Thousands of people in Gaza pillaged wheat, flour and other food supplies from United Nations warehouses, a U.N. agency said on Sunday, warning that “civil order” was starting to disintegrate in the besieged enclave.
Israeli military forces expanded their ground operations in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing that the war with the Hamas militant group was entering a “second stage.”
Israeli warplanes conducted airstrikes early Sunday near the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, in northern Gaza, residents said, after Israel claimed Hamas has a command post under the facility, the Associated Press reported.
Israel says most residents in Gaza have heeded its orders to flee to the south, but hundreds of thousands remain in the north.
According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), a local humanitarian organization, the Israeli military on Sunday morning issued a warning regarding another hospital, calling on the NGO to “immediately evacuate Al-Quds Hospital in the Gaza Strip, as it is going to be bombarded.” There have been “raids 50 meters away from the hospital,” PRCS wrote on X.
The Al-Quds Hospital, also in northern Gaza, had already received a similar notice since the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict, but Palestinians say the facility cannot be evacuated as it hosts an intensive-care unit and children in incubators, as well as many displaced Palestinians.
The Israeli forces have so far refrained from directly hitting the hospital after Physicians for Human Rights Israel, a doctors’ group, said it filed a petition with Israel’s Supreme Court claiming that Al-Quds hospital could not be evacuated.
Israeli warplanes attacked more than 450 Hamas targets overnight, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said, while more troops entered Gaza. Israel has been bombing the Gaza Strip since the October 7 Hamas attacks that killed 1,400 people and saw 230 people taken as hostages.
U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan on Sunday defended Israel’s campaign against Hamas amid mounting criticism of the Israeli military’s siege of Gaza. “What a lot of people are calling for is just a stop to Israeli military action against terrorists period. Just stop, no more, Israel cannot go after terrorists who conducted this largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust,” Sullivan said in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program. “We have taken the position that Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks,” he said.
Sullivan said the U.S. sees “an elevated risk of this conflict spreading to other parts of the region. We are doing everything in our power to deter and prevent that,” he added.
NGO Save the Children has warned that a million children in Gaza could die as a result of the Israeli bombing, and from prolonged power shortages and the lack of critical medical supplies.
Israeli airstrikes were reportedly carried out earlier in the vicinity of the Shifa Hospital and the Indonesian Hospital, also in northern Gaza. The Israeli military had no immediate comment when asked about reports of strikes near Shifa, the AP reported.
The U.N. General Assembly on Friday adopted a resolution calling for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.” The Israeli government dismissed the U.N. resolution, saying Israel will continue to defend itself. “Israel will do what must be done to eradicate Hamas’ capabilities,” said Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N.
Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7, killing over 1,400 people. Israel has retaliated with daily airstrikes on the blockaded Palestinian enclave, killing an estimated 7,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health.
Western governments are urging Israel to show restraint in its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, as fears grow that the conflict could spiral out of control.
On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and French President Emmanuel Macron combined their support for Israel’s right to retaliate with a warning: That response must be fair.
“Israel has the right to defend itself by eliminating terrorist groups such as Hamas through targeted action, but preserving civilian populations is the duty of democracies,” Macron said on Thursday night. “The only response to terrorism is always a strong and fair one. Strong because fair.”
On Thursday, for the first time the United States hinted at Israel’s responsibilities. Speaking alongside Benjamin Netanyahu at a press conference, Blinken said that while “Israel has the right to defend itself … how Israel does this matters.”
In a call with Netanyahu late Thursday evening, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak “reiterated that the UK stands side by side with Israel in fighting terror and agreed that Hamas can never again be able to perpetrate atrocities against the Israeli people,” according to a Downing Street readout. But the readout also added: “Noting that Hamas has enmeshed itself in the civilian population in Gaza, the Prime Minister said it was important to take all possible measures to protect ordinary Palestinians and facilitate humanitarian aid.”
These concerns were privately echoed by other Western officials, who warned that the world is facing a precarious moment.
As Israel scales up its powerful counteroffensive in Gaza, the fear in some European governments is that a full-blown regional war could erupt.
“Whatever Israel and the Palestinians do now risks contributing to the increasing bipolarization over the conflict,” one French diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly. “One big worry is the risk that the conflict spreads to the region.”
Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, already called the Hamas attacks and the subsequent kidnapping of civilians “Israel’s 9/11.”
But the 2001 attacks on the U.S. also led Washington to launch a global “War on Terror,” with American-led military involvement in Afghanistan and, two years later, Iraq, with the loss of many lives. The unified international support the U.S. enjoyed in the days and weeks immediately following 9/11 splintered over President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
“Israel clearly sees this as a casus belli [an act that provokes or justifies war],” one EU official said. “There is a real danger Israel simply uses this for a major ground offensive and wipes out the whole of Gaza.”
Shock and fury
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis even publicly warned about making the same mistake.
“The shock and fury in Israel are reminiscent of the emotions in the US after 9/11,” he said on X. “That provoked a display of American unity and power. It also led to a misconceived and self-destructive war on terror. Israel may be heading down the same dangerous path.”
Hamas’ attacks against Israel last weekend, which left more than 1,200 dead, led to an incomparable wave of sympathy and outrage across the West. The Israeli flag was projected across the European Commission’s headquarters and Berlin’s Brandenburger Tor.
But already, Israel’s retribution against Hamas is being scrutinized. Its counteroffensive has killed more than 1, 500 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s health ministry, and put the coastal strip of land under “complete siege.”
The United Nations has already sounded the alarm. Just two days after the attacks, Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “deeply distressed” at Israel’s announcement of a siege on Gaza. He also warned Israel that “military operations must be conducted in strict accordance with international humanitarian law.” This was echoed by the EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.
NGOs and Western governments now fear a humanitarian crisis, with the Red Cross warning that Gaza hospitals could turn into “morgues” without electricity.
So far, Israel seems to be doubling down.
On Thursday, Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz said there would be no humanitarian exception until all hostages were freed and that nobody should moralize.
Talking about Israel’s retaliatory measures in the Gaza Strip, Prosor said Israel decided to move “from containment to eradication” of Islamic jihadists. “This is civilization against barbarity. This is good against bad.”
Haim Regev, the Israeli ambassador to the EU, acknowledged on Tuesday that there were few critical voices so far. “But I feel the more we will go ahead with our response we might see more.”
Abdalrahim Alfarra, the head of the Palestinian Mission to the EU, told POLITICO on Thursday that a change in atmosphere is already underway. “It’s starting, since [Wednesday] there are several voices in the European Union itself that have started to ask Israel and Netanyahu’s government to at the least open up a passage for food aid to stop the Israeli aggression and war against the Gaza strip,” he said.
Gordian knot
Just like the U.S. response to 9/11, the escalation of the conflict risks destabilizing the entire region, Western diplomats fear.
“This whole conflict is a Gordian knot,” said one EU diplomat, describing the risk of escalation toward other countries in the region. The diplomat said the focus should now be on stabilizing the situation and to getting the parties back to the negotiating table.
“The Middle East conflict has the danger of escalating and bringing in other Arab countries under the pressure of their public opinion,” former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned, while pointing to the lessons learned from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, during which an Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria attacked Israel.
Despite the historical peace efforts of the U.S. in the region, Washington is far from a neutral broker, as it has been traditionally a strong supporter of Israel. In previous crises in the region, Washington appeared to give Israel carte blanche in its response, but over time ramped up pressure to compel the Israeli government to agree to a cease fire.
The EU official cited above doubted whether Washington will follow that playbook this time. “Biden has no more room for maneuvering domestically after the Hamas attacks,” the EU official said. “He has to support Netanyahu all the way.”
Eddy Wax, Suzanne Lynch, Sarah Wheaton, Elisa Braun, Jacopo Barigazzi and Laura Hülsemann contributed reporting.
This article has been updated with a readout from U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s call with BenjaminNetanyahu, and to reflect the Palestinian death toll.
The U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Italy have moved to bolster police protection of Jewish communities following the surprise attack by Hamas on Israel and the ensuing escalating conflict.
Governments across Europe fear an increase in antisemitic acts as the fighting between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas in Gaza unfolds, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declaring it a “war.”
In London, Palestinian supporters were spotted celebrating on Saturday, prompting the police to create “reassurance patrols.”
London’s Metropolitan Police added that the conflict might lead to protests over the coming days. “We will ensure that an appropriate policing plan is in place in order to balance the right to protest against any disruption to Londoners,” they wrote in a statement.
Tensions between Israel and the Arab world are running high, as Netanyahu vowed to take “mighty vengeance” on Saturday, after over 350 Israelis were killed by the Hamas attacks on Israel. Netanyahu already started launching retaliatory air strikes on targets in Gaza early Saturday, killing around 200 Palestinians.
French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin said on Saturday that he asked prefects across France to boost security for the Jewish community and that there were “no threats” so far, according to the Huffington Post, but that he’ll call a meeting to assess the situation.
This comes as French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne called the French far-left La France Insoumise party harbored “a form of antisemitism” after it published a press release calling for “the end of [Israeli] colonization.”
Berlin’s police said they’ve “increased protective measures at Jewish and Israeli institutions” following the Hamas attacks, according to the Tagesspiegel.
The Central Council of Jews in Germany wrote that they’re “in intensive contact” with the authorities. “The following also applies: No violence, no riots and no hatred on German streets,” it said.
Jewish NGO the Anti-Defamation League wrote that “our data show extremists appear to be emboldened by the Hamas attack, and have increased their violent rhetoric, posting hate-filled messages and calls for further aggression against Israel and its supporters,” hinting at a potential rise in antisemitic violence.
Similar protective measures for the Jewish community were adopted in Spain and Italy.
LONDON — Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s trade deal with India will not include legally enforceable commitments on labor rights or environmental standards, five people briefed on the text have told POLITICO.
British businesses and unions now fear the deal’s already-finalized labor and environment chapters will undercut U.K. workers’ rights and efforts to combat climate change.
Sunak’s government is racing to score a win with the booming South Asian economy ahead of the 2024 election. His plans for a return trip to India in October with the aim of sealing the pact are still on track.
Sunak and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi added impetus to negotiations when they met on the sidelines of the G20 in New Delhi early this month. The 13th round of talks continues in London this week.
Just days after Sunak’s meeting with Modi, Badenoch’s team shared the deal’s labor and environment chapters with businesses, unions and trade experts on a September 13 briefing call.
Key enforceable dispute resolution powers which the U.K. set out to negotiate are missing from those chapters, said the five people briefed on the text. It means neither London nor New Delhi can hold the other to their climate, environmental and workers’ rights commitments.
Businesses, unions and NGOs now fear the deal could undercut British firms because Indian firms operate to less stringent and expensive environmental and labor standards. Firms and unions say their access to the negotiations was curtailed earlier this year as talks progressed.
“Industry also wants binding commitments — partly for greater certainty, partly because businesses are made up of people who themselves want to be properly treated and to avoid climate catastrophe,” said a senior British businessperson from the services sector briefed on the chapters. They were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the negotiations.
“Suppression of trade unions, child labor and forced labor are all widespread in India,” said Rosa Crawford, trade lead at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) — the largest coalition of unions in Britain. “But the labor chapter that the U.K. government has negotiated cannot be used to clamp down on these abuses and could lead to more good jobs being offshored to exploitative jobs in India.”
