State-owned firm Petroecuador says it is investigating cause of spill that contaminated about 4km (2.5 miles) of beach.
Authorities in the South American nation of Ecuador have confirmed that an oil spill released about 1,200 barrels into the Pacific, contaminating kilometres of oceanfront.
Rafael Armendariz, transportation manager for the state-owned oil firm Petroecuador, confirmed on Thursday that the incident took place a day earlier when a tank in the marine terminal in the port of Esmeraldas surpassed its capacity.
“It is estimated that around 1,200 barrels were spilled,” Armendariz said at a press conference. “Not all of them fell onto the beach. A part was contained by the pool inside of Petroecuador’s facilities.”
The spill occurred at state-run Petroecuador’s refinery in Esmeraldas, affecting nearby beaches [File: Daniel Tapia/Reuters]
About half of the crude spilled out of Petroecuador’s facilities, spreading across about 4km (2.5 miles) of Las Palmas Beach, a popular destination for recreation and tourists.
An investigation into the cause of the spill is taking place. General Manager Ramon Correa said problems like negligence, mechanical damage or sabotage could not yet be ruled out.
Esmeraldas is about 150km (93 miles) south of Ecuador’s northern border with Colombia. The company says it has controlled 90 percent of the spill’s impact on land and 60 percent at sea through initial cleanup efforts.
Environmental Minister Jose Davalos told the TV station Ecuavisa the spill could affect wildlife such as birds and crustaceans. He expected the cleanup to take about a week.
Davalos noted that he is awaiting an assessment from Petroecuador before deciding on appropriate penalties.
China decries plans of ‘separatist’ Taiwanese presidential frontrunner William Lai to stop in US during his trip to Paraguay.
Taiwan’s Vice President William Lai, a frontrunner in the 2024 presidential race, announced plans to stop in the United States as he travels to Paraguay next month, drawing scorn from Chinese authorities.
Lai’s US visit was revealed as part of his plans to attend the August 15 inauguration of Paraguay’s President-elect Santiago Peña, a politician who campaigned on strengthening ties with Taiwan.
Taipei characterised Lai’s US visit as a transit stop, but Chinese officials have expressed outrage, framing the layover as a surreptitious means of generating support for Lai’s “separatist” agenda.
“China firmly opposes any form of official exchanges between the United States and Taiwan, resolutely opposes sneaky visits by Taiwan independence separatists in any name or for any reason, and resolutely opposes any form of connivance by the United States to support Taiwan independence separatists,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning.
“China will pay close attention to the development of the situation and take resolute and forceful measures to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Ning noted that the Chinese government has lodged a formal diplomatic complaint with the US over the planned transit stop.
China does not allow countries to have simultaneous diplomatic relations with both Beijing and Taiwan, which it considers a rightful part of its territory.
Since the 1970s, the US has acknowledged the “One China” policy, which identifies Beijing as the sole legal government of China. But while it does not recognise Taiwan’s independence, the US stance falls short of conceding Chinese sovereignty over the island.
Lai’s visit threatens to add further strain to US-China relations, which have been tense in recent months, as the two countries traded accusations over an alleged Chinese spy balloon that crossed North America, as well as military encounters over the South China Sea.
In March, a similar diplomatic spat erupted when Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen passed through the US twice on her way to visit her country’s allies in Central America.
During her return trip, she stopped in California, where she joined Kevin McCarthy — the top Republican in the US House of Representatives — for a closed-door meeting. In response, China blasted the meeting as “wrong” and said its military would be on high alert.
But the US has sought to downplay China’s concerns, pointing out that such transit stops are not uncommon.
“There is no reason for the PRC to use this transit as a pretext for provocative actions,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Monday, using an acronym for the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The US does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan but maintains strong unofficial ties and is a key supplier of Taiwanese arms.
Lai’s travel comes at a time when Taiwan’s supporters in Latin America are relatively few, as countries in the region ditch relations with the island in favour of closer ties to China, the world’s second-largest economy.
Last month, Honduras opened an embassy in China after severing ties with Taiwan, citing the economic opportunities that can result from strong relations with Beijing.
Honduras’s decision has left Taiwan with just 13 formally-recognised diplomatic allies. The question of whether to maintain relations with Taiwan was a central foreign policy issue in Paraguay’s recent presidential race, with Peña — the conservative candidate — pushing to keep the status quo.
His centrist rival, Efraín Alegre, had proposed breaking with Taiwan in favour of forging an alliance with China.
Many in Taiwan, a self-governing island with a population of 23 million, fear that Beijing could eventually launch a military effort to bring the island under its control. Paraguay remains Taiwan’s last formal ally in South America.
US says commitment to security of South Korea and Japan is backed by ‘full range of capabilities, including nuclear’.
The United States, South Korea and Japan have jointly condemned the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by North Korea, pledging to work with the international community to tighten sanctions against Pyongyang.
In a joint statement on Friday, the three allies said they would push to block North Korea’s “illicit revenue generation through overseas workers and malicious cyber activities” that they said the country uses to fund its weapons programmes.
“The United States reiterated that its commitments to defend the ROK [South Korea] and Japan are ironclad and backed by the full range of capabilities, including nuclear,” the statement said, referring to South Korea by its official name.
Earlier on Friday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met his Japanese and South Korean counterparts on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Indonesia.
North Korea – formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) – fired the ICBM on Wednesday, and it landed in waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan.
It was the first such launch in three months, following heightened tensions between Pyongyang and Washington.
Two days earlier, North Korea slammed a US plan to deploy nuclear submarines near the Korean Peninsula, warning that the move could “incite the worst crisis of nuclear conflict in practice”.
On Thursday, North Korea’s United Nations ambassador, Kim Song, told the UN Security Council that the ICBM launch aimed “to deter dangerous military moves of hostile forces and safeguard the security” of the country.
In Friday’s statement, the US, South Korea and Japan denounced the North Korean launch as dangerous.
“This constitutes a clear, flagrant violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions and poses a grave threat to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and beyond,” the three countries said.
“The DPRK’s launch of this ICBM threatened the safety of civil aviation and maritime traffic in the region.”
North Korea has been escalating its missile testing over the past two years.
Former US President Donald Trump engaged in direct talks with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong Un during his tenure, but high-level meetings between the two countries came to a halt under the current US president, Joe Biden.
After the first meeting between Trump and Kim in 2018, the nations said in a joint statement that North Korea was committed to “work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula”.
But the pledge was never followed by efforts to end the country’s nuclear weapons programme.
North Korea carried out its first nuclear weapon test in 2006 in violation of an international ban on such testing. Since then, the UN Security Council has unanimously passed numerous resolutions that imposed sanctions on the country over its nuclear programme.
Last year, Russia and China vetoed a Security Council proposal to impose more penalties on North Korea, arguing that sanctions have not been effective in curbing the country’s nuclear and missile programmes.
With wildfire season under way in the United States, the federal government is facing a potential exodus of wildland firefighters over a major pay cut that could go into effect in a few months.
Funding in President Joe Biden’s 2021 infrastructure law gave a temporary pay boost to thousands of firefighters on the climate front lines – but the money is set to run out in the coming months, which could push many to quit, experts warned.
“I honestly think at least a third could go within a matter of months,” said Steve Lenkart, executive director of the National Federation of Federal Employees union.
“It would be really devastating for the country.”
The US Forest Service (USFS) has about 10,775 wildland firefighters – 95 percent of its goal of 11,300 for 2023 – and the Department of the Interior, which manages federal and tribal lands, has more than 5,400 such personnel, the latest official data showed.
