One of the charming, if bizarre, discoveries I made living in New England was its constellation of splendid, thoroughly abandoned mental institutions. They occupied commanding heights in bucolic rural backwaters—fine Victorian masterpieces of red brick and turreted cupolas. The one near Danvers, Massachusetts, was perhaps the most impressive—the sheer scale and strange, unsettling quiet of it all inspired curiosity. The awe these deserted institutions inspired has never left me.
I thought of the place recently in light of the awful murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by Decarlos Brown on a subway car in Charlotte, North Carolina. The assassination shortly afterward of Charlie Kirk eclipsed the headlines, but each case has a great deal to say about our national schizophrenia over mental illness.
While Kirk’s murderer was clearly unstable, he showed no actionable warning signs of the violence he was about to commit. Zarutska’s murderer, on the other hand, was a known quantity—a time bomb whose repeated encounters with the law painted a trajectory that could predictably end only in disaster. Brown was trapped in the liminal space between mainline criminal incarceration (where he spent time) and the psychiatric wards of yesteryear, which no longer exist. The societal question over individual liberty and social safety, however, remains.
The State Lunatic Hospital at Danvers fairly exemplifies the structural elements at play. Since the 1960s and the era of “deinstitutionalization,” the United States has substantially eliminated treatment space dedicated to the care and incarceration of the mentally ill, with an estimated 64 percent decrease since 1970. Some of this decline was a rational response to advances in antipsychotic medications and moves toward “community-based” care, but much of it was about funding and politics.
The politics, in their turn, were shaped by the growing disaffection with the model of treatment these facilities could offer. Centralized psychiatric care at places like Danvers had become grossly overcrowded, and disturbing methods of treatment made everyone uneasy. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of President John F. Kennedy, said of her sister Rosemary after a botched lobotomy, “Her mental capacity diminished to that of a two-year-old child, she was left incontinent and unable to speak intelligibly.” Stories like these shifted public opinion. By 1963, the Community Mental Health Act devolved mental care toward local communities, and the closing of large state institutions began. By 1981, under President Ronald Reagan’s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the process was effectively complete: The era of the “psychiatric facility” was over. Danvers closed for good in 1992 and was largely demolished in 2007.
These shifts had major implications—many of them good. They helped protect patients from abusive treatments and from the Dickensian nightmare that many asylums had become. But they obviously didn’t end mental illness. In effect, they merely pushed the problem to less visible peripheries and increasingly depended on the criminal incarceration system to pull up the slack for those unable or unwilling to seek professional treatment. Prisons became, in effect, the nation’s new asylums—only without the mandate, expertise, or resources to treat the underlying pathology.
The results are visible in tragedies like Zarutska’s. Those who ride subways, walk city streets, or simply send their kids to public schools know from experience that they harbor a certain population of untreated, unstable individuals. Some are harmless eccentrics. Some are self-medicating strugglers. Still others are genuinely dangerous, propelled by paranoia or psychosis toward catastrophic acts.
This is the point where a free society faces its most uncomfortable question: How do we balance liberty with involuntary commitment? America’s default in recent decades has rightly been to err on the side of liberty, a choice with noble roots but sometimes tragic consequences. We recoil from the notion of allowing the state to lock up citizens without trial. We recall the abuses of “insanity defenses” and the ease with which Soviet authorities diagnosed dissidents with schizophrenia. Our suspicion of state power is vital. But in our zeal to prevent abuse, we have stripped away tools that might, in fact, protect both the vulnerable and the innocent.
This very debate was featured in the pages of Reason, and it’s evident that the “lock ’em up” or “let ’em be” camps can both find ample supporting evidence for their positions. Mike Riggs, a contributing editor at Reason, takes the firmer individualist position, writing that, “mentally ill people can be deprived of their liberty only as a form of punishment and only if they victimize someone; they cannot be deprived of their liberty to merely deliver them from temptation or risk.” Libertarians, as a rule, would be inclined to agree—accepting the risk of isolated violence over systemic “preventive” incarceration. Riggs is supported by psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who wrote in 2016 that “the overwhelming majority of mentally ill people can live okay lives outside of any institution, hopefully receiving community care if they want it. If they commit crimes they will go to prison just like anyone else.”
The murder by Brown confronts us with the frightening failure of this system. Lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced “Iryna’s Law” to try to fill the void caused by a justice system that has “lost institutional control” over its community. Balancing liberty and security in this situation will not be an easy task, especially amidst the heightened emotions over a heart-wrenching murder.
Other societies have attempted to strike their own balance. The Netherlands, for example, has developed a model that attempts to thread this needle more carefully. Dutch law allows for terbeschikkingstelling (TBS), a system in which courts can impose psychiatric treatment in secure facilities for offenders deemed dangerous due to mental illness. The regime is subject to judicial review and proportionality standards, but it acknowledges a simple truth we Americans seem to resist: Some people are both ill and dangerous, and society must manage that reality rather than wish it away. The Dutch experience suggests that it is possible to protect public safety without abandoning civil liberty altogether—but it is hardly perfect. My wife’s good friend, a psychologist at one of these secure facilities, witnessed the horrific murder of a care provider by a psychopathic inmate. Yet the very fact that this tragedy occurred within walls designed to shield the innocent from this psychosis directly highlights the awful tragedy of the American system, which allowed Brown to prowl the North Carolina subways.
There are glimmers of reform. Some states have experimented with “assisted outpatient treatment” laws, which compel treatment without requiring long-term confinement. Others have piloted crisis-intervention teams that divert offenders toward psychiatric care rather than jail. These are steps in the right direction, but they remain piecemeal and controversial, constrained by our deep-seated suspicion of institutionalization.
Perhaps that suspicion is justified. No one, after all, wants to resurrect the abuses of the asylum era. Yet it is worth remembering that we once accepted the need for institutional care as a matter of course, and that our rejection of it was as much about cost and scandal as it was about basic principle. The empty hulks at Danvers and elsewhere stand as monuments to that choice—monuments we dare not celebrate, but whose consequences we live with every day.
The derelict asylum on the New England hillside and the violent crime on the Charlotte subway are connected. Both reflect our collective discomfort with the messy problem of mental illness in a free society. We can choose essential liberty, or we can choose safety, but giving up the former for temporary stints of the latter has, as the famous Benjamin Franklin quote goes, permanent consequences that condemn us to neither.
Unsatisfying as it feels in the heat of the moment, our challenge is to find a middle ground—an institutional arrangement that recognizes both the dignity of the mentally ill and the legitimate right of the public to be safe from clear and present harms. Other societies have shown this is possible. Ours, so far, has chosen paralysis. Until we grapple with the hard question of what we owe to the dangerously unstable, we will continue to live with headlines like Zarutska’s, and with the haunted ruins of Danvers as mute testimony to our unfinished business.
Western warplanes and guided missiles roared through the skies over Yemen in the early hours of Friday in a dramatic response to the worsening crisis engulfing the region, where the U.S. and its allies are facing a direct confrontation with Iranian-backed militants.
The strikes against Houthi fighters are a response to weeks of fighting in the Red Sea, where the group has attempted to attack or hijack dozens of civilian cargo ships and tankers in what it calls retribution for Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. Washington launched the massive aerial bombardment of the group’s military stores and drone launch sites in partnership with British forces, and with the support of a growing coalition that includes Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, South Korea and Bahrain.
Tensions between Tehran and the West have boiled over in the weeks since its ally, Hamas, launched its October 7 attack on Israel, while Hezbollah, the military group that controls much of southern Lebanon, has stepped up rocket launches across the border. Along with Hamas and Hezbollah, the Houthis form part of the Iranian-led ‘Axis of Resistance’ opposed to both the U.S. and Israel.
Now, the prospect of a full-blown conflict in one of the most politically fragile and strategically important parts of the world is spooking security analysts and energy markets alike.