The Department for Business and Trade said it does not comment on live negotiations and that it will only sign a deal that benefits the U.K. and its economy.
‘Everyone was deeply unhappy’
At the outset of the talks, the British government committed to negotiating enforceable labor and environment chapters as it laid out its strategic approach. “We remain committed to upholding our high environmental, labour, food safety and animal welfare standards in our trade agreement with India,” the government said in January 2022.
Indian and British officials say the labor and environment chapters are now closed and are not up for discussion. The U.K.’s first post-Brexit trade pacts with Australia and New Zealand have dispute settlement mechanisms in both these chapters. Three people POLITICO spoke to for this piece said it was an achievement in itself that Britain was able to get such chapters in a deal with India.
Businesses, unions and NGOs have all been concerned after Kemi Badenoch closed the key forums in February to carry out a required review of their activities | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
But, as the U.K.-India deal stands, if either country were to weaken its environmental standards or workers’ rights “the other party would not have recourse to initiate consultations on changes in laws,” said a person familiar with the content of the chapters. “There is no dispute settlement in the environment and labor chapters.”
British firms and unions are also concerned that the pact the EU is negotiating with India has enforceable chapters “bound by sanctions in case the parties don’t comply,” the same person said. Those EU-India chapters are not yet finalized.
British stakeholders “are totally up in arms,” said a former trade department official familiar with the briefing. “Everyone was deeply unhappy.”
Adding enforceable chapters would only slow down negotiations, said an Indian government official. “If you put in too much of these things into a trade deal, then it delays the process.” The U.K. and India are already “bound by” their international commitments on labor and climate, they added.
The deal “is dire for working people because trade unions were excluded from the trade talks,” said the TUC’s Crawford. Nearly three years ago, ministers pitched the idea of involving unions in 11 influential Trade Advisory Groups (TAGs) that gave input on ongoing trade negotiations.
Businesses, unions and NGOs have all been concerned after Britain’s trade chief Kemi Badenoch closed the key forums in February to carry out a required review of their activities. International Trade Minister Nigel Huddleston received officials’ recommendations to restructure the groups in mid-August. A final decision is expected before the end of the year.
With 40-50 people on the U.K. government’s current briefing calls about the India trade deal there’s little businesses or unions can do to feed into negotiations. Officials can “only really be in transmit mode,” said a business representative familiar with the briefings.
“What this means in real terms is that decisions are being made about the future of people’s livelihoods, people’s health, and the environment we all depend on without any input from those who will be impacted,” said Hannah Conway, trade and agriculture policy advisor at the NGO Transform Trade.
“It’s crucial,” she said, “that the government addresses its democratic deficit on trade policy by undertaking meaningful consultation with civil society and businesses.”
“It’s high time the government rethinks its approach,” said the TUC’s Crawford, “and includes unions in trade talks — that’s how you get trade deals that work for working people.”
KYIV — Russia’s missile strike on the Ukrainian city of Chernihiv at the weekend not only killed seven people and injured 120, it also scored a second hit for the Kremlin by stoking internal anger against drone-makers, who are accused of turning the city into a target with a security blunder.
On a bright holiday morning, as Ukrainians were returning from church on Saturday after celebrating the Apple Feast of the Savior — a harvest festival of the Orthodox church — a Russian Iskander-type ballistic missile exploded over the theater in the center of Chernihiv, a city north of Kyiv, only some 70 kilometers from the border with Russia.
The prosecutor’s office has started an investigation into a war crime that led to a mass murder.
Online commentators, however, are already pronouncing guilty verdicts on an unexpected group of former national heroes, blaming not only Russia, but also Ukrainian drone producers and military volunteers who organized and advertised an event on the same day at the theater that was ultimately targeted, with the help of local military administration.
“Is Russia to blame for the fact that it struck the theater in Chernihiv and killed civilians there? Of course. But didn’t the organizers have to turn on their brains and think that such an event is highly likely to become a target for Russian missiles? Especially if they constantly say that drones are a weapon of victory? This is about responsibility,” Sergiy Fursa, deputy director of Dragon Capital, an investment company, said in a Facebook post.
Ukrainian military volunteer Roman Sinicyn chimed in, adding that by organizing their event in the city center so close to Russia, Ukrainian military producers, soldiers, and volunteers, as well as the local military administration, demonstrated supreme recklessness. “However, we should not shift all the blame on a specific and effective volunteer organization. The event was approved by officials, not volunteers. And quite specific representatives of ministries, special services, and the military were aware of the event,” Sinicyn said.
Maria Berlinska and Lyuba Shypovych from the Dignitas Fund, a Ukrainian military volunteer organization that has pushed for systemic changes in Ukraine’s drone production and supply industry as well as the training of drone operators, are now taking most of the online hate from Ukrainians.
Dignitas Fund was among the organizers of the “Angry Birds” event, together with Chernihiv’s regional military administration and Ukraine’s defense innovation cluster Brave 1.
The event organizers publicly announced the time and date of the meeting and said what city it was happening in, but revealed the exact location only to participants some four hours before the start.
Someone then leaked that information to the Russians or Russia intercepted the communication. Russian state news agency RIA Novosti reported Russian forces were targeting a military meeting and even published an invitation with detailed maximum-security measures for the attendees who were not supposed to wear their military uniforms.
Both Shypovych and Berlinska are declining to give any comments to the media as they are now taking part in the investigation of the event, Shypovych told POLITICO.
Residents of Chernihiv clean up after the missile attack | Paula Bronstein /Getty Images
According to social media posts by both volunteers, the participants in the event survived the attack, as most of them were able to escape to a shelter. The security services are now investigating the information leak that triggered the Russian missile launch, Shypovych wrote.
After the wave of online hate, many members of Ukraine’s military, NGOs, and cultural sphere wrote posts in support of Berlinska, who has been a vocal critic of Ukraine’s defense ministry, and who has raised awareness of the Ukrainian authorities’ initial neglect of the crucial role that military drones should play in Ukraine’s defense against Russian invasion.
“Believe me, I would want to die instead of those people,” Berlinska said in a statement.
A Russian court on Friday sentenced opposition leader and Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny to an additional 19 years in a maximum-security prison, finding him guilty on extremism charges in what critics have lambasted as a “sham trial.”
Navalny, who is already serving a nine-year prison term in a maximum-security facility in Melekhovo, 250 kilometers east of Moscow, now faces decades behind bars.
Prosecutors had requested a 20-year sentence for Navalny, who said on social media on Thursday before the verdict that he expected to receive a lengthy “Stalinist” sentence.
“When the figure is announced, please show solidarity with me and other political prisoners by thinking for a minute why such an exemplary huge term is necessary,” he wrote. “Its main purpose is to intimidate. You, not me.”
Although he has visibly lost weight, Navalny cut a relaxed figure, chatting to co-defendant Daniel Kholodny ahead of the hearing and appearing to crack jokes with the defense team while the verdict was being read out.
Prosecutors had also asked for Navalny to be transferred to a “special regime” penal colony, likely more isolated and with restricted access, a request that was granted by the court.
“Today’s decision [about a move to a special regime prison] formalizes that which is already being done today,” Olga Romanova from the prison rights NGO Russia Behind Bars told morning radio show RZVRT.
Yevgeny Smirnov from Pervy Otdel, a law firm specialized in espionage and treason cases, said sending Navalny to a “special regime” colony is “a way of increasing pressure on him even more.”
“Such prisons are reserved for those who instead of a death sentence have been restricted in their freedom for life, and especially dangerous repeat offenders,” Smirnov said. “Political prisoners rarely fall in that category. In fact, in my memory, Navalny is the first.”
He said that in the worst case, Navalny would be kept alone in a cell and only be allowed a single long visit and a single parcel a year.
Experts on Russia’s prison system have also expressed concern about Navalny’s safety from fellow inmates if he were to be transferred to such a prison.
Harsh crackdown
A longtime critic and the main political opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Navalny, 47, was arrested on his arrival back to Russia in January 2021 after being treated in Germany following a suspected Kremlin-sanctioned poisoning. At the time, the Kremlin denied Putin had ordered Navalny’s poisoning, and said there was no reason to open a criminal investigation, a decision that was later condemned by the European Court of Human Rights.
Navalny was arrested on his arrival back to Russia in January 2021 after being treated in Germany following a suspected Kremlin-sanctioned poisoning | Kirill Kurdryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images
The extremism charges are not the end. Navalny is also facing an additional trial on terrorism charges in connection with an April bombing in St. Petersburg which killed pro-war blogger Vladlen Tatarsky, according to AP. Navalny, who was behind bars at the time of the attack, said he could face an additional 10 years for that charge.
Members of Navalny’s team have said he has faced harassment in jail, being denied food and access to medical care. Navalny has accused the prison authorities of using various pretexts to place and keep him in solitary confinement, in violation of Russian law.
After his imprisonment, a Russian court labeled Navalny’s movement as “extremist,” which led to his network of campaign offices being shut down. With the government cracking down on his supporters, many have fled, gone underground or been locked up.
However, some allies of the opposition leader continued showing their support, organizing demonstrations inside and outside Russia. On Friday, outside the prison gates, several dozen people, many of them young, waited in the afternoon sun in an expression of their support for Navalny, under the watchful eye of prison guards and police, some of whom asked passers-by for their documents.
European Council President Charles Michel called Friday’s verdict in “yet another sham trial” against Navalny “unacceptable.”
“This arbitrary conviction is the response to his courage to speak critically against the Kremlin’s regime,” Michel said. “I reiterate the EU’s call for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Navalny.”
Showing support
A handful of people gathered in front of the penal colony in Melekhovo ahead of Friday’s verdict, braving long journeys in sweltering summer heat to express their support. Many of those who spoke to POLITICO had traveled for hours to the penal colony in Melekhovo in a show of support for Navalny, despite having no illusion about the outcome of the case.
“In Russia, people get these kind of sentences simply for saying the truth,” said Alexander, a lanky 18-year-old economics student with green eyes who had traveled for several hours by train and car from Yaroslavl. “I believe that there should be no place for such lawlessness in the modern world.”
Refused access onto the prison grounds, he had spent hours waiting in the burning sun together with other supporters, while police guards approached them one by one and jotted down their personal details.
“I know they’ll be on my doorstep soon,” said Alexander. “But I’m not ashamed of my views.”
Two female supporters stood outside the prison gates, two hours before the sentencing was scheduled to take place.
Elena, 60, said she had traveled overnight from St. Petersburg to attend the hearing.
“It’s for my own conscience,” she told POLITICO. “And for Navalny to see that he has support.”
She was carrying a bag with water, tea and an umbrella in case the weather turned.
Another woman, also called Elena, 53, with her brown hair tied into a pigtail, had gotten up at 4 a.m. to make the journey from Moscow.
“Many of those who support Navalny have fled to avoid being mobilized,” she said. “We are women of a certain age and don’t run that risk.”
Roman, a fashionable 18-year-old dressed in a Yankees cap, sunglasses and a Japanese anime shirt, traveled three hours by train and three hours by car from Shakovskaya, a town in the Moscow region with his 16-year-old girlfriend.
“This way we show others that they are not alone in their opposition to Putin, to the war. Maybe it’ll inspire others too,” he said.