While total figures are difficult to pin down, the federal government is estimated to be the largest employer of career wildland firefighters in the US.
Any reduction, though, would compound a growing labour and climate crisis as tenured firefighters depart federal agencies for other jobs and climate change fuels hotter, drier conditions that increase the risk of out-of-control blazes.
Firefighters ‘still fed up’
Rachel Granberg, a wildland firefighter based in Washington state with eight years of experience, has already seen multiple colleagues leave their jobs in the past year or so.
“Even with the infrastructure money, they were still fed up – and one of the guys had been fighting fires for 19 years,” said the 37-year-old, whose statements reflected her own opinions and not those of her agency.
Although wildland firefighters welcomed the temporary pay rise, many have been labouring for years for salaries that they say do not adequately reflect the rigors of their work.
Biden took steps in 2021 to raise the minimum wage for federal wildland firefighters to $15 per hour after criticising the $13 per hour rate some had been making as “ridiculously low”.
The infrastructure law also included $600m for benefits for federal wildland firefighters, including temporary pay rises of up to $20,000 per year, or 50 percent of their base salary – whichever was lower.
However, federal officials estimated that those funds could run out by the end of September – when this federal budget year closes – or mid-October.
Jaelith Hall-Rivera, a deputy chief at the USFS, said the so-called “pay cliff”, coupled with budget cuts like those proposed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, would be “pretty catastrophic” for the fire workforce.
“If we’re not able to get a change in pay status for our firefighters, … we’re [going to] see many of them go to higher-paying jobs where they can make a living wage,” she told senators at a recent hearing.
“We are hearing from our firefighting union that we could lose 30 to 50 percent of our firefighting workforce in the Forest Service. That would be devastating.”
Hall-Rivera testified at the same time Washington, DC, was dealing with poor air quality – a byproduct of record wildfires that have ravaged Canada this year.
A USFS spokesperson said the agriculture department, which the forest agency is part of, is committed to working with Congress to pass a permanent pay solution.
“Federal wildland firefighters must be offered competitive salaries and the pay and improved working conditions they so deserve,” the spokesperson said.
Lenkart said federal wildland firefighters are leaving not only for state and local fire service jobs, which can offer better pay and working conditions, but for other sectors, including construction and even fast food.
“Some are going to work, literally, at In-N-Out Burger because they can make 20 bucks an hour,” he said.
Cause for optimism?
Even with the pay cuts looming, some groups who recently met with congressional staff on Capitol Hill said they had the impression that lawmakers would be able to find a solution – but warned that the consequences of inaction would be dire.
In a bid to avert the cuts, a handful of senators introduced a federal bill this week that would increase firefighters’ base pay and provide additional pay and leave for firefighters responding to large wildfires.
“These brave men and women are our first line of defense against disaster, and they’ve earned the right to be fairly compensated for the dangerous work they do – including for adequate recovery time after a tough fire,” Senator Jon Tester of Montana, one of those supporting the bill, said in a statement.
Still, members of Congress typically spend much of the summer away from Washington, DC, leaving them scant time to strike a deal and get legislation enacted before the new budget year starts in October.
Absent action from Capitol Hill, “we’re going to continue … to see the best and brightest walk out the door,” said Luke Mayfield, president of the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.
Brian Gold, a wildland firefighter in Colorado, said the pinch is really being felt at mid-level field leadership and lamented a significant brain and talent drain.
Some issues can be solved by increasing base pay, he said.
“But what’s really required is a holistic approach to the workforce problem, which is really burning out your labour force by requiring them to work massive amounts of overtime and be away from home for massive periods of time,” Gold added.
Working more, earning less
A recent study from the University of Washington and the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station highlighted stark disparities in pay and benefits between federal wildland firefighters and state-level firefighters in four western states.
Federal compensation was on average 40.5 percent lower than that of state agencies – even though federal wildland firefighters spend an average of 12 more days per season on more complex fires, according to the research, which analysed Washington state, Oregon, California and Colorado.
“Federal firefighters are generally working more, earning less and [are] continuously exposed to hazard[s] and levels of responsibility that are just not commensurate with what they’re getting paid relative to some of these other agencies,” said Evan Pierce, co-author of the report.
— Grassroots Wildland Firefighters (@GrassrootsWFF) June 19, 2023
Similar to the new legislation, Biden’s 2024 budget proposal calls for extra firefighter benefits such as a permanent base-pay increase and “premium pay” to better compensate responders for the time they spend on fires. But these would have to win approval from Congress.
And even the 2024 proposed compensation package represents a gap of up to $8,184 in average salary between federal wildland firefighters and the leading state agency, the recent report found.
The USFS is aware that federal wages have not kept pace with state, local and private firefighting groups in some parts of the country, the agency’s spokesperson said.
Mayfield left the federal government several years ago after 18 years with the USFS “for an opportunity to have a livable and plannable income”, he said.
By the end of his USFS service, Mayfield said he had been dealing with issues linked to depression and suicidal thoughts and recalled that in conversations with more than half a dozen peers and mentors, almost everybody told him to go.
“One of my former superintendents, his quote to me was: ‘Leave, Luke. Do you want to be me?’” Mayfield said. “And my other buddy was like: ‘We spend all our time worrying about retirement. Nobody’s worried about living. Get out.’”
An award-winning journalist in Guatemala has been convicted on criminal charges, in what human rights observers call yet another blow to press freedom and democracy in the Central American country.
José Rubén Zamora, a 66-year-old journalist and newspaper founder, was convicted to 6 years in prison for money laundering.
In announcing its decision on Wednesday, a court in Guatemala City found Zamora had “harmed the Guatemalan economy”. The public prosecutor’s office sought a 40-year sentence in the case.
Zamora, however, was absolved on charges of blackmail and influence peddling due to the lack of evidence presented by prosecutors.
The journalist, known for exposing corruption in Guatemala, still faces two other criminal cases, one pertaining to signatures on customs documents that did not match. That case was filed just days ahead of the sentencing.
The trial that concluded on Wednesday lasted eight hearings, held over 20 days, and has generated widespread concern and condemnation.
“My father is innocent,” the journalist’s son Jose Zamora told Al Jazeera ahead of Wednesday’s conviction.
“The [Guatemalan] state has kidnapped him,” he explained. “They have subjected him, within this fabricated case, to a process that has been totally a violation of his due process.”
While the public prosecutor’s office has long maintained the case against Zamora was not about his journalism, critics say the accusations and rapid nature of the trial suggest otherwise.
The case stems from allegations made by Ronald Garcia Navarijo, a former banker accused of corruption, about a deposit of $38,000 that Zamora allegedly asked someone to make on his behalf, as part of a money-laundering scheme.
The Salvadoran newspaper El Faro reported that prosecutors prepared the case against Zamora within 72 hours of receiving the accusation.
Zamora was arrested in July 2022 and kept in pre-trial detention without being able to make his first appearance before the judge for nearly two weeks.
Other irregularities occurred throughout the trial, including Zamora being forced to change lawyers eight times, with at least four facing criminal charges related to the case.
Human rights observers have accused the administration of Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei of lashing out against anti-corruption advocates and the press [File: Moises Castillo/AP Photo]
Zamora and the newspaper he founded in 1996, El Periodico, have long worked to expose government misconduct. The paper has played a key part in uncovering alleged corruption in the current administration of President Alejandro Giammattei, publishing over 120 investigations into the government since January 2020.
But El Periodico was forced to close on May 15 amid the fallout from the Zamora case. Its journalists were investigated, and the newsroom had been targeted multiple times in recent years for tax audits.
