosystems engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.

    So, even in a period of greater energy independence for the U.S., its supply is still sensitive to international events, experts said. Harris’ claim glosses over this reality. 

    “While the U.S. produces more energy than it consumes, it remains closely connected to — and dependent on — global developments,” Finley said.

    The last time we looked at a claim about energy independence in 2023, we rated it Half True. However, in that fact-check, of former Vice President Mike Pence, we did not also address the claim Harris mentioned about record-high energy production, which she was correct about.

    Our ruling

    Harris said, “Today, America has record energy production and we are energy independent.”

    Harris is correct about overall energy production being at a record high, and she is correct that the U.S. is energy independent by some definitions — being a net energy exporter, a net petroleum exporter and producing more energy than it consumes.

    However, the U.S. is not a net exporter of crude oil, which is the source of gasoline. 

    Many U.S. refineries cannot process the type of crude oil produced in the U.S., so serving the domestic market requires importing a different type of oil from overseas. This keeps the U.S. and its economy beholden to overseas developments.

    We rate the statement Mostly True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • RNC speakers blame Biden for war. Experts weigh in.

    RNC speakers blame Biden for war. Experts weigh in.

    [ad_1]

    One message Republican National Convention speakers have repeated: The world was at peace under former President Donald Trump but is now on fire because of President Joe Biden.

    Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, things that never would have happened had Trump still been president because of his policies and perceived toughness, speaker after speaker argued.

    Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, the newly minted Republican vice presidential nominee, said in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity on the convention’s first day that when Trump was in office, there were “real growing peace movements all over the world,” citing “no war in Europe” and the Abraham Accords — the September 2020 agreements that normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

    “Three years later, it seems like we have a conflict in every corner of the world,” Vance said.

    Other RNC speakers made similar arguments:

    • Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said: “When Barack Obama was president, Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea. With Joe Biden as president, Putin invaded all of Ukraine. But when Donald Trump was president, Putin did nothing, no invasions, no invasions, no wars. That was no accident. Putin didn’t attack Ukraine because he knew Donald Trump was tough.”

    • U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., said: “Around the world, the feckless and failed Joe Biden has caused chaos — weakening our national security. From the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, to Hamas’ terrorist attack against our most precious ally Israel.”

    • U.S. Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., added to the list the “Chinese Communist Party has Taiwan in their crosshairs.”

    • Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said “the weakness of the commander in chief has invited world wars all around our world.”

    It’s true that during the Trump administration there were no new major overseas wars or invasions. But during his time in office, there were still conflicts within Israel and between Russia and Ukraine.

    Do Trump and Biden’s foreign policies, or each president’s projected image abroad, factor into current world conflicts? Experts told PolitiFact that there’s a limit to how much influence U.S. presidents have over whether a foreign conflict erupts into war. 

    “American presidents have scant control over foreign decisions about war and peace unless they show their willingness to commit American power,” said Richard Betts, a Columbia University professor emeritus of war and peace studies and of international and public affairs.

    Trump, Betts said, reduced expectations even among NATO allies that the U.S. would intervene militarily if attacked.

    “Restraint in use of force is good, and the USA should not feel responsible for righting every wrong abroad, but Trump can’t have it both ways — holding back from military commitments abroad but expecting to deter aggressors from acting against their neighbors,” Betts wrote in an email to PolitiFact.

    Richard Arnold, a Muskingum University associate political science professor, said Trump couldn’t have prevented Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “without simply selling out the Ukrainians and giving Putin what he wanted, or putting American armed forces in Ukraine.”

    Under Biden, the U.S. “hit the Russians with just about every non-military means of crippling their country and so far it has not worked,” he said. 

    “This seems more like a talking point on which (Trump) can never be called because you can’t get evidence either way,” Arnold added.

    Trump supporters say his projected strength would have deterred Russia, but Arnold said a president’s image would have little to do with what another country decides to do.

    “Even ‘the most powerful man in the world’ operates within a system,” Arnold said. Weariness of wars that started in the George W. Bush administration would have led the U.S. to fear getting troops involved in another foreign war, he said.

    Although presidents can’t do much to prevent conflicts, they surely can guide the response, Arnold said.

    Trump would likely not have strongly backed Ukraine as Biden has, he said. 

    “There would have been an agreement with Putin to let him take the eastern part of Ukraine in exchange for no resistance,” Arnold said.

    Betts noted that Russia was intervening militarily in the Ukraine’s Donbas region throughout Trump’s administration, and Trump couldn’t stop it. Nor did he do much to stop Syria’s chemical weapons use beyond an airstrike that had no influence, Betts said.

    “If Trump had been in office in February 2022, Putin would have had every reason to assume he could get away with invading the rest of Ukraine since he had Trump in his pocket,” Betts said.

    Kenyan U.N. Ambassador Martin Kimani, the executive director of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, said things would have turned out “significantly differently” in Israel and Ukraine if Trump had been president, citing the Abraham Accords.

    “There’s no doubt in my mind that the prospect of the Abraham Accords being embraced by countries such as Saudi Arabia was one of the main causes of the Oct. 7 attack,” Kimani said, adding that the accords aimed to circumvent “the Palestinian issue” and promote peace between Israel and its historical Arab enemies.

    Hamas knew that such an attack would invite backlash and hinder the accords from progressing, Kimani said. Therefore, he said, experts “recognize that Trump already had a significant role in sparking or initiating the dynamics that led to Oct. 7.”