Asked whether he thought his presence outside the penal colony could have repercussions, he said: “Sooner or later it undoubtedly will. But it’s not worth being scared. I’ve already understood that there won’t be a good end to all of this either way.”
STRASBOURG — The European Parliament’s response to Qatargate: Fight corruption with paperwork.
When Belgian police made sweeping arrests and recovered €1.5 million from Parliament members in a cash-for-influence probe last December, it sparked mass clamoring for a deep clean of the institution, which has long languished with lax ethics and transparency rules, and even weaker enforcement.
Seven months later, the Parliament and its president, Roberta Metsola, can certainly claim to have tightened some rules — but the results are not much to shout about. With accused MEPs Eva Kaili and Marc Tarabella back in the Parliament and even voting on ethics changes themselves, the reforms lack the political punch to take the sting out of a scandal that Euroskeptic forces have leaped on ahead of the EU election next year.
“Judge us on what we’ve done rather [than] on what we didn’t,” Metsola told journalists earlier this month, arguing that Parliament has acted swiftly where it could.
While the Parliament can claim some limited improvements, calls for a more profound overhaul in the EU’s only directly elected institution — including more serious enforcement of existing rules — have been met with finger-pointing, blame-shifting and bureaucratic slow-walking.
The Parliament dodged some headline-worthy proposals in the process. It declined to launch its own inquiry into what really happened, it decided not to force MEPs to declare their assets and it won’t be stripping any convicted MEPs of their gold-plated pensions.
Instead, the institution favored more minimal nips and tucks. The rule changes amount to much more bureaucracy and more potential alarm bells to spot malfeasance sooner — but little in the way of stronger enforcement of ethics rules for MEPs.
EU Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, who investigates complaints about EU administration lamented that the initial sense of urgency to adopt strict reforms had “dissipated.” After handing the EU a reputational blow, she argued, the scandal’s aftermath offered a pre-election chance, “to show that lessons have been learned and safeguards have been put in place.”
Former MEP Richard Corbett, who co-wrote the Socialists & Democrats group’s own inquiry into Qatargate and favors more aggressive reforms, admitted he isn’t sure whether Parliament will get there.
“The Parliament is getting to grips with this gradually, muddling its way through the complex field, but it’s too early to say whether it will do what it should,” he said.
Bags of cash
The sense of resignation that criminals will be criminals was only one of the starting points that shaped the Parliament’s response.
“We will never be able to prevent people taking bags of cash. This is human nature. What we have to do is create a protection network,” said Raphaël Glucksmann, a French MEP who sketched out some longer-term recommendations he hopes the Parliament will take up.
Another is that the Belgian authorities’ painstaking judicial investigation is still ongoing, with three MEPs charged and a fourth facing imminent questioning. Much is unknown about how the alleged bribery ring really operated, or what the countries Qatar, Morocco and Mauritania really got for their bribes.
On top of that, Parliament was occasionally looking outward rather than inward for people to blame.
Metsola’s message in the wake of the scandal was that EU democracy was “under attack” by foreign forces. The emphasis on “malign actors, linked to autocratic third countries” set the stage for the Parliament’s response to Qatargate: blame foreign interference, not an integrity deficit.
Instead of creating a new panel to investigate how corruption might have steered Parliament’s work, Parliament repurposed an existing committee on foreign interference and misinformation to probe the matter. The result was a set of medium- and long-term recommendations that focus as much on blocking IT contractors from Russia and China as they do on holding MEPs accountable — and they remain merely recommendations.
Metsola did also turn inward, presenting a 14-point plan in January she labeled as “first steps” of a promised ethics overhaul. The measures are a finely tailored lattice-work of technical measures that could make it harder for Qatargate to happen again, primarily by making it harder to lobby the Parliament undetected.
The central figure in Qatargate, an Italian ex-MEP called Pier Antonio Panzeri, enjoyed unfettered access to the Parliament, using it to give prominence to his human rights NGO Fight Impunity, which held events and even struck a collaboration deal with the institution.
This 14-point package, which Metsola declared is now “done,” includes a new entry register, a six-month cooling-off period banning ex-MEPs from lobbying their colleagues, tighter rules for events, stricter scrutiny of human rights work — all tailored to ensure a future Panzeri hits a tripwire and can be spotted sooner.
Notably, however, an initial idea to ban former MEPs from lobbying for two years after leaving office — which would mirror the European Commission’s rules — instead turned into just a six-month “cooling off” period.
Internal divisions
Behind the scenes, the house remains sharply divided over just how much change is needed. Many MEPs resisted bigger changes to how they conduct their work, despite Metsola’s promise in December that there would be “no business as usual,” which she repeated in July.
The limited ambition reflects an argument — pushed by a powerful subset of MEPs, primarily in Metsola’s large, center-right European People’s Party group — that changing that “business as usual” will only tie the hands of innocent politicians while doing little to stop the few with criminal intent. They’re bolstered by the fact that the Socialists & Democrats remain the only group touched by the scandal.
“There were voices in this house who said, ‘Do nothing, these things will always happen, things are fine as they are,’” Metsola said. Some of the changes, she said, had been “resisted for decades” before Qatargate momentum pushed them through.
The Parliament already has some of the Continent’s highest standards for legislative bodies, said Rainer Wieland, a long-serving EPP member from Germany who sits on the several key rule-making committees: “I don’t think anyone can hold a candle to us.”
MEP Rainer Wieland holds lots of sway over the reforms | Patrick Seeger/EFE via EPA
Those who are still complaining, he added in a debate last week, “are living in wonderland.”
Wieland holds lots of sway over the reforms. He chairs an internal working group on the Parliament’s rules that feeds into the Parliament’s powerful Committee on Constitutional Affairs, where Metsola’s 14-point plan will be translated into cold, hard rules.
Those rule changes are expected to be adopted by the full Parliament in September.
The measures will boost existing transparency rules significantly. The lead MEP on a legislative file will soon have to declare (and deal with) potential conflicts of interest, including those coming from their “emotional life.” And more MEPs will have to publish their meetings related to parliamentary business, including those with representatives from outside the EU.
Members will also have to disclose outside income over €5,000 — with additional details about the sector if they work in something like law or consulting.
Negotiators also agreed to double potential penalties for breaches: MEPs can lose their daily allowance and be barred from most parliamentary work for up to 60 days.
Yet the Parliament’s track record punishing MEPs who break the rules is virtually nonexistent.
As it stands, an internal advisory committee can recommend a punishment, but it’s up to the president to impose it. Of 26 breaches of transparency rules identified over the years, not one MEP has been punished. (Metsola has imposed penalties for things like harassment and hate speech.)
And hopes for an outside integrity cop to help with enforcement were dashed when a long-delayed Commission proposal for an EU-wide independent ethics body was scaled back.
Stymied by legal constraints and left-right divides within the Parliament, the Commission opted for suggesting a standards-setting panel that, at best, would pressure institutions into better policing their own rules.
“I really hate listening to some, especially members of the European Parliament, who say that ‘Without having the ethics body, we cannot behave ethical[ly],’” Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová lamented in June.
Metsola, for her part, has pledged to adhere to the advisory committee’s recommendations going forward. But MEPs from across the political spectrum flagged the president’s complete discretion to mete out punishments as unsustainable.
“The problem was not (and never really was) [so] much the details of the rules!!! But the enforcement,” French Green MEP Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield — who sits in the working group — wrote to POLITICO.
Wieland, the German EPP member on the rule-making committees, presented the situation more matter-of-factly: Parliament had done what it said it would do.
“We fully delivered” on Metsola’s plan, Wieland told POLITICO in an interview. “Not more than that.”
This system, which has faced pushback from digital rights organizations and United Nations experts, will get its spotlight moment at the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics. In July next year, France will deploy large-scale, real-time, algorithm-supportedvideo surveillance cameras — a first in Europe. (Not included in the plan: facial recognition.)
Last month, the French parliament approved a controversial government plan to allow investigators to track suspected criminals in real-time via access to their devices’ geolocation, camera and microphone. Paris also lobbied in Brussels to be allowed to spy on reporters in the name of national security.
Helping France down the path of mass surveillance: a historically strong and centralized state; a powerful law enforcement community; political discourse increasingly focused on law and order; and the terrorist attacks of the 2010s. In the wake of President Emmanuel Macron’s agenda for so-called strategic autonomy, French defense and security giants, as well as innovative tech startups, have also gotten a boost to help them compete globally with American, Israeli and Chinese companies.
“Whenever there’s a security issue, the first reflex is surveillance and repression. There’s no attempt in either words or deeds to address it with a more social angle,” said Alouette, an activist at French digital rights NGO La Quadrature du Net who uses a pseudonym to protect her identity.
As surveillance and security laws have piled up in recent decades, advocates have lined up on opposite sides. Supporters argue law enforcement and intelligence agencies need such powers to fight terrorism and crime. Algorithmic video surveillance would have prevented the 2016 Nice terror attack, claimed Sacha Houlié, a prominent lawmaker from Macron’s Renaissance party.
Opponents point to the laws’ effect on civil liberties and fear France is morphing into a dystopian society. In June, the watchdog in charge of monitoring intelligence services said in a harsh report that French legislation is not compliant with the European Court of Human Rights’ case law, especially when it comes to intelligence-sharing between French and foreign agencies.
“We’re in a polarized debate with good guys and bad guys, where if you oppose mass surveillance, you’re on the bad guys’ side,” said Estelle Massé, Europe legislative manager and global data protection lead at digital rights NGO Access Now.
A history of surveillance
Both the 9/11 and the Paris 2015 terror attacks have accelerated mass surveillance in France, but the country’s tradition of snooping, monitoring and data collection dates way back — to Napoléon Bonaparte in the early 1800s.
“Historically, France has been at the forefront of these issues, in terms of police files and records. During the First Empire, France’s highly centralized government was determined to square the entire territory,” said Olivier Aïm, a lecturer at Sorbonne Université Celsa who authored a book on surveillance theories. Before electronic devices, paper was the main tool of control because identification documents were used to monitor travels, he explained.
The French emperor revived the Paris Police Prefecture — which exists to this day — and tasked law enforcement with new powers to keep political opponents in check.
In the 1880s, Alphonse Bertillon devised a method of identifying suspects and criminals using biometric features | Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
In the 1880s, Alphonse Bertillon, who worked for the Paris Police Prefecture, introduced a new way of identifying suspects and criminals using biometric features — the forerunner of facial recognition. The Bertillon method would then be emulated across the world.
Between 1870 and 1940, under the Third Republic, the police kept a massive file — dubbed the National Security’s Central File — with information about 600,000 people, including anarchists and communists, certain foreigners, criminals, and people who requested identification documents.
After World War II ended, a bruised France moved away from hard-line security discourse until the 1970s. And in the early days of the 21st century, the 9/11 attacks in the United States marked a turning point, ushering in a steady stream of controversial surveillance laws — under both left- and right-wing governments. In the name of national security, lawmakers started giving intelligence services and law enforcement unprecedented powers to snoop on citizens, with limited judiciary oversight.
“Surveillance covers a history of security, a history of the police, a history of intelligence,” Aïm said. “Security issues have intensified with the fight against terrorism, the organization of major events and globalization.”
The rise of technology
In the 1970s, before the era of omnipresent smartphones, French public opinion initially pushed back against using technology to monitor citizens.