In a statement, El Periodico’s leadership blamed “persecution” for shuttering the newsroom, as well as “the harassment of our advertisers”. Both Zamora’s case and El Periodico’s closure have raised concern in the international community.
“They’re using all these tools to basically put [Zamora] out of business,” Carlos Martinez de la Serna, program director with the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, told Al Jazeera.
“[This is] sending a very chilling message to journalists — that basically reporting on corruption is a crime,” he said.
Journalist Jose Ruben Zamora is seen on his first day of trial on May 2 [File: Santiago Billy/AP Photo]
Attacks on press freedom
As the case against Zamora comes to a close, another case against journalists from El Periodico is set to begin.
In February, a judge authorized the investigation of nine journalists and columnists from El Periodico on charges of “conspiracy to obstruct justice”, following a request from the lead prosecutor in Zamora’s case. The charges stem from the publishing of stories critical of the legal proceedings against Zamora.
On June 5, the public prosecutor’s office officially requested all the stories published since July by the journalists and columnists in the case.
But the persecution against journalists extends beyond El Periodico’s newsroom, according to observers.
“The press is being harassed at the level of exposure of Jose Ruben Zamora, as well as other low-profile journalists and even community journalists,” Renzo Rosal, a political scientist at Guatemala’s Landivar University, told Al Jazeera.
“Journalists who carry out their work in the interior of the country are victims of the same logic: the logic of persecution, the logic of criminalization, so that no one investigates anything,” he explained.
Journalists protest the arrest of Jose Ruben Zamora, holding up a copy of the newspaper he founded, El Periodico [File: Moises Castillo/AP Photo]
Critics say the criminalisation of journalists has become further entrenched since President Giammattei took the oath of office in 2020. A number of renowned journalists have been forced into exile, while others have faced criminal charges and threats.
For example, Anastasia Mejía, a community journalist in Joyabaj, Quiche, was arrested in 2020 on charges of sedition and arson following her coverage of protests against the mayor of the largely Indigenous municipality in Guatemala’s western highlands. The charges were dropped a year after she was first accused.
In another case from 2022, Carlos Choc, a community journalist from the eastern municipality of El Estor, faced the criminal charge of “instigation to commit a crime” following his coverage of anti-mining protests.
Eventually Choc was exonerated, but the threats against journalists in El Estor remain, as police continue to intimidate other journalists working in the area.
Journalists protest outside the Supreme Court in Guatemala City on March 4 after an investigation was announced into nine El Periodico reporters [File: Wilder Lopez/AP Photo]
Rolling back democracy
The verdict in the Zamora case comes within days of Guatemala’s general elections on June 25, which has likewise been plagued by controversy.
The country’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal has ruled to exclude three presidential candidates from the race on charges of noncompliance with the country’s election laws. Those disqualifications — which targeted at least one frontrunner — have raised questions about the fairness of the elections and Guatemala’s democratic institutions.
“Today the elections are another indicator of serious democratic erosion,” Rosal says.
Human rights observers have warned that Guatemala has recently seen a sharp rollback of its democracy and its anti-corruption efforts, even beyond the upcoming elections.
Nearly four years ago, the administration of former President Jimmy Morales oversaw the closure of the International Commission Against Impunity (CICIG), a United Nations-backed initiative to address crime and corruption that enjoyed public support of 70 percent.
Giammattei’s administration has continued the trend of dismantling anti-corruption bulwarks, through prosecution of the judges, lawyers and activists involved in those efforts.
Lawyer Eva Siomara Sosa, a former employee for the Special Prosecutor’s Office Against Impunity (FECI), wears handcuffs after her first court hearing in Guatemala City in 2022 [File: Luis Echeverria/Reuters]
Accusations of corruption have also permeated the Guatemalan public prosecutor’s office in recent years. Both Attorney General Maria Consuelo Porras, who was controversially re-elected in May 2022, and Rafael Curruchiche, head of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Against Impunity, have been sanctioned by the United States for corruption and anti-democratic actions.
Critics say Guatemala is currently undergoing its greatest challenge since the country’s return to democracy in 1985, after decades of military rule. Back then, those democratic reforms paved the way for the 1996 peace accords that brought an end the country’s 36-year-long internal conflict.
But for those who lived through those tumultuous times, Guatemala’s current democratic crisis is a painful setback.
“I struggled for the peace process so that there would be peace in Guatemala,” said Claudia Samayoa, a founder of the Human Rights Defenders Protection Unit in Guatemala (UDEFEGUA). Her organisation grew out of the peace accords and sought to implement its terms in the post-conflict period.
But Samoyoa explained that UDEFEGUA has likewise come under attack, with its leadership facing accusations of influence peddling in relation to Zamora’s case. The organisation has denied those allegations, dismissing them as a smear campaign against its human rights work.
“We have regressed in the exercise of the most basic right of defence,” Samayoa said. “These cases are backwards.”
When Special Counsel Jack Smith announced last week that a federal grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump, he made a point of saying that the government would “seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest.” Whether Trump gets one could determine whether he goes to prison for his alleged crimes.
In just over 18 months, Trump could be serving as president again, at which point he’d be in a position to attempt to pardon himself or instruct the Department of Justice to dismiss its case against him. That might seem like a long way away, but for the nation’s tortoiselike federal-court system, it’s not. Complex, high-profile cases sometimes take years to get to trial, and former federal prosecutors told me that, even under the fastest scenarios, Trump’s trial won’t begin for several months and potentially for more than a year. Trump may well be waiting for a trial when voters cast their presidential ballots next fall. Although Smith will do all he can to hurry up the prosecution, the former president’s legal team could move to dismiss the charges—though that would almost certainly be futile—and file other pretrial motions in order to bog down the process.
“There’s a pretty obvious incentive from [Trump’s] point of view for delaying this,” Kristy Parker, a lawyer at the advocacy group Protect Democracy who tried cases for 15 years at the Justice Department, told me. “That is especially true if he understands that the evidence against him is significant and that the chances of him being convicted of these offenses are pretty high.”
Different federal courts operate at different speeds. The Eastern District of Virginia, for example, has long been known as “the rocket docket”; it’s raced through even high-profile cases such as the 2018 trial of Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort. Trump’s trial will occur in the Southern District of Florida and will reportedly be overseen by one of his own appointees, Judge Aileen Cannon. “Federal judges have enormous control over their courtrooms and over the schedule and timing of their cases,” Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney in Virginia and Texas, told me. “Some are very good at docket management, and some are not.” Having served as a judge for less than three years, Cannon hasn’t developed much of a reputation either way.
Cannon presided over a lawsuit Trump filed last year after the FBI executed a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago estate. She issued a series of rulings favorable to him. Representative Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat and a former federal prosecutor who served as a top counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, told me it was “concerning” that Cannon would apparently run the former president’s trial. “It was pretty clear that her initial rulings did not follow the law but followed some preconceived personal and political viewpoints, and there’s no place for that in the judiciary,” Goldman said. Indeed, the conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a pair of Cannon’s decisions, including one that barred the government from accessing some of the documents that the FBI recovered from Mar-a-Lago.
Another former Democratic co-counsel during the Trump impeachment, Norm Eisen, has called for Cannon to recuse herself or be taken off the case.
If Cannon stays on the case, she will have fairly wide latitude to set its tempo. She will be responsible for scheduling any pretrial motions and hearings, determining what evidence is admissible, and ruling on potentially time-intensive challenges that Trump’s lawyers could bring.
In their indictment, the prosecutors estimated that a trial would take 21 days in court—not an especially long trial for a case of such magnitude. The timeline suggests the government believes it has a pretty “straightforward” argument, Parker said.