Escalation fears
Houthi leaders responded to the strikes, which saw American and British forces hit more than 60 targets in 16 locations, with characteristic bravado. They warned the U.S. and U.K. will “have to prepare to pay a heavy price and bear all the dire consequences” for what they called a “blatant aggression.”
“We will confront America, kneel it down, and burn its battleships and all its bases and everyone who cooperates with it, no matter what the cost,” threatened Abdulsalam Jahaf, a member of the group’s security council.
However, following the overnight operation, Camille Lons, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said there may now be “a period of calm because it may take Iran some time to replenish the Houthis stocks” before they are able to resume high-intensity attacks on Red Sea shipping. But, she cautioned, their motivation to continue to target shipping will likely be unaltered.
The Western strikes are “unlikely to immediately halt Houthi aggression,” agreed Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. national intelligence officer for the Near East. “That will almost certainly mean having to continue to respond to Houthi strikes, and potentially with increasing aggression.”
“The Houthis view themselves as having little to lose, emboldened militarily by Iranian provisions of support and confident the U.S. will not entertain a ground war,” he said.
Iran also upped the ante earlier this week by boarding and commandeering a Greek-operated oil tanker that was loaded with Iraqi crude destined for Turkey, intercepting it as it transited the Strait of Hormuz. The vessel, the St. Nikolas, was previously apprehended for violating sanctions on Iranian oil and its cargo was confiscated and sold off by the U.S. Treasury Department. Its Greek captain and crew of 18 Filipino nationals are now in Iranian custody, with the incident marking a sharp escalation in the threats facing maritime traffic.
Israeli connection
Washington and London are striving to distinguish their bid to deter the Houthis in the Red Sea from the war in Gaza, fearful that merging the two will hand Tehran a propaganda advantage in the Middle East. The Houthis and Iran are keen to accomplish the reverse.
The Houthi leadership claims its attacks on maritime traffic are aimed at pressuring Israel to halt its bombing of the Gaza Strip and it insists it is only targeting commercial vessels linked to Israel or destined to dock at the Israeli port of Eilat, a point contested by Western powers.
“The Houthis claim that their attacks on military and civilian vessels are somehow tied to the ongoing conflict in Gaza — that is completely baseless and illegitimate. The Houthis also claim to be targeting specifically Israeli-owned ships or ships bound for Israel. That is simply not true, they are firing indiscriminately on vessels with global ties,” a senior U.S. official briefing reporters in Washington said Friday.
Wider Near East crisis
The Red Sea isn’t the only hotspot where American and European forces and their allies are facing off against Iran and its partners.
In November, U.S. F-15 fighter jets hit a weapons storage facility in eastern Syria that the Pentagon says was used by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Shia militants it supports in the war-torn country. The response came after dozens of American troops were reportedly injured in attacks in Iraq and Syria linked back to Tehran.
Israel’s war with Hamas has also risked spreading, after a blast killed one of the militant group’s commanders in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, earlier in January. Hezbollah vowed a swift response and tensions have soared along the border between the two countries, with Israeli civilians evacuated from their homes in towns and villages close to the frontier.
All of that contributes to an increasingly volatile environment that has neighboring countries worried, said Christian Koch, director at the Saudi Arabia-based Gulf Research Center.
“There’s a lot at stake at the moment and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others are extremely worried about further escalation and then being subject to retaliation,” he said. “Now, the danger of regional escalation has been heightened further, which could mean that Iran will get further involved in the conflict, and this is a dangerous spiral downwards.”
While long-planned efforts to normalize ties between the Saudis and Israel collapsed in the wake of the October 7 attack and the subsequent military response, Riyadh has pushed forward with a policy of de-escalation with the Houthis after a decade of violent conflict, and sought an almost unprecedented rapprochement with Iran.
“Saudi Arabia has had one objective, which is to prevent this from escalating into a wider regional war,” said Tobias Borck, an expert on Middle East security at the Royal United Services Institute. “It has attempted over the last few years to bring its intervention in the war in Yemen to a close, including through negotiations with the Houthis and actually from all we know from the outside, [they] are reasonably close to an agreement.”
The Western coalition is therefore a source of anxiety, rather than relief, for Gulf States.
“Saudi Arabia and UAE are staying out of this coalition because mainly they don’t want to have the Houthis attack them as they had been for years and years with cruise missiles,” said retired U.S. General Mark Kimmitt, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs. However, American or European boots on the ground are unlikely to be necessary, he added, because “our capabilities these days to find, fix and attack even mobile missile launchers is pretty well refined.”
Far-reaching consequences
At the intersection of Europe and Asia, the Red Sea is a vital thoroughfare for energy and international trade. Maritime traffic through the region has already dropped by 20 percent, Rear Admiral Emmanuel Slaars, the joint commander of French forces in the region, told reporters on Thursday.
According to data published this week by the German IfW Kiel institute, global trade fell by 1.3 percent from November to December, with the Houthi attacks likely to have been a contributing factor.
The volume of containers in the Red Sea also plummeted and is currently almost 70 percent below usual, the institute said. In December, that caused freight costs and transportation time to rise and imports and exports from the EU to be “significantly lower” than in November.
In one indication of the impact on industrial supply chains, U.S. electric vehicle maker Tesla said Friday it would shut its factory in Germany for two weeks.
Around 12 percent of the world’s oil and 8 percent of its gas normally flow through the waterway, as well as hundreds of cargo ships. Oil prices climbed more than 2.5 percent following the strikes, fueling market concerns of the impact a wider conflict could have on oil supplies from the region, especially those being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, linking the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean and the world’s most important oil chokepoint.
The Houthi attacks on the Red Sea, one of the world’s busiest waterways, have already caused major shipping companies, including oil giant BP, to halt shipments through the Red Sea, opting for a lengthy detour around the Cape of Good Hope instead.
According to Borck, the impact on energy prices has been limited so far but will depend on what happens next.
“We need to look for two actors’ actions here. One is the Houthis, how they respond, and the other one is, of course, looking at how Iran responds,” he said. While Tehran has the “nuclear option” of closing the Strait of Hormuz altogether, it’s unlikely to do so at this stage.
“I don’t think the Strait of Hormuz is next. I think there would be quite a few steps on the escalation ladder first,” he added.
But Simone Tagliapietra, an energy expert at Brussels’ Bruegel think tank, warned that a growing confrontation with Iran could lead to tougher enforcement of sanctions on its oil exports. The West has turned a blind eye to Tehran’s increasing sales to China in the wake of the war in Ukraine, which has relieved some pressure on global energy markets.
A crackdown, he believes, “could see global oil prices rising substantially, pushing inflation higher and further complicating the efforts of central banks to bring it under control.”
However, Saudi Arabia and the UAE could help compensate for such a move by ramping up their own production — provided they’re willing to risk the ire of Iran.
Gabriel Gavin reported from Yerevan, Armenia. Antonia Zimmermann from Brussels and Jamie Dettmer from Tel-Aviv.
Laura Kayali contributed reporting from Paris.
[ad_2]
Gabriel Gavin, Antonia Zimmermann and Jamie Dettmer
Tomaž Vuk has the carbon. Now he just needs somewhere to send it.
Since 2020, Vuk, who sits on the board of the Salonit cement factory in Slovenia, has been plotting to get in on the ground floor of an industry poised to boom in the coming years: carbon capture.
It’s one of the ways carbon-spewing factories like the one Vuk helps run are supposed to keep operating in a greener future.
There’s just one problem: Vuk has nowhere to store any carbon he traps at the plant.
Salonit sits roughly 50 kilometers off the Gulf of Trieste, an Italian port nestled near the Adriatic Sea’s highest point. From there, Salonit can technically ship the carbon anywhere. But for now, it seems the only options are way up in the North Sea — a protracted (and, most notably, expensive) trip around the Continent.
Vuk said he’s willing to send the carbon wherever, but would of course prefer spots along the nearby Mediterranean and the Black Seas. For now, that’s not likely. So the North Sea it is.
“It might be acceptable to carry those costs for a short period of time until [closer] solutions are ready,” Vuk said.