In 1974, as ministries started using computers, Le Monde revealed a plan to merge all citizens’ files into a single computerized database, a project known as SAFARI.
The project, abandoned amid the resulting scandal, led lawmakers to adopt robust data protection legislation — creating the country’s privacy regulator CNIL. France then became one of the few European countries with rules to protect civil liberties in the computer age.
However, the mass spread of technology — and more specifically video surveillance cameras in the 1990s — allowed politicians and local officials to come up with new, alluring promises: security in exchange for surveillance tech.
In 2020, there were about 90,000 video surveillance cameras powered by the police and the gendarmerie in France. The state helps local officials finance them via a dedicated public fund. After France’s violent riots in early July — which also saw Macron float social media bans during periods of unrest — Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin announced he would swiftly allocate €20 million to repair broken video surveillance devices.
In parallel, the rise of tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Apple in everyday life has led to so-called surveillance capitalism. And for French policymakers, U.S. tech giants’ data collection has over the years become an argument to explain why the state, too, should be allowed to gather people’s personal information.
“We give Californian startups our fingerprints, face identification, or access to our privacy from our living room via connected speakers, and we would refuse to let the state protect us in the public space?” Senator Stéphane Le Rudulier from the conservative Les Républicains said in June to justify the use of facial recognition on the street.
Strong state, strong statesmen
Resistance to mass surveillance does exist in France at the local level — especially against the development of so-called safe cities. Digital rights NGOs can boast a few wins: In the south of France, La Quadrature du Net scored a victory in an administrative court, blocking plans to test facial recognition in high schools.
Some grassroots movements have opposed surveillance schemes at the local level, but the nationwide legislative push has continued | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
At the national level, however, security laws are too powerful a force, despite a few ongoing cases before the European Court of Human Rights. For example, France has de facto ignored multiple rulings from the EU top court that deemed mass data retention illegal.
Often at the center of France’s push for more state surveillance: the interior minister. This influential office, whose constituency includes the law enforcement and intelligence community, is described as a “stepping stone” toward the premiership — or even the presidency.
“Interior ministers are often powerful, well-known and hyper-present in the media. Each new minister pushes for new reforms, new powers, leading to the construction of a never-ending security tower,” said Access Now’s Massé.
Under Socialist François Hollande, Manuel Valls and Bernard Cazeneuve both went from interior minister to prime minister in, respectively, 2014 and 2016. Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac’s interior minister from 2005 to 2007, was then elected president. All shepherded new surveillance laws under their tenure.
In the past year, Darmanin has been instrumental in pushing for the use of police drones, even going against the CNIL.
For politicians, even at the local level, there is little to gain electorally by arguing against expanded snooping and the monitoring of public space. “Many on the left, especially in complicated cities, feel obliged to go along, fearing accusations of being soft [on crime],” said Noémie Levain, a legal and political analyst at La Quadrature du Net. “The political cost of reversing a security law is too high,” she added.
It’s also the case that there’s often little pushback from the public. In March,on the same day a handful of French MPs voted to allow AI-powered video surveillance cameras at the 2024 Paris Olympics, about 1 million people took to the streets to protest against … Macron’s pension reform.
Sovereign cameras
For politicians, France’s industrial competitiveness is also at stake. The country is home to defense giants that dabble in both the military and civilian sectors, such as Thalès and Safran. Meanwhile, Idemia specializes in biometrics and identification.
“What’s accelerating legislation is also a global industrial and geopolitical context: Surveillance technologies are a Trojan horse for artificial intelligence,” said Caroline Lequesne Rot, an associate professor at the Côte d’Azur University, adding that French policymakers are worried about foreign rivals. “Europe is caught between the stranglehold of China and the U.S. The idea is to give our companies access to markets and allow them to train.”
In 2019, then-Digital Minister Cédric O told Le Monde that experimenting with facial recognition was needed to allow French companies to improve their technology.
France’s surveillance apparatus will be on full display at the 2024 Olympic Games | Patrick Kovarik/AFP via Getty Images
For the video surveillance industry — which made €1.6 billion in France in 2020 — the 2024 Paris Olympics will be a golden opportunity to test their products and services and showcase what they can do in terms of AI-powered surveillance.
XXII — an AI startup with funding from the armed forces ministry and at least some political backing — has already hinted it would be ready to secure the mega sports event.
“If we don’t encourage the development of French and European solutions, we run the risk of later becoming dependent on software developed by foreign powers,” wrote lawmakers Philippe Latombe, from Macron’s allied party Modem, and Philippe Gosselin, from Les Républicains, in a parliamentary report on video surveillance released in April.
“When it comes to artificial intelligence, losing control means undermining our sovereignty,” they added.
The ghosts of colonial history returned to haunt European and Latin American leaders at their summit in Brussels.
For the guests, four hundred years of European colonial rule, economic exploitation and slavery was front of mind. For the hosts, it was Russia’s war on Ukraine in the here and now.
The divergence in views was so profound that the two sides struggled to align their thinking at their first summit in eight years — especially to find words to condemn Russia’s war of aggression in their closing communiqué.
That made the two-day gathering frustrating for all concerned — but especially for leaders of the EU’s newest member states from Eastern Europe, which have their own bitter memories of Soviet imperial rule and Russian aggression.
“It is actually a war of colonization,” Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš said of the 16-month-old Ukraine conflict.
“There is a former colonizer, Russia, and a former colony, Ukraine. And the former overlord is trying to take back their one-time possession. I think that many countries around the world can relate to that.”
Despite the pre-summit rhetoric highlighting the two continents’ shared values, EU leaders struggled to persuade the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) — which includes traditional allies of Moscow such as Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela — to clearly condemn Russia’s war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — a regular guest in Brussels — wasn’t invited this time. Wrangling over the wording in their joint declaration delayed the end of the meeting by hours as leaders sought to bridge the gaps. In the end, only Nicaragua dissented.
“No one intends to lecture anyone,” said European Council President Charles Michel, seeking to placate his guests. “This is not how it works, we have a lot of respect for those countries, for the traditions, for the culture, and the idea is always to engage in a spirit of mutual respect.”
Four hundred years
Spain, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, has its eyes on Latin America and likes to emphasize the close cultural and linguistic ties between the two.
But those links hark back to Spain — and Europe’s — colonial past. The Spanish kingdom colonized much of Latin America starting in 1493 and, over the next 400 years, acquired vast wealth by exploiting its lands and people. The European slave trade also forcibly transported millions of Africans into slavery in Latin America and the Caribbean.
While European leaders hoped to ease geopolitical tensions, their Latin American counterparts came to the table with a clear message: Defining relations today means addressing and rectifying past injustices — especially as the EU looks once again to the resource-rich region, this time to power its green transition.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines’ Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves | Jean-Christophe Verhaegen/AFP via Getty Images
The prime minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — a small island state that heads up the 33-nation group — called for talks on economic reparations for colonization and enslavement.
“Resources from the slave trade and from slavery helped to fuel the industrial revolution that has laid the basis for a lot of the wealth within Western Europe,” Ralph Gonsalves told a small group of reporters on Tuesday.
This was part of his argument for a plan to “to repair the historical legacies of underdevelopment resulting from native genocide and the enslavement of African bodies,” as he said on Monday ahead of the summit.
Trade tensions
Trade talks between the EU and Mercosur — which groups four of Latin America’s big economies — also reflected the broader tensions over what it really means for Europe to start afresh in a relationship of equals.
Beyond a cursory mention of a Mercosur deal in the final statement, talks with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay were kept on the sidelinesdespite previous hopes that the summit could inject new energy into negotiations on wrapping up a trade deal.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did, however, say after the summit that “our ambition is to … conclude [at] the latest by the end of this year.”
Industry and civil society have fundamentally different interpretations around how much — or how little — the deal would help put the countries on equal footing with their European partners.
For businesses, the deal needs to happen to ensure the region remains on the EU’s political and economic map.
“For us, the [trade] agreements are important. We need stability and don’t want to be at the mercy of political changes,” said Luisa Santos of the industry lobby group BusinessEurope.
But NGOs don’t see it that way. “Any proposal that leaves the region as a mere provider of natural resources for the benefit of the one percent in the region, big corporations and rich countries is business as usual,” said Hernán Saenz from the NGO Oxfam.
Resource craze
Sealing the Mercosur deal has gained importance for the EU, which is banking on the resource-rich region to power the wind turbines and electric vehicles it needs to meet its climate targets.
Brazil is the largest exporter of strategic raw materials to the EU by volume, while the “lithium triangle” spanning Chile, Argentina and Bolivia hosts about half of the world’s lithium reserves. As part of the summit, Brussels and Chile signed a new memorandum of understanding on raw materials.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (left) and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (right) in Brussels | Dati Bendo/EC
But the EU’s new appetite for those metals and minerals evoques those dark memories of Spanish conquistadors who set out to dominate large parts of South America — in the name of god, glory and, not least, gold, fueling an economic boom back home while stripping Latin America of its riches.
While von der Leyen on Monday announced Brussels will pump over €45 billion into the region through its Global Gateway program — for infrastructure projects that, at least in part, will also benefit the EU’s private sector — Europe is coming late to the party in a region where China has already expanded its influence.
And raw materials partnerships today, the region’s countries emphasized, cannot be based on a model where resource-rich countries mine the valuable resources — often under poor environmental and working conditions — only for them to be shipped abroad for processing and manufacturing, making them reliant on imports for finished products.
“This was the first time that we had the opportunity to discuss in such clear terms a mechanism that would take us away from extractivism in Latin America,” Argentina’s President Alberto Fernández said after the summit.
“It took five centuries, but we managed it — I’m saying that half in jest, but we have at last succeeded.”
Camille Gijs and Barbara Moens contributed reporting.
STRASBOURG — Gather round, gather round, it’s the last big match of the season.
This week, just before lawmakers head into the summer recess, the European Parliament will fight it out over nature restoration.
The EU’s proposal to rehabilitate its damaged ecosystems by 2050 has one last chance at survival in Wednesday’s plenary session. The bill, a key pillar of the bloc’s Green Deal, has limped to Strasbourg to face the full Parliament after failing to pass three committee votes.
If the Nature Restoration Law is rejected on Wednesday, “it’s game over,” said Pascal Canfin, a liberal MEP and chair of Parliament’s environment committee. “Nobody will come back with something else before the next election.”
The vote will be tight. And if the text doesn’t pass, it would be the first major Green Deal legislation to fail in Parliament — adding weight to a conservative campaign to pause environmental lawmaking ahead of the 2024 EU election.
For months, supporters and opponents of the law have been exchanging (metaphorical) punches on social media, in committee sessions and press conferences.
Ahead of the vote, POLITICO looks at the main players in the fight to kill — or save — the Nature Restoration Law.
In the blue corner: The bill’s opponents
1 — Manfred Weber
The European People’s Party has spearheaded a tireless effort to kill off the legislation, arguing that it will have detrimental consequences for the bloc’s farmers by allegedly taking land out of production and jeopardizing food security.
Its leader, Manfred Weber, has been among the most vocal opponents of the bill, seizing on the debate as a way to portray his group as defending farmers’ interests in Brussels.
Political rivals have accused him of using underhand tactics to ensure his MEPs voted against the legislation in the agriculture, fisheries and environment committees, including by substituting regular members with others ready to fall in line — allegations Weber denied. The push has also featured an often bizarre social media campaign to highlight the supposed dangers of the bill, culminating in the group claiming it would destroy Santa’s home in northern Finland.