    Kimani also said Trump’s admiration for Putin “and the rapport they seemed to strike might have presented opportunities for negotiations that were certainly not to the advantage of the Ukrainians before the invasion, but might have headed off the war.” Those negotiations would have likely come at a significant expense to Ukraine’s sovereignty, he added.

    Kimani said Trump’s “willingness to talk to some of America’s greatest foes cannot be ignored.”

    If he returns to the White House, that willingness could result in more worldwide peace and security, he said. 

    “This would require a balance between wielding a big stick and offering a handshake to America’s enemies,” Kimani said. “Whether he has the discipline and ambition to take such a course remains to be seen.”

    Eileen Babbitt, a Tufts University professor of international conflict management, said whether a U.S. president can prevent a foreign war depends on how much the other countries rely on U.S. military, political or economic assistance and the current and historical relationship between the U.S. and those countries.

    “U.S. presidents differ in the extent to which they are willing to exert pressure on other countries and what they believe to be in the strategic interest of the U.S.,” Babbitt said.

    Trump would have been less likely to pressure Russia or Israel than Biden has been because of Trump’s admiration for Putin and Netanyahu, Babbitt said.

    Trump would not have prevented Netanyahu’s return to power or the “rightward swing of the ruling coalition,” Babbitt said. “This then would have led to the same moves by Hamas and the resulting Israeli response.”

    She said Biden has continued negotiations on the Abraham Accords, seeking to bring Israel and Saudi Arabia together.

    RELATED: Donald Trump and Joe Biden on Israel and Gaza: Comparing their positions 

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Global population to peak within this century as birth rates fall, United Nations report says

    Global population to peak within this century as birth rates fall, United Nations report says

    [ad_1]

    Huge crowd on a Saturday afternoon in Taksim, Beyoglu District of Istanbul.

    Ayhan Altun | Moment | Getty Images

    The world population is on course to peak earlier than expected this century as some of the world’s largest countries face declining birth rates, according to the United Nations.

    According to the organization’s biennial World Population Prospects report, global population is projected to peak at around 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s from the current 8.2 billion. It is expected to gradually decline to 10.2 billion by 2100 — 6% lower than anticipated a decade ago.

    The UN in 2022 had estimated the world population would peak at 10.4 billion by the 2080s. 

    “In some countries, the birth rate is now even lower than previously anticipated, and we are also seeing slightly faster declines in some high-fertility regions,” UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Li Junhua, said in a statement. 

    “The earlier and lower peak is a hopeful sign. This could mean reduced environmental pressures from human impacts due to lower aggregate consumption,” Li added.

    Globally on average, women are having one child fewer than they did in 1990. In over half of all countries, the average number of live births per woman has fallen below 2.1, which marks the level required for a population to maintain a consistent size without migration. The UN cited that countries such as China, South Korea, Spain and Italy have “ultra-low” fertility rates.

    As of 2024, the population has already peaked in 63 countries including China, Germany, Japan and Russia. The total population of these countries is stipulated to fall by 14% over the next 30 years.

    However, in nine countries including Niger, Somalia, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo, “very rapid growth” is projected where total population of this group is set to double between 2024 and 2054.

    For 126 countries including the United States, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan, population is expected to peak in the second half of the century or later.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • France’s Macron wanted to leave his mark on Europe — he may have just ruined his legacy

    France’s Macron wanted to leave his mark on Europe — he may have just ruined his legacy

    [ad_1]

    French President Emmanuel Macron on a campaign poster back in 2022.

    Sebastien Salom-gomis | Afp | Getty Images

    French President Emmanuel Macron’s failed snap election gamble is likely to take a large toll on his political ambitions and legacy, analysts say — and to weaken the power and influence he has sought to build in Europe in recent years.

    The final round of a snap parliamentary election in France last weekend — called by Macron after his center-right party was trounced in recent European Parliament elections — led to a surprise win for the left-wing New Popular Front alliance, thwarting an expected victory for the far-right National Rally party.

    Center-right Macron, who will remain in office until 2027, now faces the prospect of having to work with a coalition or technocratic government — and a prime minister — of a different political ilk, likely from the left-wing NFF. This is set to make governing France, the passing of legislation and reforms, potentially difficult.

    Not only did Macron’s high-stakes gamble with the snap poll not pay off, analysts note, but the French head of state has damaged his political standing and legacy in Europe, where he has sought a key leadership role.

    “In terms of his legacy, he will be in for a real political fight,” Tina Fordham, founder of Fordham Global Foresight, told CNBC on Monday.

    “Macron remains the towering figure and kingmaker. It will be him who chooses the prime minister, it’ll be Macron that travels to Washington for the 75th [anniversary] NATO summit this week, but those who are suggesting that his gamble paid off [are wrong],” Fordham said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe.”

    “Yes, he was able to keep the far right from first place but they’ve increased their seat share — and now he has to deal with this unruly left and this unruly right,” she added.

    “I’m afraid it probably does [weaken him on a global stage] at a time which is unfortunate for the cohesion of the European Union,” she added.

    Macron looked to be the EU’s leader

    Since taking office in 2017 after the departure of his former boss, then-Socialist President Francois Hollande, Macron has tried to position himself at the center of Europe’s political decision-making — particularly since the departure of the European Union’s most central leader, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in 2021.

    Macron has pushed for closer political and economic integration in the EU, promoting the concept of European sovereignty, economic security and competitiveness, as well as pushing for a more integrated and autonomous European defense strategy that advocates for a “true, European army.”