The fact that this case centers on documents Trump had in his possession—illegally, the government argues—means that he may have already seen a significant portion of the evidence the Justice Department has on him. Theoretically, that could speed up the discovery process that occurs before any trial. But cases that involve classified documents tend to take longer, former prosecutors told me, because the court will have to determine who can access sensitive materials and how to protect government secrets before and during a trial. Most of the pretrial rulings that Cannon could make are subject to appeal, and those delays can quickly add up.
Another scheduling complication is that Trump is facing another criminal trial, in New York, on charges that he falsified business records, and he could face yet another indictment and trial in Georgia related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s Manhattan trial is scheduled for March, which would be about 10 months after his indictment in that case and right in the middle of the Republican primary season. (Although the cases are in different jurisdictions, the 10-month lag could be a rough guide for how long Trump’s federal trial will take to get under way.)
One of the biggest questions Cannon may face is whether the election should factor into her decisions about how soon to schedule a trial and whether to agree to delays that Trump might seek. Parker argued that the election is a legitimate consideration. “We are in uncharted territory,” she said, “and quite frankly, I would think that a court would want to try to get this matter resolved ahead of that point.” Even if Trump’s trial concludes before the 2024 election, however, it’s unlikely that (if he’s convicted) his appeals will be exhausted by then.
The former prosecutors I spoke with could only guess at what would happen if Trump were elected president while awaiting trial or sentencing. The case would likely proceed after the election, and the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bar convicted felons from taking office. Whether Trump could pardon himself is a matter of debate; no president has ever tried, but in 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating that a presidential self-pardon would be unconstitutional. Even if Trump did not attempt to pardon himself, though, he could lean on or simply direct his appointees in the Justice Department to drop the case against him. He’d surely argue that, by electing him, voters had rendered a verdict more legitimate than any jury’s.
For all the legal wrangling to come, Trump’s ultimate fate may yet rest with the voters. If he is the Republican nominee, they will have what amounts to the final word on his future, political and otherwise. “These cases are important, but they are not magic wands,” Parker said. “They will not relieve the voting public of its problems.”
President Touadera has been accused of seeking tenure elongation despite constitutional limits of two four-year terms.
President Faustin-Archange Touadera has set July 30 as the date for a proposed referendum on a new constitution for the Central African Republic that would allow him to seek a new term in 2025.
“I have decided … to submit this project for a new constitution to a referendum,” the president said in an address to the nation, posted on Facebook, on Tuesday.
Touadera was elected in 2016 and was returned for a second term in 2020 despite widespread accusations of electoral flaws and an ongoing rebellion against his rule after years of civil war.
Currently, a president can serve only two four-year terms.
His allies proposed the rule change in May last year, arguing that presidential term limits were uncommon in many neighbouring countries. Critics and opposition parties held protests last year as the reform would allow Touadera to run again in 2025 for a third term.
The president installed a commission to draft the proposed changes in September. But the country’s top court ruled the committee unconstitutional and annulled it.
In January, Touadera removed the country’s top judge, Daniele Darlan, in what critics denounced as a “constitutional coup d’etat” for her opposition to the presidential decrees aimed at revising the constitution.
“There won’t be a third term, but the count will be set back to zero, so anyone can seek a new term, including Touadera if he wants,” the president’s main adviser, Fidele Gouandjika, told AFP news agency after the announcement.
Critics said Touadera was making a blatant power play.
“This new constitution will be written so that Touadera remains president for life,” said Nicolas Tiangaye, a former prime minister and opposition leader.
“What’s more, the Constitutional Court is illegitimate since the ouster of Darlan,” he said.
Touadera has also drawn fire from critics over the hiring of paramilitaries from the Russian Wagner Group in the conflicts between militias that hold sway over large tracts of territory and often clash over access to minerals and other resources.
In February, the Russian ambassador to CAR said 1,890 “Russian instructors” were present in the country.
The last remaining French troops were also forced to leave in December in the face of an increasingly assertive Russian presence, with Paris accusing CAR authorities of being complicit in an anti-French disinformation campaign allegedly fomented by Russia.
France, the former colonial power, had dispatched up to 1,600 soldiers to help stabilise the country after a coup in 2013 unleashed a civil war along sectarian lines.
Landlocked and mineral-rich but dirt-poor, the CAR has experienced few periods of stability since gaining independence from France in 1960.
A 14-year-old girl injured in the fire has died in intensive care, as the teenage arson suspect faces murder charges.
A 14-year-old girl has succumbed to injuries sustained during a fire at a dormitory in the South American state of Guyana, bringing the disaster’s death toll to 20.
Guyana’s Department of Public Information (DPI) released an update on Tuesday stating that teenager Sherana Daniels had died around 10am local time (14:00 GMT) at a hospital in the capital of Georgetown.
She had been transported there for intensive care following the deadly fire at a boarding school in the town of Mahdia late at night on May 21.
Daniels “was one of the first persons air-dashed to Georgetown on the morning of Monday, May 22, and remained critical until her passing”, the statement said.
“The MOH [Minister of Health] would like to thank the doctors, nurses and other staff members who worked assiduously with the hope that a miracle would be possible.”
Prior to Daniels’s death, 18 female students and one five-year-old boy had been killed in the fire. Most were between the ages of 12 and 18.
The government has previously said that 13 of the bodies were so badly injured they could not be identified visually: DNA testing had to be used to confirm their names.
In addition, more than two dozen students were wounded in the fire. One 13-year-old girl continues to receive specialised treatment at the Northwell Burn Center at the University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, where she was transported over the weekend.
Tuesday’s DPI statement said she underwent the first of several surgeries on May 29 and remains stable.
“She is doing well and the ministry expects a positive outcome. Her mother is by her side and her father will be flown to New York this week,” the statement said.
Police have said the fire was started by a teenage student who was angry her phone had been confiscated. The government boarding school largely serves students from Indigenous communities in the region around Mahdia, some of them difficult to reach.
The teenage girl accused of starting the fire was charged on Monday with 19 counts of murder and is being held in a juvenile detention centre as she awaits trial. The incident has also prompted questions about safety procedures in place at the school.
It’s crunch time. President Joe Biden and the House Republicans have just days to act to prevent the country from defaulting on its debt. In January, the U.S. hit its debt limit of $31.4 trillion, which means the federal government can’t rack up any more tabs (or borrow more money) — so paying the bills on time just got more complicated.
How will the debt ceiling deadline affect you? It’s a loaded question, so let’s pull back the layers. Here’s what to know.
What is the debt ceiling?
The debt ceiling was created by Congress in 1917 and limits how much the U.S. can borrow to fund legal obligations set by lawmakers in the past (social security, tax refunds, military salaries, interest payments on outstanding debt, medicare benefits, and more). In other words, it caps how much debt the U.S. can incur. The current debt ceiling is $31.4 trillion.
What does hitting the debt ceiling mean?
Hitting the debt ceiling limit wouldn’t be a hot topic if the country’s revenue exceeded its costs (the government receives money primarily from individual and corporate taxes but also has other sources such as leases of government-owned buildings and land, sale of natural resources, and admission to national parks).
However, the U.S. hasn’t been in the green since 2001, meaning that for over 20 years, the government has had to borrow money to fund operations. Now that the U.S. has hit its debt limit, there are two options: raise or suspend the limit so the government can pay its bills on time or face a default.
Raising the debt ceiling would be just what it sounds like (bumping up the limit that the U.S. can borrow). Suspending the debt ceiling means that the Treasury can temporarily override the ceiling and borrow more beyond the current limit. If the U.S. were to default, the country wouldn’t be able to pay its bills on time, and the economic impact would likely be felt immediately.