“This is not the right moment to do this piece of legislation,” Manfred Weber said last month | Philippe Buissin/EP
The EPP leader maintains the group is ready to engage on the legislation — if the Commission comes up with a new version. “This is not the right moment to do this piece of legislation,” Weber said last month.
“Give me arguments, give me a better piece of legislation, then my party is ready to give,” Weber added, calling on the Commission to go back to the drawing board and insisting that achieving the EU’s climate and biodiversity goals can’t come at the expense of rural areas.
2 — Right-wing groups — and a handful of liberals
Weber’s conservative group has found allies further to the right — among MEPs belonging to the European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Identity and Democracy.
The ECR’s co-chair, Nicola Procaccini, a close ally of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, called the nature proposal “one of the most significant regulation proposals of the entire legislature,” and said he was “quite convinced” the right-wing alliance could defeat it. He added that it shows alliances are shifting in Parliament: “On the Green Geal it is moving more to the right.”
The EPP’s push has also found support among lawmakers in Renew Europe. About a third of the liberal group — mostly Dutch, Nordic and German MEPs — are set to vote against the bill on Wednesday, mostly out of national concerns.
Swedish liberal MEP Emma Wiesner, for example, has argued that the bill will be bad for Swedish farmers and foresters, while stressing that she still supports “an ambitious climate and environmental agenda.”
3 — Industry lobbies
A host of lobby groups have also come out against the legislation, including those representing European fishermen, foresters and farmers.
The powerful agri lobby Copa-Cogeca — which has been accused of representing the interests of large corporate outfits over smaller farms — has pushed the narrative that burdening farmers with new green obligations while they face the impacts of the war in Ukraine and higher energy prices will threaten their livelihoods.
The draft legislation “is poorly constructed, [and] has no coherent, clear or dedicated budget” to help land managers implement it, the lobby said.
Similarly, some business associations, like the Netherlands’ VNO-NCW, have been critical of the proposal, arguing that it will create a “lockdown for new business and the energy transition.”
A host of lobby groups have also come out against the legislation, including those representing European farmers | Jeffrey Groeneweg/AFP via Getty Images
4 — Skeptical EU countries
Several EU countries have waded into the debate, warning that the new measures would be bad for their farming and forestry sectors, as well as for people’s proprietary rights and permitting procedures for renewable energy projects.
The Netherlands has been particularly vocal against the bill, calling for EU countries to be granted more flexibility in how to achieve the regulation’s targets as it could otherwise clash with renewables or housing projects, for example. “We do have concerns about implementation because of our high population density,” said Dutch Environment Minister Christianne van der Wal-Zeggelink.
Other skeptical countries include Poland, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Belgium.
Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo called for hitting “pause” on new nature restoration rules amid a fierce national debate on the legislation.
In the red corner: Its defenders
1 — Frans Timmermans
The EU’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans has been on the front lines of the effort to save the nature rules, going toe-to-toe with EPP lawmakers during Parliament committee discussions and calling out misleading statements spread by opponents to the bill.
“Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts,” he told lawmakers in May, stressing that the reason harvests are failing “is linked to climate change and biodiversity loss.”
He’s repeatedly insisted the legislation is intended to help farmers in the long run, as it aims to improve soil and water quality, as well as build resilience against natural disasters like floods, droughts and wildfires. He’s also been adamant that the Commission won’t submit a new version of the bill, as demanded by the EPP.
“There is no time for that,” he explained.
2 — Left-wing groups in Parliament — and (most of) the liberals
The EU’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans has been on the front lines of the effort to save the nature rules | John Thys/AFP via Getty Images
The Parliament’s center-left Socialists & Democrats, the Greens, The Left and part of Renew Europe have been vocal advocates of the Commission’s proposal.
Biodiversity loss and climate change are two sides of the same coin, Mohammed Chahim, vice president of the S&D, told reporters. “Not connecting them is either you being naive, at best, and at worst, you really trying to undermine the Green Deal, and that’s what’s happening.”
The Renew group has been divided on the issue, but a majority backed a compromise deal ahead of Wednesday’s vote to try and convince some EPP lawmakers to switch sides and rally enough support in favor of the legislation.
3 —Teresa Ribera
Spain’s environment minister has come out in favor of the proposal, defending its importance both at home and at the EU level as a means to increase resilience to natural disasters and climate impacts like drought.
“It is very important not only to conserve but also to restore nature … There will be time to improve what we have on the table but for the time being, the best thing we can do is to achieve an agreement,” Ribera said at an informal environment ministers’ meeting Monday.
Alongside Spain, 19 EU countries supported the adoption of a common stance on the text in June.
Ribera also signaled that the file will be among the Spanish presidency of the Council’s priorities if the Parliament adopts a position allowing MEPs to start negotiations with EU countries.
4 — Big business and banks
A number of multinationals — including Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Unilever — have urged MEPs to back the legislation, arguing that restoring nature is good for business.
The new rules, they say, will boost the EU’s food production in the long term as it will help tackle pollinator decline and increase absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere, lessening climate impacts.
Owen Bethell, senior global public affairs manager for environmental impact at Nestlé, stressed that farmers’ concerns need to be addressed and argued they should receive support to adapt to the new rules. “But in the short term, I think it’s important to maintain momentum on this law because it sends the right signal, that change needs to happen,” he said.
Green activists have led a forceful push to convince lawmakers to back the proposal | Frederick Florin/AFP via Getty Images
The argument that nature is good for business also received backing from Frank Elderson, an executive board member of the European Central Bank, who warned: “Destroy nature and you destroy the economy.”
5 — Scientists and NGOs
More than 6,000 scientists have shown support for the Commission’s nature restoration plan, arguing that healthy ecosystems will store greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the EU’s objective to become climate neutral by 2050.
“Protecting and restoring nature, and reducing the use of agrochemicals and pollutants, are essential for maintaining long-term production and enhancing food security,” they wrote.
Green activists have also led a forceful push to convince lawmakers to back the proposal, staging protests and making arguments to counter the EPP’s narrative on social media.
“The European Parliament must stay strong against the falsified pushbacks of the conservatives and take firm action to protect citizens from the devastating impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss,” the WWF said in a statement ahead of the vote.
Watching from the sidelines
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, a member of the EPP, has stayed conspicuously quiet on the issue, despite mounting calls for her to get involved and help save the bill.
The situation is a Catch-22 for the German official: The nature bill is part of the Green Deal on which she staked her reputation and reelection as Commission president, but speaking in support of it would involve going against her party’s official position.
“I still expect a public reaction from her,” said the S&D’s César Luena, the lead MEP on the file. “Or if it’s not public, then a reaction inside the EPP,” he added, suggesting that her silence could be held against her in a bid for reelection next year if the legislation doesn’t pass this week.
TBILISI — Georgia’s annual LGBT+ Pride event was evacuated by the police on Saturday after hundreds of counter-protesters stormed the site.
In a statement, organisers of the festival in the capital of Tbilisi announced that they had been forced to shut down the annual festivities after the authorities failed to maintain the perimeter.
“Today’s developments indicate that today’s planned events were pre-coordinated and agreed upon between the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the violent group Alt-Info,” Tbilisi Pride said.
The interim deputy minister of internal affairs, Aleksandre Darakhvelidze, said that “the pride festival was to take place in an open territory” and therefore authorities were “unable to provide protection.”
Smoke rose above the site, a field just outside the city, as LGBT+ rainbow flags were burned and right-wing activists danced to traditional Georgian folk music. Attendees had been told to board buses for safety moments before.
Reacting to the attacks, the British Ambassador to Georgia, Mark Clayton, said he was “shocked and saddened to see that despite the planning and preventive measures, Tbilisi Pride festival was cancelled due to safety risks for participants.”
Shocked and saddened to see that despite the planning & preventive measures, @Tbilisipride festival was cancelled due to safety risks for participants. I call on authorities to ensure that all who broke law & aggressively disrupted a peaceful gathering will be brought to justice. pic.twitter.com/6rOsPQqm8n
He called on the Georgian government to “ensure that all who broke law and aggressively disrupted a peaceful gathering will be brought to justice.”
Despite the condemnations, Shalva Papuashvili, chairman of Georgia’s parliament, insisted “the police had an appropriate response” and “properly ensured the safety of both participants and journalists.”
Rémy Bony, executive director of LGBT+ NGO Forbidden Colours, said that EU countries should give refuge to the organisers at their embassies because “their lives are in danger. Thousands of anti-LGBTIQ hooligans are hunting them down.”
🏳️🌈🇬🇪The Embassies of the EU member states in Georgia must open their doors for the organisers of Tbilisi Pride immediately.
Their lives are in danger. Thousands of anti-LGBTIQ hooligans are hunting them down. Georgian authorities are not able to provide safety. pic.twitter.com/8cYtIoRP6N
Alt-Info, a far-right group with close ties to the Georgian Orthodox Church, has repeatedly organized counter-protests against the annual festivities. In 2021, dozens of journalists were injured at the annual event and a cameraman later died.
In the wake of the violence that year, the EU mission to the country issued a strongly-worded letter to the government in which they decried “direct attacks on Georgia’s democratic and pro-European aspirations” and criticized the burning of an EU flag outside the parliament.
Speaking to POLITICO from the crowd on Saturday, Levan Chachua, the leader of the nationalist, religious Georgian Idea political group, said: “I would refuse to … join the EU if that will prevent us from entering the heavenly kingdom.”
Georgia has a stated intention to join the EU. But Brussels has warned that its government, which has sought closer ties with Russia since the start of the war in Ukraine, has presided over a significant backsliding in human rights and civil liberties.
Imagine a court hearing where the plaintiff is not a person, but a damaged river, lake or mountain.
That’s the vision of a movement of conservationists — gaining traction across the Continent — that believes granting basic legal rights to nature can help protect it from threats like deforestation, biodiversity loss, chemicals pollution and climate change.
“We usually think about nature as an object” that “serves us,” such as a swimming pool or a natural park, said Eduardo Salazar, a lawyer involved in the successful push to grant legal rights to Mar Menor, a large saltwater lagoon in Murcia in southeastern Spain polluted by the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers by nearby farmers.
Granting an ecosystem legal status on “the same level” as individuals can help alter social attitudes to nature, he said, and give it important new protections.
The lagoon last year became the first ecosystem on the Continent to be granted a status comparable to that of a person following a campaign backed by more than 600,000 people.
Activists are now trying to replicate the model elsewhere.
In Poland, a group of activists this week will complete the last leg of a 43-day-long march along the Oder River aimed at drawing attention to their campaign to grant the polluted ecosystem — which runs along the German-Polish border — the legal status of a person.
After a massive die-off last summer killed thousands of fish in the Oder, campaigners fear the ecosystem may be headed for another ecological disaster, pointing to Poland’s failure to rein in industrial emissions that are thought to have contributed to the incident.
“There is a lot of suffering going on in this river,” said Przemek Siewior, a climate activist who joined the march. Giving the fragile ecosystem legal rights is “a really good tool for people to try to save it,” he argued.
A ‘voice’ for nature
The so-called rights of nature movement, which originated in the United States some 50 years ago, has gained traction in recent years thanks to growing attention to the importance of protecting nature as part of combating climate change and biodiversity loss.