The conundrum is a small example of a mounting problem for Europe as it races to establish the infrastructure needed to hit climate neutrality by 2050. The EU is heavily encouraging companies to invest in projects and technology that can either suck carbon from the air or prevent it from getting there in the first place. But that also means finding places to store all of that carbon.
So far, North Sea countries like Denmark and the Netherlands have dominated the industry — a fact the EU is aiming to change with new incentives and rules meant to create more storage across the bloc by 2030. But not everyone is convinced the plan will work, and some skeptics even wonder if carbon capture is really worth the sky-high investments required.
The stakes are high: Should the EU’s masterplan fail, landlocked, low-income European countries could be making investments now that never pay off, potentially taking down traditional manufacturing plants with them. That would leave the EU with an even greater economic divide — and another gap to fill in its green ambitions.
“There’s quite a risk, at least for industries in regions like Southern Central and Eastern Europe, where there are little project developments happening,” said Eadbhard Pernot, who leads the works on carbon capture for Clean Air Task Force, an NGO.“There’s a risk of deindustrialization in some parts of Europe and industrialization in other parts of Europe.”
Fragmented deployment
Over the past year, a flurry of carbon-sucking vacuums and vaults have been announced in the wealthy region bordering the North Sea. The area is home to some of Europe’s largest oil and gas sites, providing it with a plethora of places to both grab and store carbon.
In March, a project dubbed Greensand launched with the promise of first capturing carbon in Belgium before shipping it to a depleted oil field in the Danish North Sea — a project that could store 8 million tons of CO2 by 2030. And in May, the Danish Energy Agency awarded renewable utility Ørsted a 20-year contract for the Kalundborg Hub, which touts that it will remove up to half a million tons of carbon from nearby heat and power plants starting in 2026.
The Netherlands is also keeping pace. The Porthos project is slated to store no less than 2.5 million tons in depleted gas fields. And big emitters like Air Liquide, Air Products, ExxonMobil and Shell have secured storage on the site starting in 2026, when Porthos goes online.
The northern dominance is so vast that research has shown Denmark alone could develop enough storage capacity to meet the EU’s goal to erect 50 million tons of CO2 storage by 2030 — which Brussels proposed in its Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA), a legislative effort to bolster the bloc’s manufacturing of green projects like wind turbines and solar panels.
The other nearby options are EU neighbors like Norway, Iceland and the U.K. While these sites might make sense geographically, they would also leave the EU increasingly dependent on outside countries for carbon storage — a future that Brussels wants to avoid.
Prisoners of geography
The northern dominance is starting to freak out policymakers and industry leaders across the rest of Europe. They fear it will eventually erode their industrial competitiveness in a future marked by soaring carbon prices and fierce competition from outside Europe.
Currently, high-polluting manufacturers like steel and cement makers, which have to pay for their emissions under the bloc’s CO2 market, are getting a free pass for their carbon pollution — a decision made to keep EU-based industries from being overwhelmed by costs their competitors don’t always bear.
That won’t last forever, however. Last year, EU negotiators struck a deal to phase out the policy by 2034, hoping to drive up carbon prices and push industries to invest in lower-emission options, including carbon capture.
“Many are yet to grasp the consequences of the reform of the EU’s carbon market,” one EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO.
Once these manufacturers are confronted with the full cost of their pollution, the diplomat argued, they will have an existential need for relatively cheap ways to absorb and store their carbon.
And those storage options are only cheap if they’re nearby.
The EU claims its plan will create these options. A proposal is in the works to spread carbon storage sites more evenly across Europe. The plan will also map out the transport needs for carbon to effectively get from where it is vacuumed up to its final resting place. The idea is to ensure that plants like Salonit aren’t left behind.
“To keep the costs of decarbonizing hard-to-abate industries at bay, Europe needs CO2 storage projects across the Continent,” said Eve Tamme, who chairs the Zero Emissions Platform, an organization advising the EU on carbon capture technology. “This helps to limit the need for expensive long-distance CO2 transportation routes.”
Work in progress
The European Commission, the EU’s executive in Brussels, also wants to encourage plants to invest in carbon trapping by guaranteeing that storage will be available.
Brussels has already called for countries to adopt a binding, EU-wide storage target of 50 million tons of CO2 by 2030 as part of its net-zero act. But the proposal has run into controversy over a clause that would force oil and gas producers to contribute to that goal.
Carbon storage leaders like Denmark and the Netherlands argued the provision would simply pull cash away from existing CO2 storage projects — benefiting fossil fuel giants in the process. Yet others countered that these are the exact companies that should be forced to help pack away the carbon after they spent years putting it in the sky.
In the end, Denmark and the Netherlands won, getting a narrowly written opt-out for oil and gas firms — but only if these quotas have been met with other projects.
Lina Strandvåg Nagell, senior manager at industrial decarbonization NGO Bellona, argued the compromise wouldn’t derail the overall ambition.
“This decision shows that storage will have to be developed across the EU,” she said.
And Brussels says the early signs are promising. In late November, Ditte Juul-Jørgensen, who heads the Commission’s energy department, said there were a growing number of carbon capture and storage projects in Southern and Eastern Europe in line to receive speedy approval and EU funding.
“Previously … projects were really situated mainly around the North Sea region,” she told an industry event. “But now they stretch from the Baltic to the Western and Eastern Mediterranean.”
But the question is whether the pace will be quick enough for people like Vuk, in Slovenia, and his fellow cement and steel compatriots across Central and Eastern Europe.
“Any action that would encourage” more carbon storage, he said, “is welcome.”
Israel will allow ships from several European countries to deliver aid directly to war-torn Gaza, the country’s top diplomat said Sunday, as the Israeli military ramped up large-scale air attacks across central Gaza.
Ships from countries including France, Greece, the Netherlands and the U.K. can “immediately” start shipping aid packages via a proposed sea corridor that goes through Cyprus, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen told local radio on Sunday. The measure could mean a partial lifting of Israel’s naval blockade on Gaza, first imposed in 2007 after the Hamas militant group took control of the Palestinian enclave.
Under the plan, originally proposed by Nicosia last month, ships would travel to Cyprus for security checks before heading 370 kilometers to Gaza’s coast in a route that would avoid Egyptian or Israeli borders. Paris, Athens, Amsterdam and London have yet to officially comment on the plan, though the U.K. and Greece have previously indicated they would support the measure.
The announcement comes after the U.N. Security Council earlier this month demanded that Israel guarantee “immediate, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance at scale” to the Gaza Strip.
Meanwhile, Israeli jets stepped up air strikes on Maghazi and Bureij in the center of Gaza on Sunday, killing at least 35 people, including former Religious Affairs Minister for the Palestinian Authority Youssef Salama, according to local media and hospital officials.
Israel has said it would keep fighting until it eliminates Hamas after the militant group launched a surprise attack on the country in early October, killing 1,200 people and taking 240 others hostage. Israel has said it has killed 8,000 Hamas fighters so far in its military offensive. Cohen said on Sunday that the “government bears responsibility” for failing to prevent the October 7 attack, and suggested an independent inquiry should be set up after the war.
Despite growing international pressure for a cease-fire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday said the war would continue for “many more months.” Israel argues that ending the conflict now would mean victory for Hamas, a stance shared by the Biden administration, which at the same time has urged Israel to do more to avoid harm to Palestinian civilians.
“We will not allow a situation in which two million people live there. If there are 100,000 to 200,000 Arabs living in Gaza, the discussion about the day after will be completely different,” Smotrich said. “They want to leave, they have been living in a ghetto and in suffering for 75 years,” he added.
Fearing a mass exodus, both Egypt and Jordan have refused to accept refugees from the embattled Gaza Strip. Netanyahu also said on Saturday that the border zone between the Gaza Strip and Egypt should be under Israel’s control.
Almost 22,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel launched its military response, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, 70 percent of whom are women and children — while 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced.