    He’s credited with creating the European Political Community, bringing leaders from across 50 states in the region to discuss shared challenges and to coordinate joint responses. Macron has also been a staunch supporter of Ukraine, putting pressure on a seemingly more reluctant Germany — and on fellow NATO members — when it came to the supply of Western weapons to Kyiv for it to fight back against Russia.

    He even pitched the possibility of French troops helping on the ground, albeit controversially, going beyond other allies’ pledges.

    French President Emmanuel Macron and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy react after signing an agreement, February 16, 2024 at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France. 

    Pool | Via Reuters

    Only time will tell what France’s political makeup will be in the coming months, but the country is likely to experience weeks of political wrangling and potential deadlock as the left-wing faction angles itself to lead a new government, and to place one of its own politicians as prime minister.

    Although the decision lies in Macron’s hands, he is likely to come under pressure to select a PM from the left-wing bloc, given it won the largest number of seats in the vote. He might even come under pressure to select Hollande, who ran for the NFP and stands as a strong candidate.

    For now, Macron has rejected his current Prime Minister Gabriel Attal’s resignation and on Monday asked him to stay in the post “to ensure the country’s stability.”

    Political instability in France, the euro zone’s second-largest economy after Germany, does not come at a good time in the global political cycle, Ludovic Subran, chief economist at Allianz, told CNBC on Monday. Subran stressed that it was vital that Macron was aligned with the future prime minister.

    “France is not that weak now, but it is not very good because we are in a state-craft situation with the U.S. and China and imagine what could happen in November if [Republican presidential candidate Donald] Trump gets reelected — we’re going to be tested and tested again and again,” Subran told CNBC’s Charlotte Reed in Paris.

    “I think it’s going to be really important that Macron secures the alignment with his prime minister before he says anything in Brussels or Strasbourg,“ Subran said. “He’ll have to make sure there’s a paper-thin divide between he and his prime minister when it comes to international issues like Russia, trade, industrial policies and working toward more flexible fiscal policies for France and for the other member countries in Europe.”

    When it comes to Macron’s position in Europe, Subran said it would now “be hard for him to lecture and to sow the seeds of grand projects for Europe when he’s going to be weak domestically.”

    “If [National Rally figurehead Marine] Le Pen races to power in 2027, it’s going to be a very tainted legacy,” he added.

    Mixed legacy

    While Macron is likely to be praised in some quarters for his pro-European, pro-business and pro-trade approach in office, his legacy at home may be more mixed after this snap election — a decision seen by many as a strategic miscalculation, brought about by Macron’s perceived lack of understanding of voter sentiment and, some say, his perceived arrogance.

    It’s a criticism he’s often faced, as well as accusations of failing to understand the everyday concerns of many French citizens, particularly those living outside the main urban centers.

    Mass protest movements such as the “Yellow Vest” action that emerged in 2018 were largely fueled by anger among large sectors of the population at rising fuel and living costs and economic inequality, and what they perceived to be an out-of-touch, elitist political establishment.

    A police vehicle sprays water cannon at protesters during an anti-government demonstration in Paris on January 26, 2019.

    NurPhoto | NurPhoto | Getty Images

    The rise of the far-right National Rally party is also symptomatic of voter concerns, rightly or wrongly, over immigration and what many supporters see as the erosion of French identity and culture.

    His decision in June to call a snap election after his centrist Renaissance party was trounced in the European Parliament elections, was widely seen as a high-stakes gamble. It hasn’t paid off, and France’s uncertain political outlook will likely perturb France’s European partners, one French political scientist told CNBC.

    “Imagine the EU and international partners and allies of France. What must they think of that [decision to call a snap election]?” Philippe Marlière, professor of French and European politics at University College London, said ahead of the final round of the election on Sunday.

    “They must think, ‘what an amateur. What a mistake. What a mess.’ And it is a mess, which is now affecting us all. Because if France isn’t able to be a reliable partner in the EU when it comes to big issues of the world … people will not forget that it was Macron who created the situation in the first place.”

    French President Emmanuel Macron reviews troops that will take part in the Bastille Day parade, July 2, 2024 in Paris, France. 

    Aurelien Morissard | Via Reuters

    He told CNBC that, in France, most people believed that Macron had, in plain English, brought about a big political mess.

    “Everyone in France today, absolutely everyone — I’m yet to hear or meet someone who says it was a great idea — everyone says it’s a major cock-up. It was an unnecessary gamble which badly, very badly, backfired. He didn’t have an absolute majority before the dissolution [of parliament, the National Assembly] but his party was the main party in the National Assembly … so why did he have to dissolve parliament? Only he knows why he did that.”

    “On a scale of political blunders. I would probably give it a 10 out of 10,” Marlière said.

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘A kind of civil war’: Divided France on alert for unrest amid political earthquake

    ‘A kind of civil war’: Divided France on alert for unrest amid political earthquake

    [ad_1]

    Demonstrators take part in a rally against the far right following the announcement of the results of the first round of the French parliamentary elections at Place de la Republique in Paris on June 30, 2024.

    Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    “We’re scared of what might happen,” Amel, 34, told CNBC ahead of the final round of voting in France’s snap election this weekend.

    The vote is being closely watched by all quarters of French society to see if the nationalist, anti-immigration National Rally (RN) builds on its initial win in the first round of voting, or whether centrist and leftwing parties have been able to thwart the party’s chances of entering government.

    “It’s a very, very tense time. And it’s the first time that the far right is winning at the first turn [the first round of the ballot]. So it’s a very big deal,” Amel, a therapist who said she will vote for the leftwing New Popular Front, added.