When is the deadline to raise or suspend the debt ceiling?
In a letter sent to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Monday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that it is “highly likely” that the Treasury will be unable to fulfill its financial obligations if Congress does not raise or suspend the debt ceiling as soon as June 1.
“I continue to urge Congress to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by acting as soon as possible,” she wrote.
What would happen if the U.S. defaults?
In March, Moody Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi warned that if the U.S. defaults, it would be “catastrophic” and Americans would likely pay for the default “for generations.”
For example, government workers and businesses with government contracts might not get paid on time, and social security payments could stop. In a broader sense, it would also trigger “a loss of consumer and business confidence,” said Brookings Institution analysts Wendy Edelberg and Louise Sheiner.
Would a default cause a recession?
The default would essentially spark a nationwide economic collapse and induce an “immediate, sharp recession,” the Council of Economic Advisors warned in early May.
Harry Mamaysky, professor of professional practice at Columbia Business School, told Entrepreneur thatthe government has “lots of obligations to lots of people.”
“At some point, when there’s not enough money, they have to begin to prioritize who to pay first,” Mamaysky said. “Someone is not going to get paid the money that they’re owed on time, and that’s going to be disruptive.”
However, the short-term ramifications of default could be nowhere near as damaging as the long-term implications–what Mamaysky calls a “reputational issue” that could call into question the U.S.’s credibility as a smart country to do business with.
“That’s the biggest risk to me—it isn’t what happens this year or next year, but will the world perceive in five to 10 years the U.S. to be the best country in the world to conduct business?” he said. “It’s not imminent, but if Congress doesn’t watch it, they’re going to erode confidence.”
On Wednesday, top credit rating agency Finch placed the U.S.’s current “AAA” rating under “rating watch negative,” which means the country’s perfect score might be at risk for a downgrade.
“The Rating Watch Negative reflects increased political partisanship that is hindering reaching a resolution to raise or suspend the debt limit despite the fast-approaching x date (when the U.S. Treasury exhausts its cash position and capacity for extraordinary measures without incurring new debt),” the company said in a statement.
How will a default affect small businesses?
A recent report by Goldman Sachs found that 65% of small business owners would be “negatively impacted” if the U.S. defaults on its debt. Furthermore, 90% said it was “very important” that the government avoid defaulting.
If the U.S. defaults, businesses with government contracts may not see payments, and shops that have customers who rely on food stamps or social security to pay for necessities may see a drop in spending.
“If you’re a social security recipient and you owe rent, you may not have the money to pay rent,” Mamaysky added. “And if the landlord owes the utility bill on their building, they may not be able to pay the utility bill because they didn’t get the rent.”
What’s more, a 2011 Federal Reserve of New York report said small businesses were hit the hardest during the 2008-2009 recession.
According to the report, banks become “more selective and risk-averse” when granting loans in a recession, making it more difficult for individuals to get a small business loan.
“Small firms, which rely more on external financing and tend to be riskier, are more likely to be affected by a credit crunch,” researchers wrote.
How many times has the debt ceiling been raised or modified?
Despite the current pressure to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, it’s a relatively routine practice for the U.S. government. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 times to raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit to avoid a default—49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents, according to the Treasury, adding that “Congressional leaders in both parties have recognized that this is necessary.”
The most recent increase was in 2021 when the debt ceiling was raised by $2.5 trillion.
What’s the hold-up to raise or suspend the debt ceiling?
McCarthy and the Biden administration are negotiating a deal to avoid a federal default. However, the two have differing stances: McCarthy and House Republicans are pushing for $3.6 trillion in cuts and limits to future spending for certain programs (which are not specified in the bill) in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, while the Biden administration is focused on raising the limit and paying bills on time before it agrees to any cuts.
On Thursday, the House is set to vote on a deal and then recess while negotiators continue to work on an agreement.
“Following [Thursday’s] votes, if some new agreement is reached between President Biden and Speaker McCarthy, members will receive 24 hours’ notice in the event we need to return to Washington for any additional votes, either over the weekend or next week,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said, per CNN.
What is the 14th Amendment, and what does it have to do with the debt ceiling?
The 14th Amendment covers equal protection and other rights such as citizenship, state taxation, and what Congress can regulate. The fourth section of the Amendment, which covers public debt, states that the “validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.”
Given that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling and may not be able to pay its bills, there is an argument that, by invoking the 14th Amendment, Biden has the legal authority to bypass Congress (which approves any action to raise or suspend the debt ceiling) and essentially continue to issue more debt through the Treasury and ignore the debt limit.
Biden has been supportive but cautious about invoking the 14th Amendment as a solution.
“The question is, could it be done and invoked in time that it would not be appealed, and as a consequence past the date in question and still default on the debt? That is a question that I think is unresolved,” Biden told reporters on Sunday, per The Wall Street Journal.
Some experts have said that the move would be unconstitutional.
“The Biden administration even flirting with these ideas really suggests that the administration’s fidelity to the Constitution is questionable or opportunistic,” Philip Wallach, a senior fellow at the center-right think tank American Enterprise Institute, told the Wall Street Journal.
Others have been slightly more straightforward on their opinion of the idea, Yellen saying it could provoke a “constitutional crisis,” and Representative Chip Roy saying if Biden took the 14th Amendment route, the House Republicans would “blow crap up.”
Near a peak of the Zagros Mountains in central Iran, workers are building a nuclear facility so deep in the earth that it is likely beyond the range of a last-ditch United States weapon designed to destroy such sites, according to experts and satellite imagery analysed by The Associated Press news agency.
The photos and videos from Planet Labs PBC show Iran has been digging tunnels in the mountain near the Natanz nuclear site, which has come under repeated sabotage attacks amid Tehran’s standoff with the West over its atomic programme.
With the country now producing uranium close to weapons-grade levels after the collapse of its nuclear deal with world powers, the installation complicates the West’s efforts to halt Tehran from potentially developing an atomic bomb, which Iran denies seeking.
The report on Monday comes amid a spike in Iran-US tensions and stalled diplomacy between the two countries.
Completion of such a facility “would be a nightmare scenario that risks igniting a new escalatory spiral,” warned Kelsey Davenport, the director of nonproliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association.
“Given how close Iran is to a bomb, it has very little room to ratchet up its programme without tripping US and Israeli red lines. So at this point, any further escalation increases the risk of conflict,” Davenport told AP.
This month marked five years since former President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from a multilateral nuclear deal that saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions against its economy.
The administration of US President Joe Biden has continued to impose and enforce a strict sanctions regime against Iran and its oil and petrochemicals industries. Meanwhile, Tehran has been advancing its nuclear programme.
Biden, who was vice president to Barack Obama when the 2015 agreement was signed, had promised to revive the pact, but numerous rounds of indirect talks over the past two years have failed to restore it.
Since the demise of the nuclear accord, Iran has said it is enriching uranium up to 60 percent – up from the 3.67 percent limit it observed under the deal. Inspectors also recently discovered the country had produced uranium particles that were 83.7 percent pure, just a short step from reaching the 90 percent threshold of weapons-grade uranium.
As of February, international inspectors estimated Iran’s stockpile was more than 10 times what it was under the Obama-era deal, with enough enriched uranium to allow Tehran to make “several” nuclear bombs, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The US and Israel – which is widely believed to have its own covert nuclear arsenal – have said they won’t allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. “We believe diplomacy is the best way to achieve that goal, but the president has also been clear that we have not removed any option from the table,” the White House said in a statement to the AP.
Iran’s mission to the United Nations, in response to questions from the AP regarding the construction, said that “Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities are transparent and under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.”