A growing number of countries — including Uganda, Ecuador and New Zealand — have laws granting ecosystems legal rights, and court rulings in India and Colombia have recognized such rights and stressed the government’s duty to protect it. Just last month, Panama gave rights to sea turtles in a bid to protect them against pollution and poaching.
In Europe, campaigners are hoping to ride the coattails of the Mar Menor movement, with citizens’ initiatives pushing for similar recognition for the North Sea in the Netherlands and the Loire River in France, for example.
The Loire River bed at Loireauxence was completely dried out because of extreme heat in September 2022 | Damien Meyer/AFP via Getty Images
At the movement’s core is a call for a fundamental rethink of the way people relate to and understand ecosystems. But more tangibly, campaigners also stress the importance of ensuring ecosystems can be represented in court.
In New Zealand, granting legal personhood to the Whanganui River was seen as a key step to ensure the Indigenous Māori community living in its vicinity gets more say on the health of the ecosystem.
The Spanish law giving Mar Menor a right “to exist as an ecosystem and to evolve naturally” ensures it will be represented by a group of caretakers, made up of scientists, local politicians and citizens.
Inspired by the Spanish example, the Oder River movement last month published a draft law to protect the ecosystem that would include establishing a 15-person committee to represent the river. Three would be appointed by the state, four by municipalities and eight by NGOs; a group of 10 scientists would advise the committee.
That structure would “give the Oder River a democratic representation” and a “voice that it currently just doesn’t have,” said Gaweł Andrzejewski, the coordinator of the Oder River march.
The process is still in its early stages: Drafted by a lawyer in collaboration with civil society, the draft bill is mostly meant to “stir and start the conversation” with politicians and NGOs, said Andrzejewski.
Practical impact
Critics argue that such representation is largely symbolic and doubt it can do much to help protect and restore ecosystems.
Setting up committees to represent an ecosystem gives “power to particular people” to make decisions about what is or isn’t in its interest, said Michael Livermore, a professor of law at the University of Virginia who specializes in environmental law, among other topics.
But there’s no guarantee that they’ll make the right call, or that it’ll be heeded. “I think part of the issue with a legal right is that you still run into problems, like what’s best for an ecosystem? And who’s going to make that decision?” he said.
In Ecuador, for example, environmental activists challenged a large-scale mining project located in one of the most biodiversity-rich areas of the planet, saying it violated nature’s rights — but the court ruled against them, arguing that the government’s interests to exploit the resource were important enough to override the nature rights argument.
Giving ecosystems legal status also does not guarantee protection — granting the Indian Ganges River legal personhood in 2017 has not prevented it from deteriorating, for example.
Livermore argues there are more efficient alternatives to protecting nature, such as preserving people’s rights to organize, providing protections for environmental organizations or improving decision-making processes to give more power to Indigenous communities.
Companies have so far remained relatively quiet on the movement — to Livermore, that’s a sign that giving rights to nature doesn’t pose much of a challenge.
“If it’s such a powerful tool to protect the environment, why don’t the special interests that worry about that, who would be opposed to very strong environmental protections, why aren’t they fighting it?” he said.
If there were a silver lining in her son being convicted of high treason, it was that Yelena Gordon would have a rare chance to see him.
But when she tried to enter the courtroom, she was told it was already full. But those packed in weren’t press or his supporters, since the hearing was closed.
“I recognized just one face there, the rest were all strangers,” she later recounted, exasperated, outside the Moscow City Court. “I felt like I had woken up in a Kafka novel.”
Eventually, after copious cajoling, Gordon was able to stand beside Vladimir Kara-Murza, a glass wall between her and her son, as the sentence was delivered.
Kara-Murza was handed 25 years in prison, a sky-high figure previously reserved for major homicide cases, and the highest sentence for an opposition politician to date.
The bulk — 18 years — was given on account of treason, for speeches he gave last year in the United States, Finland and Portugal.
For a man who had lobbied the West for anti-Russia sanctions such as on the Magnitsky Act against human rights abusers — long before Russia invaded Ukraine — those speeches were wholly unremarkable.
But the prosecution cast Kara-Murza’s words as an existential threat to Russia’s safety.
“This is the enemy and he should be punished,” prosecutor Boris Loktionov stated during the trial, according to Kara-Murza’s lawyer.
The judge, whose own name features on the Magnitsky list as a human rights abuser, agreed. And so did Russia’s Foreign Ministry, saying: “Traitors and betrayers, hailed by the West, will get what they deserve.”
Redefining the enemy
Since Russia invaded Ukraine, hundreds of Russians have received fines or jail sentences of several years under new military censorship laws.
But never before has the nuclear charge of treason been used to convict someone for public statements containing publicly available information.
A screen set up in a hall at Moscow City Court shows the verdict in the case against Vladimir Kara-Murza | Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images
The verdict came a day after an appeal hearing at the same court for Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich who, in a move unseen since the end of the Cold War, is being charged with spying “for the American side.”
Taken together, the two cases set a historic precedent for modern Russia, broadening and formalizing its hunt for internal enemies.
“The state, the [Kremlin], has decided to sharply expand the ‘list of targets’ for charges of treason and espionage,” Andrei Soldatov, an expert in Russia’s security services, told POLITICO.
Up until now, the worst the foreign press corps feared was having their accreditation revoked by Russia’s Foreign Ministry. This is now changing.
For Kremlin critics, the gloves have of course been off for far longer — before his jailing, Kara-Murza survived two poisonings. He had been a close ally of Boris Nemtsov, who was murdered in 2015 within sight of the Kremlin.
But such reprisals were reserved for only a handful of prominent dissidents, and enacted by anonymous hitmen and undercover agents.
After Putin last week signed into law extending the punishment for treason from 20 years to life, anyone could be eliminated from public life with the stamp of legitimacy from a judge in robes.
“Broach the topic of political repression over a coffee with a foreigner, and that could already be considered treason,” Oleg Orlov, chair of the disbanded rights group Memorial, said outside the courthouse.
Like many, he saw a parallel with Soviet times, when tens of thousands of “enemies of the state” were accused of spying for foreign governments and sent to far-flung labor camps or simply executed, and foreigners were by definition suspect.
Treason as catch-all
Instead of the usual Investigative Committee, treason cases fall under the remit of Russia’s Federal Security Service, the FSB, making them uniquely secretive.
In court, hearings are held behind closed doors — sheltered from the public and press — and defense lawyers are all but gagged.
But they used to be relatively rare: Between 2009 and 2013, a total of 25 people were tried for espionage or treason, according to Russian court statistics. After the annexation of Crimea in 2014, that number fluctuated from a handful to a maximum of 17.
Former defense journalist Ivan Safronov in court, April 2022 | Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images
Involving academics, Crimean Tatars and military accused of passing on sensitive information to foreign parties, they generally drew little attention.
The jailing of Ivan Safronov — a former defense journalist accused of sharing state secrets with a Czech acquaintance — formed an important exception in 2020. It triggered a massive outcry among his peers and cast a spotlight on the treason law. Apparently, even sharing information gleaned from public sources could result in a conviction.
Combined with an amendment introduced after anti-Kremlin protests in 2012 that labeled any help to a “foreign organization which aimed to undermine Russian security” as treason, it turned the law into a powder keg.
In February 2022, that was set alight.
Angered by the war but too afraid to protest publicly, some Russians sought to support Ukraine in less visible ways such as through donations to aid organizations.
The response was swift: Only three days after Putin announced his special military operation, Russia’s General Prosecutor’s Office warned it would check “every case of financial or other help” for signs of treason.
Thousands of Russians were plunged into a legal abyss. “I transferred 100 rubles to a Ukrainian NGO. Is this the end?” read a Q&A card shared on social media by the legal aid group Pervy Otdel.
“The current situation is such that this [treason] article will likely be applied more broadly,” warned Senator Andrei Klimov, head of the defense committee of the Federation Council, Russia’s upper house of parliament.
Inventing traitors
Last summer, the law was revised once more to define defectors as traitors as well.
Ivan Pavlov, who oversees Pervy Otdel from exile after being forced to flee Russia for defending Safronov, estimates some 70 treason cases have already been launched since the start of the war — twice the maximum in pre-war years. And the tempo seems to be picking up.
Regional media headlines reporting arrests for treason are becoming almost commonplace. Sometimes they include high-octane video footage of FSB teams storming people’s homes and securing supposed confessions on camera.
Yet from what can be gleaned about the cases from media leaks, their evidence is shaky.
Instead of the usual Investigative Committee, treason cases fall under the remit of Russia’s Federal Security Service, the FSB, making them uniquely secretive | Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images
In December last year, 21-year-old Savely Frolov became the first to be charged with conspiring to defect. Among the reported incriminating evidence is that he attempted to cross into neighboring Georgia with a pair of camouflage trousers in the trunk of his car.
In early April this year, a married couple was arrested in the industrial city of Nizhny Tagil for supposedly collaborating with Ukrainian intelligence. The two worked at a nearby defense plant, but acquaintances cited by independent Russian media Holod deny they had access to secret information.
“It is a reaction to the war: There’s a demand from up top for traitors. And if they can’t find real ones, they’ll make them up, invent them,” said Pavlov.
Although official statistics are only published with a two-year lag time, he has little doubt a flood of guilty verdicts is coming.
“The first and last time a treason suspect was acquitted in Russia was in 1999.”
No sign of slowing
If precedent is anything to go by, Gershkovich will likely eventually be subject to a prisoner swap.
That is what happened with Brittney Griner, a U.S. basketball star jailed for drug smuggling when she entered Russia carrying hashish vape cartridges.
And it is also what happened with the last foreign journalist detained, in 1986 when the American Nicholas Daniloff was supposedly caught “red-handed” spying, like Gershkovich.
Back then, several others were released with him — among them Yury Orlov, a human rights activist sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp for “anti-Soviet activity.”
Some now harbor hope that a deal involving Gershkovich could also help Kara-Murza, who is well-known in Washington circles and suffers from severe health problems.
For ordinary Russians, any glimmers of hope that the traitor push will slow down are even less tangible.
Those POLITICO spoke to say a Soviet-era mass campaign against traitors is unlikely, if only because the Kremlin has a fine line to walk: arrest too many traitors and it risks shattering the image that Russians unanimously support the war.
Some harbor hope that a deal involving Gershkovich could also help Kara-Murza, who is well-known in Washington circles | Maxim Shipenkov/EPA-EFE
And in the era of modern technology, there are easier ways to convey a message to a large audience. “If Stalin had had a television channel, there would’ve likely not been a need for mass repression,” reflected Pavlov.
Yet the repressive state apparatus does seem to have a momentum of its own, as those involved in investigating and prosecuting treason and espionage cases are rewarded with bonuses and promotions.
In a first, the treason case against Kara-Murza was led by the Investigative Committee, opening the door for the FSB to massively increase its work capacity by offloading work on others, says Soldatov.
“If the FSB can’t handle it, the Investigative Committee will jump in.”
In the public sphere, patriotic officials at all levels are clamoring for an even harder line, going so far as to volunteer the names of apparently unpatriotic political rivals and celebrities to be investigated.
There have been calls for “traitors” to be stripped of their citizenship and to reintroduce the death penalty.