    “We are very anxious and we are trying to get everyone to vote, trying to tell people who don’t vote to go and vote, and to try to convince people who vote for the extreme right that they are not a good answer [to France’s problems].”

    France’s far-right RN rejects the “extremist” label, saying it stands up for French values, culture and citizens at a time when many are fed up with France’s political establishment that’s been led by President Emmanuel Macron since 2017.

    But RN’s opponents and critics warn France is on the brink of a political catastrophe if an overtly anti-immigration, nationalist and euroskeptic party wins a majority in this snap election called by Macron after his party lost heavily against the hard-right in European Parliament elections in June. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal has said French voters now have a “moral duty” to halt the party’s advance.

    For young, left-leaning voters like Amel, RN’s surge in voter polls, and the fact it won the most votes in the first round of the election last weekend, are worrying developments that make them fear for France’s societal cohesion.

    “I am worried about the country’s future. I think it’s getting worse and worse,” Amel, who preferred to only give her first name due to the sensitive nature of the situation, said. “It’s going be like a kind of civil war. I hope it will not reach that, but people will just not mix anymore and will be scared of each other. And this is very scary.”

    The snap election has thrown the country’s political polarization into sharp relief as polls ahead of the final round of voting on Sunday imply a deeply divided nation.

    The first round of the election resulted in the far-right RN winning 33% of the vote, with the leftwing New Popular Front (NFP) garnering 28% and the coalition of parties supporting Macron (Ensemble, or Together) winning 20% of the vote.

    Left wing supporters react as the results of the first round of French parliamentary elections are announced in Nantes, western France on June 30, 2024. 

    Sebastien Salom-gomis | Afp | Getty Images

    Since the results of the first ballot, parties on the center-right and left have gone all-out to prevent RN’s advance in the second ballot, aiming to prevent a parliamentary majority for the party at all costs. Joining forces in a so-called “Republican Front,” centrists and leftwing parties have withdrawn candidates in many constituencies where one of their candidates was better placed to beat the RN.

    By offering voters a starker choice and fewer options, the anti far-right front hopes that the electorate will vote for the non-RN candidate. Whether it will work remains to be seen and analysts point out that French voters might not take kindly to being directed how to vote, or who to vote for.

    The elections are a ‘mess’

    The final result on Sunday evening — the outcome of a snap election Macron did not need to call — will show just how hard it could be to find a consensus in national politics and government going forward.

    How the nation will react to the result is also uncertain. France is no stranger to civil unrest given the widespread “Yellow Vest” anti-government movement of recent years, and street protests since the first round of voting on June 30.

    France’s Interior Ministry appears to be preparing for more trouble after Sunday’s poll, reportedly ready to deploy around 30,000 officers across France on Sunday night amid fears of violence after polls close. Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin is reported to have said 5,000 police would be on duty in Paris and its surrounding areas to “ensure that the radical right and radical left do not take advantage of the situation to cause mayhem.”

    France’s police force has, at times, been accused of being heavy-handed with demonstrators during previous periods of unrest, firing water cannon and tear gas at “yellow vest” demonstrators in 2019.

    Tension rises as demonstrators gather in Place de la Republique, to protest against the rising right-wing movement after the Rassemblement National’s victory in the first round of early general elections in Paris, France on June 30, 2024.

    Anadolu | Anadolu | Getty Images

    A member of the gendarmerie, France’s military force in charge of law enforcement and public order, told CNBC that the “French elections are a mess” and that the “public divide has rarely been so flagrant in France.”

    “People’s opinions are becoming more and more divided and this is felt in everyday life,” the gendarme, who asked to remain anonymous due to the nature of his job, told CNBC.

    The officer — a father of three who’s in his 40s, and a right-leaning voter — said the polarization in French society was “very worrying, but unfortunately normal with the ‘diversity’ of our society.”

    “More and more people with different values and educations are being forced to co-exist, and this clearly doesn’t work,” the officer, who works in Bordeaux in southwestern France, said.

    “I am worried about the country’s future, because we are too generous to people who aren’t willing to integrate and contribute to our society, this can not last.”

    The police officer said he expected civil unrest after the vote, whichever party gained the most votes.

    “There will be civil unrest whoever is elected, this is France and the people speak their mind.”

    Civil unrest possible

    Political experts agree that the current febrile atmosphere of French politics, and antagonism between the main bodies of voters, are the ingredients for further civil unrest.

    “You’ve got here all the recipe for a super-polarized political scene and that, of course, translates into civil society as a whole,” Philippe Marlière, professor of French and European politics at University College London, told CNBC.

    “If you’ve got only 33-34% of people voting for the far-right it means the rest is wary of that, or completely opposed to it, so that will translate on every level of politics — institutional politics, party politics, the National Assembly, but also in society. You will have a very polarized society in which younger people, ethnic minorities, women, and in particular feminists, would be very worried,” he said.

    Marlière did not discount the possibility of violence on the streets if a far-right party was elected to government. “We’re not there yet. But if there are very unpopular, very antagonizing and very hostile policies to some groups, there will be demonstrations on a scale that you have unrest in the street,” he said.

    Unknown entity

    Like other hard-right parties in Europe, the National Rally has tapped into voter insecurities regarding crime, immigration, national identity and economic insecurity. RN’s 28-year-old leader Jordan Bardella has told voters he will “restore order,” curb immigration and tackle delinquency but he and party figurehead Marine Le Pen have rowed back on some of their more strident promises and rhetoric, back-pedaling over taking France out of NATO, for example, and moderating the party’s traditionally pro-Russian stance.