Iran says the new construction will replace an above-ground centrifuge manufacturing centre at Natanz struck by an explosion and fire in July 2020. Tehran labelled the attack at that time as “nuclear terrorism” and blamed it on Israel.
Tehran has not acknowledged any other plans for the facility, though it would have to declare the site to the IAEA if authorities planned to introduce uranium into it. The Vienna-based IAEA did not respond to questions about the new underground facility.
The new project is being constructed next to Natanz, about 225km (140 miles) south of Tehran. Natanz has been a point of international concern since its existence became known two decades ago.
Protected by anti-aircraft batteries, fencing and Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the facility sprawls across 2.7sq km (1sq mile) in the country’s arid central plateau.
Satellite photos taken in April by Planet Labs PBC and analysed by the AP show Iran burrowing into the Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, or “Pickaxe Mountain”, which is just beyond Natanz’s southern fencing.
A different set of images analysed by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies reveals that four entrances have been dug into the mountainside, two to the east and another two to the west. Each is 6m (20 ft) wide and 8m (26 ft) tall.
The scale of the work can be measured in large dirt mounds, two to the west and one to the east. Based on the size of the spoil piles and other satellite data, experts at the centre told AP that Iran is likely building a facility at a depth of between 80m (260 ft) and 100m (328 ft). The centre’s analysis, which it provided exclusively to AP, is the first to estimate the tunnel system’s depth based on satellite imagery.
“So the depth of the facility is a concern because it would be much harder for us. It would be much harder to destroy using conventional weapons, such as… a typical bunker buster bomb,” said Steven De La Fuente, a research associate at the centre who led the analysis of the tunnel work.
The new Natanz facility is likely to be even deeper underground than Iran’s Fordow facility, another enrichment site that was exposed in 2009 by the US and others. That facility sparked fears in the West that Iran was hardening its programme from air attacks
Such underground facilities led the US to create the GBU-57 bomb, which can plow through at least 60m (200 ft) of earth before detonating, according to the US military.
US officials reportedly have discussed using two such bombs in succession to ensure a site is destroyed, according to AP. It is not clear that such a one-two punch would damage a facility as deep as the one at Natanz.
A pro-establishment Thai political party that championed the liberalization of cannabis won more seats than predicted in Sunday’s election, boosting its ability to resist attempts by groups seeking to undo the landmark policy set barely a year ago.
Bhumjaithai Party, headed by Anutin Charnvirakul, won 70 seats in the 500-member House of Representatives as it swept its home-turf of Buri Ram province and nearby constituencies, according to data from the Election Commission. That compares with as few as 12 seats projected by a Nation Group survey in early May and more than the 50 they won in the 2019 election.
As its negotiators participate in Sudan ceasefire talks in Saudi Arabia, the United States is “cautiously optimistic” about securing a truce to deliver humanitarian aid to the country, a Department of State official has said.
Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland told senators during a briefing on Wednesday that she had spoken with US officials attending the negotiations in the Saudi Red Sea city of Jeddah.
The talks, which started Saturday, involve members of two rival groups: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
“Our goal for these talks has been very narrowly focused: First, securing agreement on a declaration of humanitarian principles and then, getting a ceasefire that is long enough to facilitate the steady delivery of badly needed services,” Nuland said.
“If this stage is successful — and I talked to our negotiators this morning who are cautiously optimistic — it would then enable expanded talks with additional local, regional and international stakeholders towards a permanent cessation of hostilities, and then a return to civilian-led rule as the Sudanese people have demanded for years.”
The violence in Sudan broke out on April 15, as two top generals and their forces clashed for power and control over Sudan’s resources.
The fighting between the SAF, led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the RSF, which is loyal to General Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, has killed hundreds and displaced hundreds of thousands more so far.
Clashes and air raids intensified in the capital Khartoum and surrounding areas on Wednesday despite the talks in Jeddah, residents reported.
“There’s been heavy air strikes and RPG fire since 6:30am,” Ahmed, a resident of the Khartoum North neighbourhood of Shambat, told the Reuters news agency.
“We’re lying on the ground, and there are people living near us who ran to the Nile to protect themselves there under the embankment.”
Witnesses have also reported seeing bodies in the streets, as most hospitals have been put out of service amid deteriorating security.
“Our only hope is that the negotiations in Jeddah succeed to end this hell and return to normal life, and to stop the war, the looting, the robbery and the chaos,” said Ahmed Ali, a 25-year-old resident of Khartoum.
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) warned on Wednesday that as many as 2.5 million more people could slip into hunger in Sudan as a result of the conflict.
“This would take acute food insecurity in Sudan to record levels, with more than 19 million people affected, two fifths of the population,” WFP said in a statement.
The warring sides have agreed to previous US-brokered ceasefires, but the deals rarely held with residents reporting continuing fighting.
The administration of US President Joe Biden has said it is looking to play an active role in Sudan with the immediate stated goal of reducing the violence.
On Monday, the State Department said Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed “recent developments” in Sudan with his Israeli counterpart Eli Cohen.
After years of animosity, ties between Khartoum and Washington had been warming since the Sudanese military removed longtime President Omar al-Bashir from power in 2019, following months of anti-government protests.
The two countries re-established diplomatic ties in 2020. Sudan also agreed to normalise relations with Israel and was removed from the US’s list of “state sponsors of terrorism”.
The Sudanese military staged a coup against the civilian government of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok in October 2021, leading to his resignation early in 2022.
In April, before the violence erupted, Sudan’s leaders were set to sign a deal to return the country to its democratic transition, but the accord was delayed because of outstanding disagreements.
Washington has previously said it supports the Sudanese people’s aspirations for peace and stability as well as their demands to return to “civilian authority”.
On Wednesday, Nuland said the US is looking at appropriate targets for sanctions if the fighting rivals do not agree to a ceasefire and delivery of aid.
“We have the sanctions tool now that allow us to continue to pressure them,” she said.
An effort to regulate intoxicating hemp could have had detrimental effects for thousands of Colorado kids who suffer from epilepsy and other debilitating conditions.
But the bipartisan group of lawmakers who sponsored Senate Bill 271 found a way to address those concerns and still put a stop to a product that many claim is dangerous, especially to kids.
Senate Bill 271 is the outgrowth of 2022 legislation that set up a task force to look at intoxicating hemp products and make legislative and rule recommendations.
The difference between hemp and marijuana, which come from the same plant, is in the Delta-THC level. In order to be classified as hemp under federal law, the plant cannot have more than 0.3% delta-9 THC, marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient.
The underlying presumption is that some in the hemp industry have found a work-around in Delta-8 THC, which is made by concentrating hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) from the hemp plant. It’s not quite as intoxicating as delta-9 THC, with estimates pegging it at anywhere between 50% to 75% of the potency.
Under Senate Bill 271 any hemp product with more than 1.75 mg of Delta-8 THC per serving would be regulated, meaning it will require a legal ID to purchase and would be sold at a dispensary rather than online or at a convenience store.
But the folks at Charlotte’s Web got nervous.
The company was started in 2013 by Jared and Joel Stanley, along with other family members, on a farm near Boulder. Initially, they were working…
An effort to regulate intoxicating hemp could have had detrimental effects for thousands of Colorado kids who suffer from epilepsy and other debilitating conditions.
But the bipartisan group of lawmakers who sponsored Senate Bill 271 found a way to address those concerns and still put a stop to a product that many claim is dangerous, especially to kids.
Senate Bill 271 is the outgrowth of 2022 legislation that set up a task force to look at intoxicating hemp products and make legislative and rule recommendations.