And in a telling sign, Kara-Murza’s veteran lawyer Vadim Prokhorov has fled Russia, fearing he might be targeted next.
Аs Orlov, the dissident who was part of the 1986 swap and who went on to become an early critic of Putin, wrote in the early days of Putin’s reign in 2004: “Russia is flying back in time.”
Nearly two decades on, the question in Moscow nowadays is a simple one: how far back?
Oil and gas giant Shell must donate more than $1 billion in unexpected profits from the potential sale of its assets in Russia to help rebuild Ukraine, according to a top Kyiv official.
In a letter to CEO Wael Sawan, dated April 18 and seen by POLITICO, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s economic adviser Oleg Ustenko called on Shell to share with Ukraine any profits from a potential Russian buyout of the British firm’s stake in a Siberian fossil fuel venture.
“If completed, this sale would represent the transfer of more than $1 billion in Russian cash into Shell’s accounts. That would be blood money, pure and simple,” Ustenko wrote.
“We call on Shell to put any Russian sale or dividend proceeds to work for the victims of the war — the same war that those assets have fuelled and funded,” he added.
Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year, Shell announced it would exit the Russian market and write off up to $5 billion of assets and investments in the country as a result.
That included a 27.5 percent stake in the Sakhalin-2 project, a major oil field and offshore gas drilling venture in the Russian far east. The company wrote down around $1.6 billion for its stake in the site, and the Kremlin’s move to nationalize the venture in July last year raised concerns the firm would lose its capital.
However, Russian business media reported earlier this week that the government signed off on a trade in which the country’s second-largest gas producer, Novatek, would buy out Shell’s stake for 95 billion rubles — currently worth around $1.16 billion. Shell has previously said it is not involved in any negotiations on the issue.
Shell declined to give a public comment, but pointed out that the company is not actively engaged in any business with ongoing operations inside Russia, is not party to any current negotiations for the sale of a stake in Sakhalin-2 and has no clarity over what would happen to the proceeds from such a sale.
“We appreciate that as of this moment, Shell may not have a choice on whether to accept this offer,” Ustenko conceded in the letter, but maintained there is an “overwhelming” moral case for donating any such profits.
Rebuilding from the rubble
According to NGO Global Witness, the funds would amount to more than a tenth of the total repair bill for attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which a U.N. report last week warned could be as high as $10 billion.
“It would be egregious if Shell kept this money,” said Louis Wilson, who leads Ukraine policy at the NGO. “This is money they’ve told the world they’ve written off as a loss and it’s money that comes straight from the Russian oil and gas sector. Shell has already set a precedent that profits from the war should go to Ukraine.”
In March 2022, the energy firm said it would donate $60 million to humanitarian causes in Ukraine following an outcry over its decision to purchase a cargo of Russian crude to be refined into petroleum products. While the trade did not contravene sanctions at the time, Shell admitted “it was not the right decision” and apologized.
In an interview with POLITICO last month, Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galushchenko urged major energy companies to donate excess revenues to his country.
“A lot of energy companies get enormous windfall profits due to the war,” he said. “I think it would be fair to share this money with Ukraine. To help us to restore, to rebuild the energy sector.”
That idea is getting some support from EU countries — although the final decision of whether to send cash to Ukraine is up to companies and their shareholders.
The EU’s joint presidents flew to last year’s U.N. climate talks in Egypt aboard a private jet, according to data seen by POLITICO that revealed heavy use of private flights by European Council President Charles Michel.
The flight data, received through a freedom of information request, shows that Michel traveled on commercial planes on just 18 of the 112 missions undertaken between the beginning of his term in 2019 and December 2022.
He used chartered air taxis on some 72 trips, around 64 percent of the total, including to the COP27 talks in Egypt last November and to the COP26 summit in Glasgow in 2021. Michel invited Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the flight to Egypt.
The EU presidents’ choice of transportation to the climate talks highlights a long-standing dilemma for global leaders: how to practice what they preach on greenhouse gas emissions while also facing a demanding travel schedule that makes private aviation a tempting option — even a necessary evil.
When Michel, a former Belgian prime minister, arrived in the resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh, he delivered a sober message to the gathered climate dignitaries: “We have a climatic gun to our head. We are living on borrowed time,” he said, before adding: “We are, and will remain, champions of climate action.”
According to the NGO Transport & Environment, a private jet can emit 2 tons of planet-cooking CO2 per hour. That means during the five-hour return flight to Sharm El-Sheikh, Michel and von der Leyen’s jet may have emitted roughly 20 tons of CO2 — the average EU citizen emits around 7 tons over the course of a year.
Most COP27 delegates — including the EU’s Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans, according to a Commission official — took commercial flights normally packed with sun-seeking tourists.
The decision to travel to Egypt by private jet was made after no commercial flights were available to return Michel to Brussels in time for duties at the European Parliament, his spokesperson Barend Leyts told POLITICO.
Staff also explored the option of flying aboard Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo’s plane, but it was scheduled to return before Michel’s work at COP27 would be completed.
Unlike many national governments, the EU does not own planes to transport its leaders. Hiring a private jet was “the only suitable option in the circumstances,” said Leyts. “Given that the president of the Commission was also invited to the COP27, we proposed to share a flight.”
Leyts stressed that the flight complied with internal Council rules, which dictate that officials should fly commercial when possible.
A spokesperson from the Commission confirmed that the famously hostile pair had shared the cabin to Sharm El-Sheikh, noting that reaching the destination by commercial flight was difficult due to the high volume of traffic and von der Leyen’s packed schedule.
“The fact that both presidents traveled together, with their teams, shows that they did what was possible to optimize the travel arrangements and reduce the associated carbon footprint,” added the Commission’s spokesperson.
The Commission previously told POLITICO that von der Leyen’s use of chartered trips is limited to “exceptional circumstances,” such as for security reasons or if a commercial flight isn’t available or doesn’t fit with diary commitments. The institution has previously declined POLITICO’s request to share detailed information on the modes of transportation used by the Commission chief for her foreign trips.
As part of its climate goals, the EU is looking to tighten its rules on staff travel to encourage greener modes of transport and bring down the institution’s emissions.
The Commission is aiming to achieve climate neutrality by 2030 by switching to “sustainable business travel,” favoring greener travel options and encouraging employees to cycle, walk or take public transport to work.
Leyts said Michel’s staff enquired about the possibility of using sustainable aviation fuel, but were “regrettably” told that neither Brussels nor Sharm El-Sheikh airports had provision.
Since 2021, Michel has offset the emissions of his flights through a scheme that funds a Brazilian ceramics factory to switch its fuel from illegal timber to agricultural and industrial waste products, according to Leyts. Since 2022, that has applied to all of his flights.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has declared Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas “history.”
But others, from senior Ukrainian officials to MEPs and industry insiders, say that chapter of history is still being written.
Significant quantities of Russian hydrocarbons, particularly oil, are still flowing around sanctions and into the European market, they say, earning payments that fund Vladimir Putin’s war machine.
“I had a friend in New York in the 1990s who complained cockroaches would get into his apartment through any available hole — that’s what Russia is doing with its energy,” Oleg Ustenko, economic adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, told POLITICO. “We have to fix these holes to stop Russia receiving this blood money they are using to finance the military machine that is destroying our country and killing our people.”
Crude oil is notoriously difficult to track on global markets. It can easily be mixed or blended with other shipments in transit countries, effectively creating a larger batch of oil whose origins can’t be determined. The refining process, necessary for any practical application, also removes all traces of the feedstock’s origin.
A complex network of shipping companies, carrying the flags of inscrutable offshore jurisdictions, adds a further layer of mystery; some have been accused of helping Russia to hide the origin of its crude exports using a variety of different means.
“Unlike pipeline gas, the oil market is global. Swap and netting systems, and mixing varieties are common practice,” said Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a prominent exiled critic of Putin and the former CEO of oil and gas giant Yukos.
“The result of the embargo is a significant increase in Russian transportation costs, a significant redistribution of income in favor of intermediaries, and some additional discount due to the narrowing of the buyers’ market.”
Crude workarounds?
The EU has largely banned Russian fossil fuels since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with exceptions for limited quantities of pipeline crude oil, pipeline gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and oil products.
But large volumes of Russian crude oil — a bigger source of revenue than gas — are still being shipped onto global markets, leading some experts to suspect they are finding their way to Europe’s market through the back door.
“Since the introduction of sanctions, the volumes of crude oil Russia is exporting have remained more or less steady,” said Saad Rahim, chief economist at global commodities trading firm Trafigura. “It’s possible that Russian oil is still being sold on to the EU and Western nations via middlemen.”
Crude oil is notoriously difficult to track on global markets | Image via iStock
One potential route into Europe is through Azerbaijan, which borders Russia and is the starting point of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, operated by BP. The port of Ceyhan, in Turkey, is a major supply hub from which crude oil is shipped to Europe; it also receives large quantities from Iraq through the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline.
François Bellamy, a French MEP and member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, aired suspicions about this route in a recent question to the Commission. Data show that Azerbaijan exported 242,000 barrels a day more than it produced between April and July last year, he said — a large margin over domestic production, which stood at 648,000 barrels a day last month and is in long-term decline, according to ministry figures.
“How can a country diminish its production and increase its exports at the same time? There is something completely inconsistent in the figures and this inconsistency creates suspicions that sanctions are being circumvented,” Bellamy said.
A spokesperson for the Commission said it is working to crack down on loopholes in sanctions regimes and has appointed the EU’s former ambassador to the U.S., David O’Sullivan, as a special envoy tasked with tackling circumvention. The official also pointed out that data cited by Bellamy on Azerbaijani oil transactions, the most recent publicly available, “happened before the sanctions entered into force so there is no question of evasion of sanctions there.”
“Azerbaijan does not export Russian oil to the EU via the BTC pipeline,” said Aykhan Hajizada, spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry, adding that while “Azerbaijan continues to use all non-sanctioned oil regardless of source,” it “remains committed to conducting its supply and trading operations with the utmost care and diligence, in line with relevant laws and regulations.”
BP has previously been forced to deny that the BTC pipeline carries Russian oil, and data seen by POLITICO for crude shipments from Ceyhan shows a recent dip in the volume of exports to the EU, from around 3 million tons per month (about 700,000 barrels per day) in early 2022 to around 2 million tons a month this year.
Slick operations
At the same time, though, Turkey doubled its direct imports of Russian oil last year and has refused to impose sanctions on Russian crude despite simultaneously offering military and humanitarian support to Ukraine.
Finland’s Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) warned late last year that “a new route for Russian oil to the EU is emerging through Turkey, a growing destination for Russian crude oil,” where it is refined into oil products that are not subject to sanctions and sold on.
“We have enough evidence that some international companies are buying refinery products made from Russian oil and selling them on to Europe,” said Ustenko, the Zelenskyy adviser. “It’s completely legal, but completely immoral. Just because it’s allowed doesn’t mean we don’t need to do anything about it.”
On Monday, British NGO Global Witness released a report that found Russian oil has consistently been sold at prices far exceeding the $60 cap imposed by G7 countries in December last year.
“The fact Russian oil continues to flow round the world is a feature, not a bug, of Western sanctions,” said Mai Rosner, a campaigner who worked on the report. “Governments offered the fossil fuel industry a wide-open back door, and commodity traders and big oil companies are exploiting these loopholes to continue business as usual.”