The U.S. Navy destroyed three boats carrying Houthi rebels in the Red Sea on Sunday after fighters attempted to board a container ship in the second attack against the vessel this weekend.
Helicopters from two destroyers, the USS Eisenhower and USS Gravely, were dispatched after the Maersk Hangzhou issued a distress call at 6:30 a.m. Sunday morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said on X, the ship’s second request for help in 24 hours.
Four small boats arriving from Yemen had got to within 20 meters of the Danish-owned vessel and attempted to board it, according to CENTCOM, and fired on U.S. helicopters as they approached. “The U.S. Navy helicopters returned fire in self-defense, sinking three of the four small boats, and killing the crews,” it said, adding that there was “no damage to U.S. personnel or equipment.”
On Saturday, Washington said it had shot down two anti-ship ballistic missiles after the Maersk Hangzhou issued its first distress call and reported being struck by a Houthi missile.
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations organization said there were no casualties in the shipping vessel’s crew.
Maersk said on Sunday that it has paused all sailing through the Red Sea for 48 hours.
Since November, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have launched over 20 attacks against ships in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a crucial shipping lane between Europe and Asia where an estimated 15 percent of global trade passes. Several shipping lines and oil major BP have suspended operations in the area as a result.
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron said he spoke with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, on Sunday and stressed Tehran’s responsibility regarding the Houthi rebels.
“I made clear that Iran shares responsibility for preventing these attacks given their long-standing support to the Houthis,” Cameron said in a statement. The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea “threaten innocent lives and the global economy,” he added.
The Houthis have said the strikes are in support of Palestinians in Gaza, where Israel is carrying out large-scale bombardments with U.S. backing in response to Hamas militants’ deadly attack against civilians in early October. In response, the U.S. set up a multinational naval taskforce to protect the route, which has been joined by countries including Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and the U.K.
BRUSSELS — Western leaders are grappling with how to handle two era-defining wars in the Middle East and in Ukraine. But there’s another issue, one far closer to home, that’s derailing governments in Europe and America: migration.
In recent days, U.S. President Joe Biden, his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak all hit trouble amid intense domestic pressure to tackle immigration; all three emerged weakened as a result. The stakes are high as American, British and European voters head to the polls in 2024.
“There is a temptation to hunt for quick fixes,” said Rashmin Sagoo, director of the international law program at the Chatham House think tank in London. “But irregular migration is a hugely challenging issue. And solving it requires long-term policy thinking beyond national boundaries.”
With election campaigning already under way, long-term plans may be hard to find. Far-right, anti-migrant populists promising sharp answers are gaining support in many Western democracies, leaving mainstream parties to count the costs. Less than a month ago in the Netherlands, pragmatic Dutch centrists lost to an anti-migrant radical.
Who will be next?
Rishi Sunak, United Kingdom
In Britain, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is under pressure from members of his own ruling Conservative party who fear voters will punish them over the government’s failure to get a grip on migration.
U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks during a press conference in Dover on June 5, 2023 in Dover, England | Pool photo by Yui Mok/WPA via Getty Images
Seven years ago, voters backed Brexit because euroskeptic campaigners promised to “Take Back Control” of the U.K.’s borders. Instead, the picture is now more chaotic than ever. The U.K. chalked up record net migration figures last month, and the government has failed so far to stop small boats packed with asylum seekers crossing the English Channel.
Sunak is now in the firing line. He made a pledge to “Stop the Boats” central to his premiership. In the process, he ignited a war in his already divided party about just how far Britain should go.
Under Sunak’s deal with Rwanda, the central African nation agreed to resettle asylum seekers who arrived on British shores in small boats. The PM says the policy will deter migrants from making sea crossings to the U.K. in the first place. But the plan was struck down by the Supreme Court in London, and Sunak’s Tories now can’t agree on what to do next.
Having survived what threatened to be a catastrophic rebellion in parliament on Tuesday, the British premier still faces a brutal battle in the legislature over his proposed Rwanda law early next year.
Time is running out for Sunak to find a fix. An election is expected next fall.
Emmanuel Macron, France
The French president suffered an unexpected body blow when the lower house of parliament rejected his flagship immigration bill this week.
French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, on June 21, 2023 | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
After losing parliamentary elections last year, getting legislation through the National Assembly has been a fraught process for Macron. He has been forced to rely on votes from the right-wing Les Républicains party on more than one occasion.
Macron’s draft law on immigration was meant to please both the conservatives and the center-left with a carefully designed mix of repressive and liberal measures. But in a dramatic upset, the National Assembly, which is split between centrists, the left and the far right, voted against the legislation on day one of debates.
Now Macron is searching for a compromise. The government has tasked a joint committee of senators and MPs with seeking a deal. But it’s likely their text will be harsher than the initial draft, given that the Senate is dominated by the centre right — and this will be a problem for Macron’s left-leaning lawmakers.
If a compromise is not found, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally will be able to capitalize on Macron’s failure ahead of the European Parliament elections next June.
But even if the French president does manage to muddle through, the episode is likely to mark the end of his “neither left nor right” political offer. It also raises serious doubts about his ability to legislate on controversial topics.
Joe Biden, United States
The immigration crisis is one of the most vexing and longest-running domestic challenges for President Joe Biden. He came into office vowing to reverse the policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump, and build a “fair and humane” system, only to see Congress sit on his plan for comprehensive immigration reform.
U.S. President Joe Biden pauses as he gives a speech in Des Moines, Iowa on July 15, 2019 | Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The White House has seen a deluge of migrants at the nation’s southern border, strained by a decades-old system unable to handle modern migration patterns.
Ahead of next year’s presidential election, Republicans have seized on the issue. GOP state leaders have filed lawsuits against the administration and sent busloads of migrants to Democrat-led cities, while in Washington, Republicans in Congress have tied foreign aid to sweeping changes to border policy, putting the White House in a tight spot as Biden officials now consider a slate of policies they once forcefully rejected.
The political pressure has spilled into the other aisle. States and cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, are pressuring Washington leaders to do more in terms of providing additional federal aid and revamping southern border policies to limit the flow of asylum seekers into the United States.
New York City has had more than 150,000 new arrivals over the past year and a half — forcing cuts to new police recruits, cutting library hours and limiting sanitation duties. Similar problems are playing out in cities like Chicago, which had migrants sleeping in buses or police stations.
The pressure from Democrats is straining their relationship with the White House. New York City Mayor Eric Adams runs the largest city in the nation, but hasn’t spoken with Biden in nearly a year. “We just need help, and we’re not getting that help,” Adams told reporters Tuesday.
Olaf Scholz, Germany
Migration has been at the top of the political agenda in Germany for months, with asylum applications rising to their highest levels since the 2015 refugee crisis triggered by Syria’s civil war.
The latest influx has posed a daunting challenge to national and local governments alike, which have struggled to find housing and other services for the migrants, not to mention the necessary funds.
The inability to limit the number of refugees has put German Chancellor Olaf Scholz under immense pressure | Michele Tantussi/Getty Images
The inability — in a country that ranks among the most coveted destinations for asylum seekers — to limit the number of refugees has put German Chancellor Olaf Scholz under immense pressure. In the hope of stemming the flow, Germany recently reinstated border checks with Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland, hoping to turn back the refugees before they hit German soil.
Even with border controls, refugee numbers remain high, which has been a boon to the far right. Germany’s anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party has reached record support in national polls.
Since overtaking Scholz’s Social Democrats in June, the AfD has widened its lead further, recording 22 percent in recent polls, second only to the center-right Christian Democrats.
The AfD is expected to sweep three state elections next September in eastern Germany, where support for the party and its reactionary anti-foreigner policies is particularly strong.
The center-right, meanwhile, is hardening its position on migration and turning its back on the open-border policies championed by former Chancellor Angela Merkel. Among the new priorities is a plan to follow the U.K.’s Rwanda model for processing refugees in third countries.
Karl Nehammer, Austria
Like Scholz, the Austrian leader’s approval ratings have taken a nosedive thanks to concerns over migration. Austria has taken steps to tighten controls at its southern and eastern borders.