The difference between hemp and marijuana, which come from the same plant, is in the Delta-THC level. In order to be classified as hemp under federal law, the plant cannot have more than 0.3% delta-9 THC, marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient.
The underlying presumption is that some in the hemp industry have found a work-around in Delta-8 THC, which is made by concentrating hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) from the hemp plant. It’s not quite as intoxicating as delta-9 THC, with estimates pegging it at anywhere between 50% to 75% of the potency.
Under Senate Bill 271 any hemp product with more than 1.75 mg of Delta-8 THC per serving would be regulated, meaning it will require a legal ID to purchase and would be sold at a dispensary rather than online or at a convenience store.
But the folks at Charlotte’s Web got nervous.
The company was started in 2013 by Jared and Joel Stanley, along with other family members, on a farm near Boulder. Initially, they were working…
A new report says that the killing of protesters amid widespread unrest may constitute ‘extrajudicial executions’.
A human rights commission has stated that the Peruvian government committed abuses as it cracked down on widespread unrest following the arrest of former President Pedro Castillo in December.
In a report released on Wednesday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) said that the state’s response to nationwide protests could be classified as a “massacre”.
“There were serious human rights violations that must be investigated with due diligence and an ethnic-racial approach,” IACHR President Margarette May Macaulay said in a report. “The deaths could constitute extrajudicial executions.”
Peru has continued to grapple with a political crisis, sparked on December 7, when Castillo attempted to dissolve Congress and rule by decree as he faced a third impeachment hearing. Those actions led to his arrest and subsequent protests, which called for his release, new elections and a revised constitution.
Reuters reported that more than 60 people have been killed in clashes between police and protesters since December, the overwhelming majority of them protesters.
But the administration of Castillo’s successor, President Dina Boluarte, has dismissed the violence as the product of “terrorists” and agitators, and called for a national “truce”. Peruvian authorities have denied committing abuses, despite criticism of the government’s response.
IACHR said that a large number of those killed and injured in the protests had been targeted with firearms. It also found that many of the harshest responses took place in rural Andean regions such as Ayacucho and Puno, both of which have large Indigenous populations.
A previous report by the human rights group Amnesty International called the government’s crackdown “systemically racist” for disproportionately targeting Indigenous populations that have already endured a history of neglect, disenfranchisement and state violence.
In a statement on Wednesday, Amnesty called on the Canadian government to halt weapons exports to the Peruvian government.
“The state’s callous disregard for people’s lives and rights should sound the alarm for any country that has sold or plans to sell arms to Peru,” Marina Navarro, executive director of Amnesty International Peru, said in the statement.
The IACHR report was written after the commission visited Peru to meet relatives of victims, government officials and civil society members over two days in January. It follows a recent Human Rights Watch report that concluded that government forces had killed protesters.
In January, Peru’s attorney general launched a series of inquiries into protest-related deaths. Demonstrators continue to call for Boluarte’s resignation and early elections.
However, such calls have yet to translate into accountability or a path out of the country’s political crisis. Boluarte herself has urged the legislature to fast-track a new round of elections, but Congress has rejected efforts to do so.
PEACHTREE CITY, Ga., May 2, 2023 (Newswire.com)
– Enforcer One, LLC, manufacturer of Enforcer® Compressed Air Foam Systemsand FIREBULL® Fluorine Free Products in Peachtree City, Georgia, announces NEW FIREBULL AB as a GreenScreen Certified™ Silver Firefighting Product. FIREBULL products are 100% fluorine free. Clean Production Action through their rigorous GreenScreen Certified™ standard certifies products as fluorine free* and prohibits thousands of other chemicals of concern for human and environmental health. The certification demonstrates Enforcer One’s commitment to developing environmentally safer firefighting products while matching the fire performance standards of traditional Class A and B foams that fire departments are moving away from due to the potential to introduce PFAS into the environment.
Enforcer One sought to produce alternatives to AFFF without relying on constituents that have more immediate toxic and caustic impact than fluorinated foams. The GreenScreen Certified™ Firefighting Foam Standard requires total organic fluorine of the product as sold to be less than 1 part per million as demonstrated by analytical testing, in addition to meeting testing requirements for aquatic toxicity of alga, aquatic invertebrates, and fish. The standard also includes an evaluation of each chemical present in raw materials above stringent thresholds against a comprehensive restricted substances lists and GreenScreen® hazard assessment and/or screening tools.
FIREBULL® AB joins the catalogue of UL listed FIREBULL 3% SFFF and UL Listed FIREBULL 6% SFFF, which were introduced in 2019 as fluorine free Class B foams for large volume flammable liquid fires. FIREBULL AB is a new Class A and Class B wetting agent which fills the gap for fire departments struggling with high viscosity fluorine free foams for daily use in standard equipment. FIREBULL AB is rated at 0.25% for Class A fires and as low as 0.25% to 3% for Class B fire extinguishment, a first for a GreenScreen Certified™ Silver Firefighting Product. This low application rate for Class B foams encourages departments to use less product to extinguish Class B fires than other products allow, while maximizing water performance and minimizing water usage and time on scene. FIREBULL AB viscosity is equal to 20 cps, which makes this product more compatible with onboard systems, eductors, and standard firefighting equipment than thicker fluorine free products. FIREBULL AB has a Ph of 7.1, indicating no corrosive properties. For these qualities, plus an unlimited shelf-life when stored in its original container, FIREBULL AB is Enforcer One’s challenge to its biggest competitor FireAde®, which is rated at 0.5% for Class B extinguishment and 0.25% for Class A extinguishment.
Enforcer One, LLC is also the manufacturer of Enforcer® Compressed Air Foam Systems, which maximizes FIREBULL AB performance in a small, portable CAFS system with minimal working parts. Fire Departments worldwide are enjoying the accessibility that Enforcer CAF Systems provide for rapid fire suppression with limited water access. Enforcer CAFS maximize water performance while minimizing water consumption with the addition of FIREBULL AB for up to 20:1 foam expansion in firefighting operations.
GreenScreen Certified™ is a registered trademark of Clean Production Action.
*”Fluorine free” means the product has zero intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and PFAS contamination in the product is less than (1 part per million) total organic fluorine as measured by combustion ion chromatography.
FIREBULL® is a registered trademark of Enforcer One, LLC.
A letter from US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns of potential ‘harm to business and consumer confidence’.
United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has sent a letter to Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy warning him that the federal government could hit its spending limit by June 1 if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling.
In the letter published on Monday, Yellen said available data points to early June as the period when the government will no longer be able to cover its expenses should Congress fail to raise the limit before then.
“Given the current projections, it is imperative that Congress act as soon as possible to increase or suspend the debt limit in a way that provides longer-term certainty that the government will continue to make its payments,” the letter reads.
Though Yellen’s letter indicates the US could enter default as early as June 1, the treasury secretary also noted that it is “impossible to predict with certainty the exact date when Treasury will be unable to pay the government’s bills”.
Monday’s letter comes as US President Joe Biden reportedly called for a May 9 meeting with Democratic and Republican leaders to discuss spending and the debt limit.
Experts have warned that a possible default would have dire impacts on the US economy: It could cause the US’s credit rating to fall, leading to higher interest rates and a possible recession.
Raising the US spending limits is a largely routine procedure but one that has become increasingly contentious in recent years. To raise the debt ceiling this year, Republicans in Congress are pushing for steep cuts to social programmes in exchange for their support.
The Biden administration has called for an increase to the debt ceiling without conditions, stating that debates over various programmes can be hashed out during negotiations on the yearly budget.