    Bardella said he would still support the sending of arms to Ukraine but not the deployment of ground troops, as Macron suggested was a possibility.

    Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella at the final rally before the June 9 European Parliament election, held at Le Dôme de Paris – Palais des Sports, on June 2, 2024.

    Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    It’s uncertain how many of National Rally’s policies would be enacted even if the party made it into government. The “Republican Front” also appears confident ahead of the second round of voting that its strategy to hurt the RN’s vote share is working.

    An opinion poll published by Ifop on July 3 suggested voters might tend toward a centrist pro-Macron or leftwing candidate rather than the RN candidate if that is the choice they are presented with on the ballot paper on Sunday. If the choice was between a far-left and far-right candidate, however, the picture was more nuanced, showing a split vote.

    Ipsos: Voters never intended to give Rassemblement National absolute majority in first round elections

    Analysts predict that RN is less likely to be able to achieve an absolute majority of 289 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly, but is still likely to gather the most votes, creating a hung parliament scenario and headache for Macron and uncertainty for France’s political and economic outlook.

    “The political landscape is in turmoil and can’t really work any longer, at least not by the old rules,” Ipsos analyst Mathieu Doiret told CNBC Thursday.

    “We are in a situation so far from our traditions and political habitus that it’s very difficult to adapt to this new situation for every stakeholder.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Iran’s hardline diplomat, sole moderate to square off in presidential run-off

    Iran’s hardline diplomat, sole moderate to square off in presidential run-off

    [ad_1]

    A citizen is seen in front of the candidates posters for the 14th presidential elections on the streets ahead of the early presidential election in Tehran, Iran on June 27, 2024. 

    Anadolu | Anadolu | Getty Images

    Iran will hold a run-off presidential election on July 5 after neither of the top candidates secured more than 50% of votes in Friday’s polls, the interior ministry said on Saturday.

    The vote to replace Ebrahim Raisi after his death in a helicopter crash came down to a tight race between the sole moderate in a field of four candidates and the supreme leader’s hardline protege.

    With more than 24 million votes counted moderate lawmaker Massoud Pezeshkian led with over 10 million votes ahead of hardline diplomat Saeed Jalili with over 9.4 million votes, according to provisional results released by the ministry.

    Power in Iran ultimately lies with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, so the result will not herald any major policy shift on Iran’s nuclear programme or its support for militia groups across the Middle East.

    But the president runs the government day-to-day and can influence the tone of Iran’s policy.

    Iran’s Tasnim news agency said earlier Saturday that a run-off election was “very likely” to pick the next president.

    If no candidate wins at least 50% plus one vote from all ballots cast, including blank votes, a run-off between the top two candidates is held on the first Friday after the result is declared.

    The election coincides with escalating regional tension due to the war between Israel and Iranian allies Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as increased Western pressure on Iran over its fast-advancing nuclear program.

    While the election is unlikely to bring a major shift in the Islamic Republic’s policies, its outcome could influence the succession to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s 85-year-old supreme leader, in power since 1989.

    The clerical establishment sought a high turnout to offset a legitimacy crisis fuelled by public discontent over economic hardship and curbs on political and social freedom.

    The next president is not expected to usher in any major policy shift on Iran’s nuclear programme or support for militia groups across the Middle East, since Khamenei calls all the shots on top state matters.

    Supporters of Saeed Jalili, a candidate for the June 28 presidential election, chant slogans in his campaign meeting in Tehran, Iran, Monday, June 24, 2024. Jalili is among the six candidates approved for the June 28 election to replace president Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a helicopter crash. 

    Majid Saeedi | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    However, the president runs the government day-to-day and can influence the tone of Iran’s foreign and domestic policy.

    Pezeshkian’s views offer a contrast to those of Jalili, advocating detente with the West, economic reform, social liberalisation and political pluralism.

    A staunch anti-Westerner, Jalili’s win would signal the possibility of an even more antagonistic turn in the Islamic Republic’s foreign and domestic policy, analysts said.

    Limited choices

    The election was a contest among a tightly controlled group of three hardline candidates and one low-profile moderate loyal to the supreme leader. A hardline watchdog body approved only six from an initial pool of 80 and two hardline candidates subsequently dropped out.

    “Based on unconfirmed reports, the election is very likely heading to a second round … Jalili and Pezeshkian will compete in a run-off election,” Tasnim reported.

    Critics of the clerical establishment say that low turnouts in recent years show the system’s legitimacy has eroded. Turnout was 48% in the 2021 presidential election and a record low of 41% of people voted in a parliamentary election in March.

    All candidates have vowed to revive the flagging economy, beset by mismanagement, state corruption and sanctions re-imposed since 2018, after the U.S. ditched Tehran’s nuclear pact.

    “I think Jalili is the only candidate who raised the issue of justice, fighting corruption and giving value to the poor. … Most importantly, he does not link Iran’s foreign policy to the nuclear deal,” said Farzan, a 45-year-old artist in the city of Karaj.

    Divided voters

    Pezeshkian, faithful to Iran’s theocratic rule, is backed by the reformist faction that has largely been sidelined in Iran in recent years.

    “We will respect the hijab law, but there should never be any intrusive or inhumane behaviour toward women,” Pezeshkian said after casting his vote.