Though the tactic has led to a drop in arrivals by asylum seekers, it also means Austria has effectively suspended the EU’s borderless travel regime, which has been a boon to the regional economy for decades.
Austria has effectively suspended the EU’s borderless travel regime, which has been a boon to the regional economy for decades | Thomas Kronsteiner/Getty Images
The far-right Freedom Party has had a commanding lead for more than a year, topping the ruling center-right in polls by 10 points. That puts the party in a position to win national elections scheduled for next fall, which would mark an unprecedented rightward tilt in a country whose politics have been dominated by the center since World War II.
Giorgia Meloni, Italy
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni made her name in opposition, campaigning on a radical far-right agenda. Since winning power in last year’s election, she has shifted to more moderate positions on Ukraine and Europe.
Meloni now needs to appease her base on migration, a topic that has dominated Italian debate for years. Instead, however, she has been forced to grant visas to hundreds of thousands of legal migrants to cover labor shortages. Complicating matters, boat landings in Italy are up by about 50 per cent year-on-year despite some headline-grabbling policies and deals to stop arrivals.
While Meloni has ordered the construction of detention centers where migrants will be held pending repatriation, in reality local conditions in African countries and a lack of repatriation agreements present serious impediments.
Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni at a press conference on March 9, 2023 | Tiziana Fabi/AFP via Getty Images
Although she won the support of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for her cause, a potential EU naval mission to block departures from Africa would risk breaching international law.
Meloni has tried other options, including a deal with Tunisia to help stop migrant smuggling, but the plan fell apart before it began. A deal with Albania to offshore some migrant detention centers also ran into trouble.
Now Meloni is in a bind. The migration issue has brought her into conflict with France and Germany as she attempts to create a reputation as a moderate conservative.
If she fails to get to grips with the issue, she is likely to lose political ground. Her coalition partner Matteo Salvini is known as a hardliner on migration, and while they’re officially allies for now, they will be rivals again later.
Geert Wilders, the Netherlands
The government of long-serving Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte was toppled over migration talks in July, after which he announced his exit from politics. In subsequent elections, in which different parties vied to fill Rutte’s void, far-right firebrand Geert Wilders secured a shock win. On election night he promised to curb the “asylum tsunami.”
Wilders is now seeking to prop up a center-right coalition with three other parties that have urged getting migration under control. One of them is Rutte’s old group, now led by Dilan Yeşilgöz.
Geert Wilders attends a meeting in the Dutch parliament with party leaders to discuss the formation of a coalition government, on November 24, 2023 | Carl Court/Getty Images
A former refugee, Yeşilgöz turned migration into one of the main topics of her campaign. She was criticized after the elections for paving the way for Wilders to win — not only by focusing on migration, but also by opening the door to potentially governing with Wilders.
Now, though, coalition talks are stuck, and it could take months to form a new cabinet. If Wilders, who clearly has a mandate from voters, can stitch a coalition together, the political trajectory of the Netherlands — generally known as a pragmatic nation — will shift significantly to the right. A crackdown on migration is as certain as anything can be.
Leo Varadkar, Ireland
Even in Ireland, an economically open country long used to exporting its own people worldwide, an immigration-friendly and pro-business government has been forced by rising anti-foreigner sentiment to introduce new migration deterrence measures that would have been unthinkable even a year ago.
Ireland’s hardening policies reflect both a chronic housing crisis and the growing reluctance of some property owners to keep providing state-funded emergency shelter in the wake of November riots in Dublin triggered by a North African immigrant’s stabbing of young schoolchildren.
A nation already housing more than 100,000 newcomers, mostly from Ukraine, Ireland has stopped guaranteeing housing to new asylum seekers if they are single men, chiefly from Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Georgia and Somalia, according to the most recent Department of Integration statistics.
Ireland has stopped guaranteeing housing to new asylum seekers if they are single men, chiefly from Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Georgia and Somalia | Jorge Guerrero/AFP via Getty Images
Even newly arrived families face an increasing risk of being kept in military-style tents despite winter temperatures.
Ukrainians, who since Russia’s 2022 invasion of their country have received much stronger welfare support than other refugees, will see that welcome mat partially retracted in draft legislation approved this week by the three-party coalition government of Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.
Once enacted by parliament next month, the law will limit new Ukrainian arrivals to three months of state-paid housing, while welfare payments – currently among the most generous in Europe for people fleeing Russia’s war – will be slashed for all those in state-paid housing.
Justin Trudeau, Canada
A pessimistic public mood dragged down by cost-of-living woes has made immigration a multidimensional challenge for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
A housing crunch felt across the country has cooled support for immigration, with people looking for scapegoats for affordability pains. The situation has fueled antipathy for Trudeau and his re-election campaign.
Trudeau has treated immigration as a multipurpose solution for Canada’s aging population and slowing economy. And while today’s record-high population growth reflects well on Canada’s reputation as a desirable place to relocate, political challenges linked to migration have arisen in unpredictable ways for Trudeau’s Liberals.
Political challenges linked to migration have arisen in unpredictable ways for Trudeau’s Liberals | Andrej Ivanov/AFP
Since Trudeau came to power eight years ago, at least 1.3 million people have immigrated to Canada, mostly from India, the Philippines, China and Syria. Handling diaspora politics — and foreign interference — has become more consequential, as seen by Trudeau’s clash with India and Canada’s recent break with Israel.
Canada will double its 40 million population in 25 years if the current growth rate holds, enlarging the political challenges of leading what Trudeau calls the world’s “first postnational state”.
Pedro Sánchez, Spain
Spain’s autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, in Northern Africa, are favored by migrants seeking to enter Europe from the south: Once they make it across the land border, the Continent can easily be accessed by ferry.
Transit via the land border that separates the European territory from Morocco is normally kept in check with security measures like high, razor-topped fences, with border control officers from both countries working together to keep undocumented migrants out.
Spain’s autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, in Northern Africa, are favored by migrants seeking to enter Europe | Pierre-Philippe Marcou/AFP
But in recent years authorities in Morocco have expressed displeasure with their Spanish counterparts by standing down their officers and allowing hundreds of migrants to pass, overwhelming border stations and forcing Spanish officers to repel the migrants, with scores dying in the process.
The headaches caused by these incidents are believed to be a major factor in Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s decision to change the Spanish government’s position on the disputed Western Sahara territory and express support for Rabat’s plan to formalize its nearly 50-year occupation of the area.
The pivot angered Sánchez’s leftist allies and worsened Spain’s relationship with Algeria, a long-standing champion of Western Saharan independence. But the measures have stopped the flow of migrants — for now.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Greece
Greece has been at the forefront of Europe’s migration crisis since 2015, when hundreds of thousands of people entered Europe via the Aegean islands. Migration and border security have been key issues in the country’s political debate.
Human rights organizations, as well as the European Parliament and the European Commission, have accused the Greek conservative government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis of illegal “pushbacks” of migrants who have made it to Greek territory — and of deporting migrants without due process. Greece’s government denies those accusations, arguing that independent investigations haven’t found any proof.
Mitsotakis insists that Greece follows a “tough but fair” policy, but the numerous in-depth investigations belie the moderate profile the conservative leader wants to maintain.
In June, a migrant boat sank in what some called “the worst tragedy ever” in the Mediterranean Sea. Hundreds lost their lives, refocusing Europe’s attention on the issue. Official investigations have yet to discover whether failures by Greek authorities contributed to the shipwreck, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
In the meantime, Greece is in desperate need of thousands of workers to buttress the country’s understaffed agriculture, tourism and construction sectors. Despite pledges by the migration and agriculture ministers of imminent legislation bringing migrants to tackle the labor shortage, the government was forced to retreat amid pressure from within its own ranks.
Nikos Christodoulides, Cyprus
Cyprus is braced for an increase in migrant arrivals on its shores amid renewed conflict in the Middle East. Earlier in December, Greece sent humanitarian aid to the island to deal with an anticipated increase in flows.
Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has called for extra EU funding for migration management, and is contending with a surge in violence against migrants in Cyprus. Analysts blame xenophobia, which has become mainstream in Cypriot politics and media, as well as state mismanagement of migration flows. Last year the country recorded the EU’s highest proportion of first-time asylum seekers relative to its population.
Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has called for extra EU funding for migration management | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
Legal and staffing challenges have delayed efforts to create a deputy ministry for migration, deemed an important step in helping Cyprus to deal with the surge in arrivals.
The island’s geography — it’s close to both Lebanon and Turkey — makes it a prime target for migrants wanting to enter EU territory from the Middle East. Its complex history as a divided country also makes it harder to regulate migrant inflows.
[ad_2]
Tim Ross, Annabelle Dickson, Clea Caulcutt, Myah Ward, Matthew Karnitschnig, Hannah Roberts, Pieter Haeck, Shawn Pogatchnik, Zi-Ann Lum, Aitor Hernández-Morales and Nektaria Stamouli
The government of Utrecht, Netherlands, has banned ads for meat on bus stops and other government-owned spaces. The city has previously banned ads for fossil fuels, cars, and flying. City officials say the bans could have a positive impact on residents’ health and on the climate.
Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League on Saturday condemned statements by Geert Wilders, the Dutch far-right politician who won this week’s election in the Netherlands, that Palestinians should be relocated to Jordan.
The Palestinian Authority labeled the statements as “a call to escalate the aggression against our people and a blatant interference in their affairs and future,” the Wafa news agency reported.
Jordan issued a separate condemnation and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Yemen, and the Arab League did the same, Arab News reported.
“Irresponsible statements made by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders [are] considered interference in the internal affairs of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and [are] rejected and condemned,” the UAE embassy in the Netherlands wrote on X.
A populist and anti-Islam far-right politician, Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), is known for his firm support for Israel. Over the last few years, he has advocated for the right of Israel to set up settlements in the West Bank, and he often reiterated the idea that Jordan is Palestine, suggesting that the conflict between Palestinians and Israel could be resolved through the dislocation of Palestinian people to Jordan.
NICOSIA — A sea corridor from Cyprus to supply humanitarian aid to Gaza is creating some formidable logistical challenges and could require innovative fixes ranging from landing craft to a large floating platform, where ships can unload containers.
For now, the only aid route into the war-shattered coastal enclave is over land from Egypt at Rafah, but there is an increasing diplomatic push to use ships as they could deliver 500 times more aid than trucks. Israel’s Ambassador to Cyprus Oren Anolik has called the seaborne corridor a “positive initiative” but warns “there are plenty of details that need to be sorted out and discussed.” Egypt is also in favor.
The main practical challenges include the dangers posed by the war and the fact that Gaza’s port is too tiny to dock large freighters.
The idea is that international humanitarian aid will be sent and stored in Larnaca on the south coast of Cyprus, which is only 210 nautical miles from the conflict zone. It will then be inspected, with Israeli involvement, and loaded for delivery.
Afterwards, there are three scenarios on how aid can safely reach Gaza, taking into consideration the lack of port facilities: short, medium and long term.
The short-term scenario could be implemented immediately, if Israel agreed to a cease-fire, Cypriot officials explained. Aid would be transferred from Larnaca close to Gaza with large cargo ship and then offloaded to its shores via landing crafts. Cyprus has already been approached by some countries to offer this delivery method.
Under the medium-term scenario, a floating platform would be constructed for unloading containers of humanitarian aid.
The long-term scenario involves building enclosed port in the area.
Another alternative included in the Cypriot proposal, is aid being distributed via a port in Israel and then being taken to a northern entry point into Gaza. At the moment this is appears a remote prospect as Israel is reluctant for any aid to pass through its territory.
Aid reaching Gaza could be distributed by the United Nations using its network.
The European Commission, European Investment Bank, and Gulf countries have approached Cyprus to help fund the project, while others, like Greece and the Netherlands, offered practical assistance.
Cypriot Foreign Minister Constantinos Kombos traveled to Israel last week with a team of experts to discuss the practical dimensions of the scheme.
The idea is that international humanitarian aid will be sent and stored in Larnaca on the south coast of Cyprus, which is only 210 nautical miles from the conflict zone | Amir Makar/AFP via Getty Images
The idea of a sea corridor had been swirling some 12 years ago, when there were thoughts about an alternative to a seaport in Gaza, but nothing eventually materialized.
“Perhaps rather than a measure of immediate relief, it could be an initiative well worth considering for the day after the end of the war and during the phase of reconstruction,” said Harry Tzimitras, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo Cyprus Center.
As Tzimitras explained, the crossing in Rafah is currently being used for the passage of around 100 lorries per day, while the need is for 400. This cannot be done because the scanners have not been upgraded and they can only cope with a limited number of checks.
“Unless there is a structure on the ground for the receipt and effective distribution of the aid, there’s no point in flooding the place with more humanitarian aid at this juncture,” he added.
Another scenario floated by the U.K. is airlifting aid using its bases in Cyprus.
The world’s top climate summit has become embroiled in a hypocrisy scandal, days before the start of key talks.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) schemed to use its position as host country of the imminent COP28 United Nations climate talks to discuss oil and gas deals with more than a dozen countries, leaked documents published by the BBC show.
Briefing notes prepared by the UAE’s COP28 team for meetings with foreign governments during the summit, which starts Thursday in Dubai, include talking points from the Emirati state oil and renewable energy companies, according to documents published Monday by the Centre for Climate Reporting.
Germany, for example, is to be told that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) — whose CEO, Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, is COP28’s president — “stand[s] ready to expand LNG supplies to Germany.”
The briefing notes for China say that ADNOC is “willing to jointly evaluate international LNG opportunities (Mozambique, Canada, and Australia).”
They also propose telling oil-rich giants Saudi Arabia and Venezuela that “there is no conflict between sustainable development of any country’s natural resources and its commitment to climate change.”
With COP28 just days away, the leaked documents have cast a shadow over the start of the crucial forum.
Zakia Khattabi, Belgium’s climate minister, told POLITICO: “If confirmed, these news reports add to the existing concerns regarding the COP28 presidency. The credibility of the U.N. climate negotiations is essential and is at stake here.”
The documents also sparked an outcry from climate NGOs.
In a statement, Greenpeace’s Policy Coordinator Kaisa Kosonen said, “if the allegations are true, this is totally unacceptable and a real scandal.”
“The climate summit leader should be focused on advancing climate solutions impartially, not backroom deals that are fuelling the crisis,” Kosonen said.
“The significant representation of EU and European countries in this list is alarming and a direct contradiction to the EU’s position to achieve a phase out of fossil fuels at this year’s COP,” Chiara Martinelli, director of Climate Action Network Europe, said in a written statement to POLITICO.
“Any deal with the UAE’s oil and gas companies is a slap in the face of the U.N. process on climate change,” Martinelli added.
The documents also include estimates of ADNOC’s commercial interests in the targeted countries, as well as an outline of energy infrastructure projects led by Masdar, the UAE’s state renewable energy company.
ADNOC’s business ties with China, for example, are valued at $15 billion over the past year, while those with the United Kingdom are worth $4 billion and the Netherlands’ stand at $2 billion.
Every year, the country hosting COP appoints a president to lead negotiations between countries. The president meets foreign dignitaries and is expected to “rais[e] ambition to tackle climate change internationally,” according to the U.N.
Home to some of the largest oil reserves in the world, the UAE has attracted criticism for appointing al-Jaber as COP president in spite of his role as chief of the country’s national oil company. Al-Jaber is also chairman of the board of directors of the national renewable energy company.
In a statement, a COP28 spokesperson said: “The documents referred to in the BBC article are inaccurate and were not used by COP28 in meetings. It is extremely disappointing to see the BBC use unverified documents in their reporting.”
This article has been updated to clarify Ahmed al-Jaber’s role at the national renewable energy company and to add comments fro, COP28 and Greenpeace.