His concerns were echoed by fellow Democrats in the aftermath of Yellen’s letter, who called for a “clean” debt limit increase without haggling or addendums.
“We have about a month until the U.S. defaults on paying its debt. Let’s be clear — this isn’t new spending,” Virginia Senator Mark Warner tweeted on Monday. “This is about paying bills we’ve already incurred. We cannot unleash economic catastrophe on the American people.”
Last week, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a bill that agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion in exchange for $4.5 trillion in spending cuts for programmes like healthcare for low-income communities, renewable energy and transportation.
The bill is considered dead on arrival in the Democrat-controlled US Senate, and Biden has stated that he would veto it. But its passage in the House is considered a victory for McCarthy, who has since called for Democrats to “do their job” to approve the bill and avoid a default.
“In our history, we have never defaulted on our debt or failed to pay our bills,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement following the vote.
“President Biden will never force middle class and working families to bear the burden of tax cuts for the wealthiest, as this bill does. The President has made clear this bill has no chance of becoming law.”
On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office also stated that it saw an increased risk of the government running out of funds by early June due to tax receipts that were lower than expected.
Santiago Pena, a former central banker, has won Paraguay’s presidential election, seeing off a strong challenge from centre-left leader Efrain Alegre.
The former International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist, who was hand-picked by the powerful head of the country’s dominant political force, the conservative Colorado Party, scored a strong victory in presidential elections on Sunday.
Pena, 44, secured 43 percent of the vote to 27.5 percent for Alegre, according to preliminary results from the nation’s electoral court.
“Today, we are not celebrating a personal triumph. We are celebrating the victory of a people who with their vote chose the path of social peace, dialogue, fraternity and national reconciliation,” Pena said in his victory speech, adding that there was “a lot to do”, particularly in reviving the economy.
“The time has come to postpone our differences to prioritise the common causes that unite us as a nation,” he said.
Pena will take office on August 15.
A fresh face of institutional power
Quick to smile and described as affable, Pena is the fresh face of an old institution.
Known as “Santi”, he became a father at the age of 17 when his now-wife Leticia Ocampos became pregnant.
Early parenthood did not stop him from furthering his education, but he said it was a “difficult” time that helped shape his political career.
“It led me to build on very solid principles of commitment, of responsibility, of honesty, of integrity, of knowing that there are people who depend on you. And without realising it, when I was 17, I began to develop a vocation of service,” Pena said.
Pena is a defender of what he describes as traditional family values and is opposed to abortion and gay marriage.
For him, a family is comprised of “mother, father and children.”
His son is now 26, and the couple also has a 17-year-old daughter.
Technocrat
After becoming a father as a teenager, Pena was encouraged to get an education by family. He studied economics at university in Paraguay before heading to Columbia University in New York for his postgraduate education.
He then worked as an economist at the central bank in Paraguay’s capital, Asuncion, before joining the IMF in Washington, DC. He later returned to Paraguay as a member of the central bank board.
Those who know Pena described him to the Reuters news agency as “clean-cut”, “decent” and having “good ideas”. Critics said he is a member of the out-of-touch elite who lacks political experience and is acting as a puppet of Colorado Party leader and former President Horacio Cartes, Pena’s main backer.
“He is not a politician who wants a revolution – he wants evolution,” said a businessman with investments in Paraguay who knows Pena personally and asked not to be named.
Supporters said Pena will be able to keep a cool head during any tumult.
“I think what characterises him is that he has infinite tranquility,” said Lea Gimenez, who served as Pena’s deputy when he was finance minister and was later finance minister herself.
“Even during this election campaign, which has been so long because we have been in the process for almost a year and a half, I have not seen him once lose his temper,” she said.
“He is very serene. His peace of mind is impressive,” a collaborator told the AFP news agency.
Political newcomer
Pena made a first attempt at the presidency in 2017 when he lost the party primary to the man he will now replace after a constitutionally limited single term, Mario Abdo Benitez.
He entered politics as finance minister during the presidency of Cartes, who is under United States sanctions for alleged corruption.
Pena’s detractors describe him as Cartes’s secretary.
Alegre went even further, describing Pena as the “servant” of Cartes and the party as a corrupt institution.
But Pena was nonchalant about the criticism and has pledged business-friendly policies that focus on job creation, keeping taxes low and attracting foreign investment.
“He matured very quickly, being a young father. … He became an adult very quickly,” a former colleague told Reuters. “‘Santi’ has a lot of life experience and is a natural negotiator.”
Taiwan and Israel
Pena said he will preserve diplomatic relations with Taiwan despite demands from the agricultural and livestock industries to open up an export market to China.
Paraguay is one of only 13 countries to recognise Taiwan.
Also on the diplomatic front, Pena told AFP that he would move Paraguay’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Paraguay had moved its embassy there in 2018 under Cartes but reversed its decision within months, provoking anger from Israel, which closed its own mission in Asuncion in retaliation.
“Yes, I would go back to Jerusalem,” Pena told AFP before Sunday’s vote.
The Mexican president has renewed calls for the independent transparency agency to be folded into other government offices.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has called for an end to the agency that oversees government transparency and freedom of information, in what critics consider his latest attempt to limit oversight.
After recovering from a third COVID infection, López Obrador resumed his practice of morning press conferences on Friday, where he backed a plan proposed by his political party to shutter the Institute for Information Access and Transparency (INAI).
“Let the federal comptroller’s office, which belongs to another branch of government, the legislative branch, take over this function and let this agency disappear. Enough playing with appearances,” he said, adding that INAI’s dissolution would save taxpayer money.
Mexico created its freedom of information system in 2002 – laying the groundwork for INAI – and a constitutional reform in 2013 granted the agency autonomy to ensure it can provide transparency without interference.
INAI holds the power to compel other government bodies to submit to freedom of information requests as part of the government’s checks against corruption. But INAI has been in crisis recently, as appointments to its seven-member governing body have been stymied by the ruling party, called the National Regeneration Movement or Morena.
INAI needs at least five members to form a quorum. Currently, it has only four, leaving the institute unable to issue official decisions.
Protesters pin banners in support of INAI, Mexico’s transparency agency, on April 28 [Raquel Cunha/Reuters]
Late on Thursday, Mexico’s Senate once again failed to appoint a fifth member to the agency, amid opposition from the Morena policy.
The deadlock briefly prompted a scuffle on the chamber floor as opposition legislators unfurled banners at the Senate podium calling for immediate appointments to INAI. The Associated Press reported that Morena Senator César Cravioto was seen slapping away hands in an attempt to wrestle the banners away.
Also on Thursday, the president of the Senate, Morena ally Alejandro Armenta Mier, introduced an initiative to get rid of the agency altogether, folding it into the government’s civil service functions.
The opposition has already promised to block the bill, which needs a two-thirds majority to be approved.
López Obrador has long criticised INAI, denouncing it as a waste of government funds. Last month, he vetoed two new INAI appointees, preventing it from reaching the minimum of five members it needs to function.
Demonstrators gather outside Mexico’s Senate to show their support for INAI after President Andrés Manuel López Obrador threatened to shutter the agency on April 28 [Raquel Cunha/Reuters]
He has also been critical of the country’s judicial system for blocking his policies, saying it is “eclipsed by money, by economic power”. He supported a controversial bill in February to slash the budget for Mexico’s electoral agency and weaken campaign spending oversight.
In 2021, when the president announced plans to eliminate INAI, Human Rights Watch issued a statement blasting the proposal.
“Shuttering this independent body and transferring its functions to entities that report to the executive or Congress is the perfect recipe for secrecy and abuse,” the right group’s Americas director said at the time.