    A man gestures as he holds up a small election flag during a campaign rally for reformist candidate Massoud Pezeshkian at Afrasiabi Stadium in Tehran on June 23, 2024 ahead of the upcoming Iranian presidential election. 

    Atta Kenare | Afp | Getty Images

    He was referring to the death of Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman, in 2022 while in morality police custody for allegedly violating the mandatory Islamic dress code.

    The unrest sparked by Amini’s death spiralled into the biggest show of opposition to Iran’s clerical rulers in years.

    Pezeshkian attempted to revive the enthusiasm of reform-minded voters who have largely stayed away from the polls for the last four years as a mostly youthful population chafes at political and social curbs. He could also benefit from his rivals’ failure to consolidate the hardline vote.

    In the past few weeks, Iranians have made wide use of the hashtag #ElectionCircus on X, with some activists at home and abroad calling for a boycott, saying a high turnout would only serve to legitimise the Islamic Republic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Macron’s snap election gamble in France resurfaces an old criticism — that he’s arrogant and obnoxious

    Macron’s snap election gamble in France resurfaces an old criticism — that he’s arrogant and obnoxious

    [ad_1]

    French President Emmanuel Macron attends a trilateral meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (not seen) at the Elysee Palace in Paris as part of the Chinese president’s two-day state visit in France, May 6, 2024.

    Gonzalo Fuentes | Reuters

    French President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to call a snap election after the far-right National Rally party won more than double the votes of his centrist alliance has been greeted with surprise, dismay and more than a little bewilderment.

    It has also resurfaced long-standing criticism of Macron, particularly from political commentators and opponents, who see the president as arrogant, ego-driven and, perhaps more worryingly in their eyes, a leader willing to put France’s stability on the line in what’s being seen as a “huge political gamble.”

    For his part, Macron said that holding a snap election would provide clarity after the European Parliament elections, in which the NR party won around 31% of the vote, more than double the 14.6% for the centrist, pro-European alliance that included Macron’s Renaissance Party.

    In a national address Sunday evening as he announced his decision to dissolve parliament, Macron told the electorate that he had “heard” their concerns and would “not leave them unanswered … France needs a clear majority to act in serenity and harmony,” he added. The first round of voting will take place on June 30, with a second to be held on July 7.

    Analysts said Macron’s decision was likely a tactical gamble, with the president hopeful that 1) the European parliamentary election drubbing was the result of a protest vote rather than deeper dissatisfaction with his leadership and 2) that the prospect of a far-right power grab will mobilize the centrist electorate to vote for his party to prevent NR from obtaining an absolute majority in the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament.

    He is also believed to be hoping that, even if NR performs well and he has to appoint a member of the party as prime minister (with NR leader Jordan Bardella the likely candidate for such an eventuality, known as “cohabitation” in France), the party will fail to impress voters when it has a prominent role in French politics, and will fail in the presidential election in 2027.

    ‘Desperate’ president, risky ‘gamble’

    Some of Macron’s critics and political commentators have been less than impressed by Macron’s decision and strategy, however, with some saying it makes Macron look arrogant — an accusation leveled at him by his critics in previous years — and like a man willing to roll the dice with the country’s future.

    Left-leaning newspaper Liberation described the snap election call as an “extreme gamble,” while the center-right Le Figaro ran a brief headline Monday: “Le choc” (“shock”). It continued with an editorial in which the paper’s editor-in-chief Alexis Brézet said “the earthquake was expected, the aftershock seemed unthinkable.”

    Brézet warned that Macron was “taking the risk of entrusting the reins of power … to the party whose progress he had promised to stem! This unprecedented decision is, for the country, a leap into the unknown, the consequences of which are incalculable.” He suggested that Macron had decided to call a snap election because he had been personally humiliated by the EU election result, saying that as a result “Macron has decided to go all in!”

    Jérôme Fenoglio, the editorial director of the popular Le Monde newspaper, was also critical of the move, describing French citizens as “the stakes” in “the risky gamble of a desperate president.”

    “The problem, above all, is that the player [Macron] has lost his lead. That happened well before the humiliation of the European election results, in which Macron’s Renaissance party got less than half as many votes as the far-right Rassemblement National … The campaign merely concentrated this mixture of arrogance and clumsiness, which disgusts many voters ready to turn to a protest vote,” Fenoglio wrote Monday.

    He described the Élysée Palace’s “initial explanations … to justify this dissolution, a mixture of bluff and self-persuasion.” In the meantime, other commentators and newspapers, such as Les Echos, have characterized Macron’s move as a game of poker.

    CNBC has contacted the Élysée Palace for a response to the comments and is awaiting a reply.

    ‘Personal and institutional’ reasons

    The adage goes that it takes years to build a good reputation and minutes to shatter it. Macron has been accused of elitism, obnoxiousness and arrogance during his presidency.

    Fordham: Fallout from European elections will be contained to France

    In 2017, an expensively suited Macron courted controversy by describing opponents of his labor reforms as “slackers” (it became a rallying cry for protestors) and being seen to be out of touch with voters’ concerns over immigration, housing and the cost of living. He has been accused frequently of being a defender of the wealthy and a “president of the rich,” an accusation that fueled the “yellow-vest” protests of 2018 and 2019. Macron’s supporters defend the president as a self-made and ambitious man who has a direct way of speaking to voters.

    Whether it’s deserved or not, Macron’s reputation for arrogance has been hard to shake. Robert Ladrech, emeritus professor of European politics at Keele University, told CNBC Monday that Macron’s latest election call “could be seen as arrogant for two reasons — [both] personal and institutional.”