PARIS — A controversial video surveillance system cleared a legislative hurdle Wednesday to be used during the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics amid opposition from left-leaning French politicians and digital rights NGOs, who argue it infringes upon privacy standards.
The National Assembly’s law committee approved the system, but also voted to limit the temporary program’s duration until December 24, 2024, instead of June 2025.
The plan pitched by the French government includes experimental large-scale, real-time camera systems supported by an algorithm to spot suspicious behavior, including unsupervised luggage and alarming crowd movements like stampedes.
Earlier this week, civil society groups in France and beyond — including La Quadrature du Net, Access Now and Amnesty International — penned an op-ed in Le Monde raising concerns about what they argued was a “worrying precedent” that France could set in the EU.
There’s a risk that the measures, pitched as temporary, could become permanent, and they likely would not comply with the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, the groups also argue.
About 90 left-leaning lawmakers signed a petition initiated by La Quadrature du Net to scrap Article 7, which includes the AI-powered surveillance system. They failed, however, to gather enough votes to have it deleted from the bill.
Lawmakers also voted to ensure the general public is better informed of where the cameras are and to involve the cybersecurity agency ANSSI on top of the privacy regulator CNIL. They also widened the pool of images and data that can be used to train the algorithms ahead of the Olympics.
The bill will go to a full plenary vote on March 21 for final approval.
One year of war in Ukraine has left deep scars — including on the country’s natural landscape.
The conflict has ruined vast swaths of farmland, burned down forests and destroyed national parks. Damage to industrial facilities has caused heavy air, water and soil pollution, exposing residents to toxic chemicals and contaminated water. Regular shelling around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe, means the risk of a nuclear accident still looms large.
The total number of cases of environmental damage tops 2,300, Ukraine’s environment minister, Ruslan Strilets, told POLITICO in an emailed statement. His ministry estimates the total cost at $51.45 billion (€48.33 billion).
Of those documented cases, 1,078 have already been handed over to law enforcement agencies, according to Strilets, as part of an effort to hold Moscow accountable in court for environmental damage.
A number of NGOs have also stepped in to document the environmental impacts of the conflict, with the aim of providing data to international organizations like the United Nations Environment Program to help them prioritize inspections or pinpoint areas at higher risk of pollution.
Among them is PAX, a peace organization based in the Netherlands, which is working with the Center for Information Resilience (CIR) to record and independently verify incidents of environmental damage in Ukraine. So far, it has verified 242 such cases.
Left: Hostomel, Ukraine, after a Russian assault. Right: Port of Mykolaiv after a Russian strike | Imagery courtesy of Planet Labs PBC
“We mainly rely on what’s being documented, and what we can see,” said Wim Zwijnenburg, a humanitarian disarmament project leader with PAX. Information comes from social media, public media accounts and satellite imagery, and is then independently verified.
“That also means that if there’s no one there to record it … we’re not seeing it,” he said. “It’s such a big country, so there’s fighting in so many locations, and undoubtedly, we are missing things.”
After the conflict is over, the data could also help identify “what is needed in terms of cleanup, remediation and restoration of affected areas,” Zwijnenburg said.
Rebuilding green
While some conservation projects — such as rewilding of the Danube delta — have continued despite the war, most environmental protection work has halted.
“It is very difficult to talk about saving other species if the people who are supposed to do it are in danger,” said Oksana Omelchuk, environmental expert with the Ukrainian NGO EcoAction.
That’s unlikely to change in the near future, she added, pointing out that the environment is littered with mines.
Before and after flooding in the Kyiv area, Ukraine | Imagery courtesy of Planet Labs PBC
Agricultural land is particularly affected, blocking farmers from using fields and contaminating the soil, according to Zwijnenburg. That “might have an impact on food security” in the long run, he said.
When it comes to de-mining efforts, residential areas will receive higher priority, meaning it could take a long time to make natural areas safe again.
The delay will “[hinder] the implementation of any projects for the restoration and conservation of species,” according to Omelchuk.
And, of course, fully restoring Ukraine’s nature won’t be possible until “Russian troops leave the territory” she said.
Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol before and after a Russian attack |Imagery courtesy of Planet Labs PBC
Meanwhile, Kyiv is banking that the legal case it is building against Moscow will become a potential source of financing for rebuilding the country and bringing its scarred landscape and ecosystems back to health.
It is also tapping into EU coffers.In a move intended to help the country restore its environment following Russia’s invasion, Ukraine in June became the first non-EU country to join the LIFE program, the EU’s funding instrument for environment and climate.
Earlier this month, Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius announced a €7 million scheme — dubbed the Phoenix Initiative — to help Ukrainian cities rebuild greener and to connect Ukrainian cities with EU counterparts that can share expertise on achieving climate neutrality.
[ad_2]
Louise Guillot, Antonia Zimmermann and Giovanna Coi
PARIS — The French data protection authority’s president Marie-Laure Denis warned Tuesday against using facial recognition as part of the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics security toolkit.
“The members of the CNIL’s college call on parliamentarians not to introduce facial recognition, that is to say the identification of people on the fly in the public space,” she told Franceinfo.
The French government is seeking to ramp up France’s arsenal of surveillance powers to ensure the safety of the millions of tourists expected for the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics. The plans include AI-powered cameras for the first time — but not facial recognition.
The Senate’s plenary session starts to vote today on the law introducing the new powers. Senators are divided between those who want to add privacy safeguards and those who want to push the surveillance and security arsenal further, mainly by introducing facial recognition.
“The amendment [to include facial recognition] was rejected in the Senate’s law committee, but it can come back [in the plenary session],” the CNIL’s chief cautioned.
Civil liberties NGOs such as La Quadrature du Net and the Human Rights League are currently campaigning against the experimental AI-powered surveillance cameras. Denis however tried to assuage concerns.
The CNIL will monitor algorithmic training to ensure there is no bias and that footage of people is deleted in due time, she said. The experiment will “not necessarily” become permanent, she added.
When you’re feeling under the weather, the last thing you want to do is trek from pharmacy to pharmacy searching for basic medicines like cough syrup and antibiotics. Yet many people across Europe — faced with a particularly harsh winter bug season— are having to do just that.
Since late 2022, EU countries have been reporting serious problems trying to source certain important drugs, with a majority now experiencing shortages. So just how bad is the situation and, crucially, what’s being done about it? POLITICO walks you through the main points.
How bad are the shortages?
In a survey of groups representing pharmacies in 29 European countries, including EU members as well as Turkey, Kosovo, Norway and North Macedonia, almost a quarter of countries reported more than 600 drugs in short supply, and 20 percent reported 200-300 drug shortages. Three-quarters of the countries said shortages were worse this winter than a year ago. Groups in four countries said that shortages had been linked to deaths.
It’s a portrait backed by data from regulators. Belgian authorities report nearly 300 medicines in short supply. In Germany that number is 408, while in Austria more than 600 medicines can’t be bought in pharmacies at the moment. Italy’s list is even longer — with over 3,000 drugs included, though many are different formulations of the same medicine.
Which medicines are affected?
Antibiotics — particularly amoxicillin, which is used to treat respiratory infections — are in short supply. Other classes of drugs, including cough syrup, children’s paracetamol, and blood pressure medicine, are also scarce.
Why is this happening?
It’s a mix of increased demand and reduced supply.
Seasonal infections — influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)first and foremost — started early and are stronger than usual. There’s also an unusual outbreak of throat disease Strep A in children. Experts think the unusually high level of disease activity is linked to weaker immune systems that are no longer familiar with the soup of germs surrounding us in daily life, due to lockdowns. This difficult winter, after a couple of quiet years (with the exception of COVID-19), caught drugmakers unprepared.
Inflation and the energy crisis have also been weighing on pharmaceutical companies, affecting supply.
Last year, Centrient Pharmaceuticals, a Dutch producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients, said its plant was producing a quarter lessoutput than in 2021 due to high energy costs. In December, InnoGenerics, another manufacturer from the Netherlands, was bailed out by the government after declaring bankruptcy to keep its factory open.
Commissioner Stella Kyriakides wrote to Greece’s health minister asking him to take into consideration the effects of bans on third countries | Stephanie Lecocq/EPA-EFE
The result, according to Sandoz, one of the largest producers on the European generics market, is an especially “tight supply situation.” A spokesperson told POLITICO that other culprits include scarcity of raw materials and manufacturing capacity constraints.They added that Sandoz is able to meet demand at the moment, but is “facing challenges.”
How are governments reacting?
Some countries are slamming the brakes on exports to protect domestic supplies. In November, Greece’s drugs regulator expanded the list of medicine whose resale to other countries — known as parallel trade — is banned. Romania has temporarily stopped exports of certain antibiotics and kids’ painkillers. Earlier in January, Belgium published a decree that allows the authorities to halt exports in case of a crisis.
These freezes can have knock-on effects. A letter from European Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides addressed to Greece’s Health Minister Thanos Plevris asked him to take into consideration the effects of bans on third countries. “Member States must refrain from taking national measures that could affect the EU internal market and prevent access to medicines for those in need in other Member States,” wrote Kyriakides.
Germany’s government is considering changing the law to ease procurement requirements, which currently force health insurers to buy medicines where they are cheapest, concentrating the supply into the hands of a few of the most price-competitive producers. The new law would have buyers purchase medicines from multiple suppliers, including more expensive ones, to make supply more reliable. The Netherlands recently introduced a law requiring vendors to keep six weeks of stockpiles to bridge shortages, and in Sweden the government is proposing similar rules.
At a more granular level, a committee led by the EU’s drugs regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has recommended that rules be loosened to allow pharmacies to dispense pills or medicine doses individually, among other measures. In Germany, the president of the German Medical Association went so far as to call for the creation of informal “flea markets” for medicines, where people could give their unused drugs to patients who needed them. And in France and Germany, pharmacists have started producing their own medicines — though this is unlikely to make a big difference, given the extent of the shortfall.
Can the EU fix it?
In theory, the EU should be more ready thanever to tackle a bloc-wide crisis. It has recently upgraded its legislation to deal with health threats, including a lack of pharmaceuticals. The EMA has been given expanded powers to monitor drug shortages. And a whole new body, the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) has been set up, with the power to go on the market and purchase drugs for the entire bloc.
But not everyone agrees that it’s that bad yet.
Last Thursday, the EMA decided not to ask the Commission to declare the amoxycillin shortage a “major event” — an official label that would have triggered some (limited) EU-wide action— saying that current measures are improving the situation.
A European Medicines Agency’s working group on shortages could decide on Thursday whether to recommend that the Commission declares the drug shortages a“major event” — an official label that would trigger some (limited) EU-wide action. An EMA steering group for shortages would have the power to request data on drug stocks of the drugs and production capacity from suppliers, and issue recommendations on how to mitigate shortages.
At an appearance before the European Parliament’s health committee, the Commission’s top health official, Sandra Gallina, said she wanted to “dismiss a bit the idea that there is a huge shortage,” and said that alternative medications are available to use.
And others believe the situation will get better with time. “I think it will sort itself out, but that depends on the peak of infections,” said Adrian van den Hoven, director general of generics medicines lobby Medicines for Europe. “If we have reached the peak, supply will catch up quickly. If not, probably not a good scenario.”
Helen Collis and Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif contributed reporting.