BRUSSELS — Outgoing Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is emerging as the front-runner to be the new NATO chief, but faces resistance in Washington from lawmakers who accuse the Netherlands of underspending on defense on his watch, and from others who think it’s time for a woman at the top.
In what’s shaping up to be at least a three-person race, Rutte is considered a strong favorite, according to two European officials and a diplomat granted anonymity to talk about internal deliberations.
“He’s certainly a heavyweight, he’s a very good candidate,” Poland’s Ambassador to NATO Tomasz Szatkowski said at an event hosted by POLITICO Pro Defense on Tuesday.
One of the officials said the longtime Dutch leader had won the support of “senior U.S. and German officials.”
France, another crucial decision-maker, is also favoring Rutte, driven primarily by his personal rapport with President Emmanuel Macron, who was one of Rutte’s earliest cheerleaders in his quest for the NATO top job.
“That Macron and Rutte appreciate each other is no secret,” said a French diplomat.
However, some American lawmakers adamantly oppose Rutte, as the Netherlands has consistently failed to meet NATO’s defense spending target of 2 percent of gross domestic product.
That pits him unfavorably against Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who signaled interest in the NATO job while in Washington last week. Her government agreed to raise defence spending to 3 percent of GDP for 2024-2027, from 2.85 percent this year. Tallinn has also been an outsize supporter of Ukraine in terms of weaponry.
The underdog is Latvia’s Foreign Minister Krišjānis Kariņš, whose announcement on Sunday that he was running was even a surprise to some in Riga, according to a diplomat.
The candidacies of Kallas and Kariņš ruffle some Western European feathers — still smarting from the intense criticism they faced from Baltic nations that they are insufficiently supportive of Ukraine and too fearful to challenge Russia.
The White House was coy when asked whether U.S. President Joe Biden prefers Rutte.
“We’re not going to get into internal deliberations over the next secretary general,” said National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson. “We look forward to working closely with allies to identify a secretary general who can lead the alliance at this critical time for transatlantic security.”
Penny-pincher
For some, though, the record of burden sharing in a secretary-general candidate’s home country does matter politically, and Washington is scrutinizing that closely.
U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican from Alaska and senior of member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Rutte “should be unequivocally disqualified” over his country’s record on NATO burden sharing. He said there is “deep bipartisan frustration in the U.S. about NATO members not pulling their weight.”
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas signaled interest in the NATO job while in Washington last week | Leon Neal/Getty Images
The Netherlands has a poor track record. In 2014 it spent only 1.15 percent of its GDP on defense, while the alliance has a 2 percent spending goal. This year, The Hague will spend 1.7 percent of GDP and has agreed to spend 2.03 percent in 2024 and 2.01 percent in 2025.
Ahead of July’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Sullivan led a bipartisan group of 35 senators in writing a letter to Biden urging him to ensure NATO countries meet their defense spending commitments. That tally — which amounts to more than a third of the U.S. Senate — hints at the potent politics of burden sharing in Washington.
Congress’ ongoing negotiations over its annual defense legislation include a provision from Sullivan that would require the Pentagon to prioritize NATO members that hit the 2 percent target when making decisions about U.S. military basing, training, and exercises.
Some in Biden’s own Democratic Party also believe it’s time for a woman to run NATO.
“I’ve long thought it was time the allies appoint the first woman NATO secretary general,” Senate NATO Observer Group Co-Chair Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, said in a statement.
“That said, it’s critical that support for NATO remains strong and bipartisan in the Senate and for that to happen, the successor for this important position should hail from a country that is meeting the 2 percent defense spending commitment, or has a robust plan in place to meet that goal, which was agreed to by all allies in Vilnius,” she added.
With NATO helping coordinate members’ efforts to help Ukraine fight Russia, there are also calls for someone from the eastern flank of the alliance to become the next leader.
“Maybe at some point it is also [the] right time for the alliance to look at the region of Eastern Europe,” Ukraine’s Ambassador to NATO Natalia Galibarenko told POLITICO. “So my preference … would be at some point to see [a] secretary-general representing Eastern Europe.”
Such as Kallas?
“Why not?” said the Ukrainian envoy.
With additional reporting from Clea Caulcutt. and Joshua Posaner. Joe Gould and Alexander Ward reported from Washington.
THE HAGUE — One line in Geert Wilders’ inflammatory pitch to Dutch voters will haunt Brussels more than any other: a referendum on leaving the EU.
Seven years after the British voted for Brexit, a so-called Nexit ballot was a core plank of the far-right leader’s ultimately successful offer in the Netherlands.
And while Wilders softened his anti-Islam rhetoric in recent weeks, there are no signs he wants to water down his Euroskepticism after his shock election victory.
Even if Dutch voters are not persuaded to follow the Brits out of the EU — polling suggests it’s unlikely — there’s every indication that a Wilders-led government in The Hague will still be a nightmare for Brussels.
A seat for Wilders around the EU summit table would transform the dynamic, alongside other far-right and nationalist leaders already in post. Suddenly, policies ranging from climate action, to EU reform and weapons for Ukraine will be up for debate, and even reversal.
Since the exit polls were announced, potential center-right partners have not ruled out forming a coalition with Wilders, who emerged as the clear winner. That’s despite the fact that for the past 10 years, he’s been kept out by centrists.
For his part, the 60-year-old veteran appears to be dead serious about taking power himself this time.
Ever since Mark Rutte’s replacement as VVD leader, Dilan Yeşilgöz, indicated early in the campaign that she could potentially enter coalition talks with Wilders, the far-right leader has worked hard to look more reasonable. He diluted some of his most strident positions, particularly on Islam — such as banning mosques — saying there are bigger priorities to fix.
On Wednesday night, with the results coming in, Wilders was more explicit: “I understand very well that parties do not want to be in a government with a party that wants unconstitutional measures,” he said. “We are not going to talk about mosques, Qurans and Islamic schools.”
Even if Wilders is willing to drop his demand for an EU referendum in exchange for power, his victory will still send a shudder through the EU institutions.
And if centrist parties club together to keep Wilders out — again — there may be a price to pay with angry Dutch voters later on.
Brexit cheerleader Nigel Farage showed in the U.K. that you don’t need to be in power to be powerfully influential.
Winds of change
Migration was a dominant issue in the Dutch election. For EU politicians, it remains a pressing concern. As migrant numbers continue to rise, so too has support for far-right parties in many countries in Europe. In Italy last year, Giorgia Meloni won power for her Brothers of Italy. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally remains a potent force, in second place in the polls. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany has also surged to second place in recent months.
In his victory speech, Wilders vowed to tackle what he called the “asylum tsunami” hitting the Netherlands.
“The main reasons voters have supported Wilders in these elections is his anti-immigration agenda, followed by his stances on the cost of living crisis and his health care position,” said Sarah de Lange, politics professor at the University of Amsterdam. Mainstream parties “legitimized Wilders” by making immigration a key issue, she said. “Voters might have thought that if that is the issue at stake, why not vote for the original rather than the copy?”
For the left, the bright spot in the Netherlands was a strong showing for a well-organized alliance between Labor and the Greens. Frans Timmermans, the former European Commission vice president, galvanized support behind him. But even that joint ticket could not get close to beating Wilders’ tally.
Next June, the 27 countries of the EU hold an election for the European Parliament.
On the same day voters choose their MEPs, Belgium is holding a general election. Far-right Flemish independence leader Tom Van Grieken, who is also eyeing up a major breakthrough, offered his congratulations to Wilders: “Parties like ours are on their way in the whole of Europe,” he said.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was celebrating, too: “The winds of change are here!”
Pieter Haeck reported from Amsterdam and Tim Ross reported from London.
[ad_2]
Tim Ross, Pieter Haeck, Eline Schaart and Jakob Hanke Vela
ROTTERDAM, Netherlands — As Dutch polling stations open on Wednesday, any one of four rival party leaders could yet win power.