    “First, he has interpreted the vote for the European Parliament as a personal insult, as a rejection of his domestic policy direction. His immigration policy had already ‘hardened’ recently, and he mentioned last year that perhaps a ‘pause’ in EU climate policy would be good. Both of these nods to the RN electorate appear to have had no impact, if indeed the vote was a referendum on him,” he noted.

    “Second, a French president has before dissolved parliament only a couple of years into its mandate to call fresh elections, conservative [former] President Chirac in 1997, hoping to enlarge his majority. He blew it big, forced to ‘co-habit’ with a left-wing prime minister, Jospin. So, either way, it is a gamble on Macron’s part — arrogance if he thinks he can ‘win’, and arrogance if he thinks a win for the RN may take the wind out of its sails by the 2027 presidential election.”

    French snap election 'akin to the Brexit vote,' Allianz economist says

    Macron’s political opponents are less than impressed — apart, of course, from NR itself, which has been buoyed by its boost in the parliamentary elections and has welcomed the chance to increase its share of the vote. Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said she was “stunned” by Macron’s decision.

    “Like a lot of people I was stunned to hear the president decide to do a dissolution (of parliament),” she said of Macron’s surprise announcement Sunday, calling the decision to do it just weeks ahead of the Paris Olympic Games as “extremely unsettling.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump claims credit for Biden’s insulin price cap

    Trump claims credit for Biden’s insulin price cap

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump 2024.

    Kevin Lamarque | Jay Paul | Reuters

    Former President Donald Trump on Saturday recognized that the price of insulin is lower under President Joe Biden, but he still wants voters to credit his own administration.

    “Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “It was all done long before he so sadly entered office. All he does is try to take credit for things done by others, in this case, ME!”

    The comment comes as Trump lags Biden on the issue of health care, a top voter priority as the November election nears.

    For example, a May survey from KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group, found Biden with an 11-point lead over Trump on the question of ensuring access to affordable health insurance.

    Biden led on several other health-care-related topics in the poll, though the candidates were relatively split on addressing high health-care costs. The poll surveyed 1,479 U.S. adults from April 23 to May 1 and the margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

    The two candidates are expected to have their first face-to-face presidential debate on June 27.

    Insulin price caps have become a central piece of evidence for Biden’s broader economic argument on the campaign trail against Trump.

    Under the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden issued a host of provisions aimed at bringing down the price of medicine for seniors, including capping the price of insulin at $35 per month for Medicare recipients. The president has continued to push for a more universal insulin cap that would cover younger people as well.

    “Instead of paying $400 a month for insulin, seniors with diabetes only have to pay $35 a month!” Biden said at his State of the Union address in March. “And now I want to cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month for every American who needs it!”

    The Democratic incumbent is trying to use lower insulin costs as proof that he has helped lower consumer costs despite the stubbornly high levels of inflation that have loomed over the U.S. economy’s post-pandemic recovery.

    For Trump’s part, the former president signed an executive order in the last year of his administration to issue his own $35 price cap on insulin. Biden later paused that policy when he took office as part of a larger freeze to allow his administration to review new regulations set to go into effect.

    But the memory of Trump-era health-care policies has still dimmed some voters’ views on the track record of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. A CNBC All-America Economic survey issued in December found that Biden was ahead by 19 points against Trump on health care.

    Trump unsuccessfully spent most of his presidential term trying to repeal the Obama-era Affordable Care Act without offering a viable alternative health-care option. The ACA provides roughly 45 million Americans wit health insurance, according to a March estimate from the White House.

    Trump has doubled down on the promise to replace Obamacare on the 2024 campaign trail, though he has still not outlined what that replacement would look like.

    “I’m not running to terminate the ACA as Crooked Joe Biden says all over the place,” Trump said in a video posted to his Truth Social account in April. “We’re going to make the ACA much better than it is right now and much less expensive for you.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Border crossings dropped. Are Mexico-US relations the cause?

    Border crossings dropped. Are Mexico-US relations the cause?

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden issued a new directive June 4 to limit the number of migrants seeking asylum at the southern U.S. border. 

    Biden’s proclamation comes weeks before he and former President Donald Trump face off in their first 2024 presidential debate and as they battle over their records on immigration policies. 

    The Biden administration’s directive suspends and limits the entry of certain noncitizens into the U.S. across the southern border when the Homeland Security secretary determines that there has been an average of 2,500 encounters or more at the border over seven consecutive days. To halt the suspension, the numbers would have to drop to fewer than 1,500 encounters on average seven days in a row. 

    Encounters data represents events, not people. For example, if one person tries to cross the border three times and is stopped each time, that would be counted as three encounters. This data also doesn’t tell us how many people stayed in the U.S.

    The order takes effect immediately because current daily encounters exceed 2,500, according to the administration.

    In a speech June 4 at the White House, Biden said the numbers of encounters are dropping already.

    “The facts are clear, due to the arrangements that I’ve reached with (Mexican) President (Andrés Manuel López) Obrador, the number of migrants coming … to our shared border unlawfully in recent months has dropped dramatically,” Biden said. “While these steps are important, they’re not enough to truly secure the border.”

    We found that the encounter numbers have dropped in recent months amid increased interceptions by Mexico. But immigration experts told PolitiFact it’s difficult to pinpoint one reason for any change in migration numbers. 

    The White House pointed to the latest publicly available data from the U.S. Border Patrol showing immigration officials encountered people illegally crossing the border about 128,900 times in April compared with about 250,000 in December. That’s a 48.4% decrease. The numbers of encounters at ports of entry have also dropped

    During a May 13 news conference, López Obrador said the number of migrants reaching the southern U.S. border had dropped by about 50%.

    Mexico’s crackdown on migrant crossings

    David Bier, immigration studies director at the libertarian Cato institute, said Biden is correct to attribute border encounter declines to actions by Mexico, but offered a caveat.

    “Mexico is making unprecedented arrests,” Bier said. “I believe that it is unsustainable because, although Mexico is arresting them and sending them to southern Mexico, they are not deporting them to their home countries. This means that it is very likely they will ultimately find their way to the United States because they are still in Mexico, and there’s not much for them to do there except keep trying to get to the U.S.”

    U.S. officials said Mexico’s willingness to stop migrants from entering the U.S. is largely because of increased dialogue between the two countries.

    Biden and López Obrador have spoken multiple times since late 2023 and have released joint statements over the last several months about joint efforts to curb immigration, fentanyl and firearms trafficking.

    U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken also went to Mexico in December to meet with their Mexican counterparts. 

    “As we made clear in Mexico City today, we are committed to partnering with Mexico to address our shared challenges, including managing unprecedented irregular migration in the region, reopening key ports of entry, and combating illicit fentanyl and other synthetic drugs,” Blinken wrote Dec. 27 on X.

    A White House summary of a conversation in April between Biden and López Obrador said the two politicians ordered their national security teams to apply measures that would  “significantly reduce irregular border crossings” and to address the root causes of the migration.

    U.S. immigration experts said it’s difficult to isolate single causes for any change in the number of arrivals at the border, but agreed that Mexico vastly increased its enforcement efforts after discussions between the two nations.

    However, “there is no reason to think that this drop will be long-lasting, especially considering the number of migrants who are likely stranded in Mexico right now,” said Adam Isacson, defense oversight director at Washington Office on Latin America, a group advocating for human rights in the Americas. 

    “No crackdown in the last 10 years has had a lasting impact, not even Title 42,” he said. Title 42 is a public health policy invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic to decrease the number of migrants entering the U.S.

    Whether the declines continue is uncertain, because migrants and migrant smugglers “have proven highly adaptable to changes in policy, process, operations and even infrastructure,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, senior adviser for immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank. “We have not seen sustained decreases in arrivals after policy changes in the past.”

    The data also doesn’t reflect the changing demographics and nationalities of people arriving, nor the factors sending them to the border. Continued fluctuation in numbers of arrivals is expected if there is no consistent immigration policy to address the ongoing migration crisis, Brown said.

    Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that  supports low levels of immigration, said it’s hard to say how much Mexico’s actions have contributed to the decline, but that the numbers are still high. “It is possible their actions matter, but even if they do, we have no idea if Mexico will continue to take action nor do we know if the smugglers and migrants will simply adapt and the modest decline will disappear.”

    Our ruling

    Biden said, “Due to the arrangements that I’ve reached with President Obrador, the number of migrants coming … to our shared border unlawfully in recent months has dropped dramatically.”

    U.S. Border Patrol data shows immigrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped in recent months. Immigration experts said it’s difficult to pinpoint a single reason for any change in border crossings, but acknowledged that the decrease comes amid more cooperation between the two countries.

    Biden’s statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

    RELATED: The context behind Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s dueling immigration speeches at the Texas border

    PolitiFact Staff Writers Maria Ramirez Uribe and Maria Briceño contributed to this report. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Drone wall’ against Russia: Six NATO countries announce border defense plan

    ‘Drone wall’ against Russia: Six NATO countries announce border defense plan

    [ad_1]

    Pilots of the “Sharp Kartuza” division of FPV kamikaze drones prepare drones for a combat flight on May 16, 2024 in the Kharkiv region, 8 km from the border with Russia.

    Libkos | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Six NATO countries neighboring Russia are joining forces to build a “drone wall” to protect their borders, Lithuania’s interior minister announced on Friday.

    “This is a completely new thing, a drone wall stretching from Norway to Poland, and the goal is to use drones and other technologies to protect our borders,” Lithuanian Interior Minister Agne Bilotaite said in an interview with local news agency BNS.

    “Not only with physical infrastructure, surveillance systems, but also with drones and other technologies, which would allow us to protect against provocations from unfriendly countries and to prevent smuggling,” she said.

    The other states taking part are Lithuania’s Baltic neighbors Latvia and Estonia, as well as Poland, Finland, and Norway.

    Details such as funding, timeline and technical aspects of the project were not provided, but Bilotaite said EU funds could play a role and that each country had to do its “homework.”

    In an interview with Finnish television channel Yle, cited by the Financial Times, Finland’s Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said that the drone wall plan would “improve in time.”

    Finland, which joined NATO in 2023, shares an 832-mile border with Russia.

    The interior ministers of the six countries taking part in the drone wall project met in the Latvian capital of Riga on May 23 and 24. They discussed security threats as well as the issue of non-military tactics such as “instrumentalized migration”, citing past instances where Russia or Belarus sent masses of undocumented asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East over their borders.

    “Our goal is to ensure that Finland has effective means to tackle situations where instrumentalized migration is used to put pressure on Finland,” Rantanen said in a statement during the event.

    “The phenomenon of instrumentalized migration on the EU’s external borders is a common challenge for our countries. Finland also aims to find EU-level solutions to combat this phenomenon.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link