Volatile polls in the final days of the campaign have left the outcome on a knife-edge, with the big surprise a sudden surge in support for the far-right party of Geert Wilders.
His anti-Islam and anti-EU Freedom Party (PVV) appears to be making a dramatic comeback — one poll put him level in first place with outgoing premier Mark Rutte’s group, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD).
The Labour-Green alliance, led by EU veteran Frans Timmermans, and a new party of centrist outsider Pieter Omtzigt are trailing behind in third and fourth place, according to pollster Maurice de Hond. Other polls put Timmermans’ party tied in first position with Wilders, closely followed by the VVD.
However, the differences are small and, most importantly, 63 percent of voters had not yet settled on their final choice one day ahead of the election, according to one report.
A return for Wilders would be a seismic moment for politics in the Netherlands. For the last 10 years, mainstream party leaders have refused to work with him in power-sharing arrangements.
But the new leader of Rutte’s party, Dilan Yeşilgöz, said early in the campaign that she would not exclude Wilders’ PVV from coalition negotiations. Wilders has taken a more moderate tone since.
He told television current affairs show Nieuwsuur that his views on Islam are taking a back seat because “there are more important priorities” to deal with after the election, citing healthcare and social security. The first thing Wilders said during a televised debate on Monday was that “he was available” as a coalition party.
However, his anti-Islam rhetoric is still very much part of the PVV’s election program. Launched 13 years ago, the party has been campaigning to ban mosques and the Koran, as well as Islamic headscarves from government buildings.
Wilders is also openly hostile to the European Union. He wants a so-called “Nexit” referendum and on leaving the bloc has called for all weapon supplies to Ukraine to stop.
Polling frenzy
The unexpected surge of public support for Wilders’ party was first signaled by pollster de Hond – who overestimated Wilders’ share by five seats in the last election. In a survey of almost 7,000 people on 17 November, he found that the PVV and VVD were neck and neck in 26 of the 150 seats, thanks to a five-seat surge for Wilders.
POLITICO’s Poll of Polls showed Yeşilgöz leading with 18 percent as the campaign drew to its finale, closely followed by the parties of Wilders and Timmermans with 16 percent each. Omtzigt’s party has fallen back a little in recent days, to 15 percent in the Poll of Polls. Once the results are in, he could still emerge as kingmaker in coalition talks.
NETHERLANDS NATIONAL PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS
Even if the poll from de Hond proves to be a reliable prediction, the question is whether, and to what extent, the other parties want to work together with Wilders in government.
With his characteristic peroxide platinum hair, Wilders is the most experienced MP in parliament with 25 years under his belt. But his extreme views have kept him out of power-sharing coalitions, apart from in 2010, when he backed a Rutte minority cabinet for two years.
On Sunday, Yeşilgöz distanced herself from the PVV. “I refuse to shut out a single voter … [but] the PVV has policies like wanting the Netherlands to leave Europe, it wants a Nexit, it ignores climate problems, which would completely destroy this country,” she said.
Omtzigt has firmly ruled out joining forces with Wilders, saying his anti-Islam policies go against freedoms of expression and religion that are enshrined in the Dutch constitution.
Although Wilders emerging from the election as one of the biggest parties would be a nightmare scenario for supporters of the Green-Left alliance. Team Timmermans hopes that prospect might convince undecided and more progressive people to vote tactically for them to exclude the far right.
“It’s clear that Yeşilgöz has opened the door for Wilders in the government. This would mean someone participating in running the country who dismisses a million Dutch [Muslims] as second-class citizens,” Timmermans said.
Beyond the late surge for the far-right, the campaign has been dominated by three core issues: the cost of living, migration and climate change.
Against a backdrop of rising prices and a housing shortage that have left an estimated 830,000 people in poverty, most of the parties agree on the need to build more homes and spend more on welfare measures.
Wilders, Yeşilgöz and Omtzigt want to limit the number of asylum seekers and foreign workers — a plan that might prove difficult with the free movement of people under EU law. Timmermans is against limits but has proposed spreading asylum seekers more fairly across the country and reducing tax incentives for expats.
On climate, all main parties agree that the Netherlands needs to be climate neutral by 2050, except for Wilders who wants to leave the Paris agreement. Parties also agree that there is a need to reduce livestock and fertilizer use. The main disagreement has centered on nuclear energy. More rightwing and center parties are in favor of building new nuclear plants, but Timmermans has opposed this idea, saying it is risky, expensive, and challenging.
THE HAGUE — Dutch voters may be about to get someone very different from the outgoing veteran prime minister Mark Rutte.
A former refugee, Dilan Yeşilgöz, who succeeded Rutte as leader of the VVD party, is now leading the polls ahead of Wednesday’s vote and could become the first female prime minister in Dutch history.
The contest is on a knife-edge, with three parties vying to win the most seats, but her nearest rival, Pieter Omtzigt has signalled he may not want the top job for himself.
That makes it even likelier that Yeşilgöz, the country’s justice minister, will become premier at the head of the next government.
A self-confessed workaholic, Yeşilgöz is media savvy and does not talk much about being a woman in politics. She is invariably good humored and full of energy in public, despite what she says are “tough” demands of her current job. Her liberal-conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy is now in joint first place with 18 points in POLITICO’s Poll of Polls, after she took over from Rutte as its leader.
Her platform has been a promise to crack down on migration, an issue that has long dogged Dutch politics.
But Yeşilgöz told POLITICO it is her own background as a refugee that has shaped her view on migration.
“There’s an influx of too many people, not only asylum seekers but also migrant workers and international students, which means that we don’t have the capacity to help real refugees,” Yeşilgöz said. She listed problems in the system, including poor quality reception facilities for asylum seekers and housing shortages as obstacles.
Yet Yeşilgöz has a mountain ahead of her to succeed in the election.
If the VVD wins, it would be exceptional. There are hardly any examples of governing parties that, during a change in leadership, still remain the largest.
Yet the latest POLITICO Poll of Polls shows that VVD is neck and neck with centrist outsider Omtzigt’s new party, New Social Contract. The green-left alliance of Frans Timmermans is also in with a chance, on 15 percent.
NETHERLANDS NATIONAL PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS
As justice minister in the current caretaker government, she has been described as a tough negotiator and a strong communicator, who only does three things besides work: sleep, exercise and eating healthily.
But while Rutte has always been very private about his personal life, Yeşilgöz has been far more open, talking frankly about her marriage, her battles with an immune condition and her hesitation about having children.
Also unlike Rutte, who was often spotted cycling to appointments, Yeşilgöz is driven everywhere and has to be heavily protected by a personal security detail due to her position as a justice minister. “It is a big part of my life and that is very tough. But I choose to keep going, to not quit, because I will not be intimidated,” she said.
The increasingly violent and coarse nature of public discourse in the Netherlands is a growing issue in Dutch politics. Outgoing finance minister Sigrid Kaag announced earlier that she was leaving politics amid concerns over her safety.
Fair and strict
Brussels is also keeping a close eye on the upcoming election. The Netherlands has positioned itself under the leadership of Rutte as a reliable and dominant partner in the EU. But officials in embassies and institutions in Brussels now wonder if the next government will maintain such a positive role after the November 22 vote.
It’s a clear “yes” from Yeşilgöz, if she ends up as premier. “As a small country, we can play a big role. We have always done that, and it’s incredibly important that we will keep doing that,” she said.
Playing strict and and playing fair will be the main pillars that underpin her approach to the EU, said Yeşilgöz. That includes no tinkering with the criteria when new countries want to become an EU member — a debate that is already heating up in light of Ukraine’s application to join the 27-country bloc.
A man boards a tram next to a People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) campaign poster featuring a picture of party leader Dilan Yeşilgöz | Carl Court/Getty Images
Traditionally, the Dutch have been hawks-in-chief on EU fiscal policy, criticizing big spenders and demanding a reduction in debt levels. But in more recent times, the Dutch government has favored flexibility, within reason.
“Just being very strict and not looking at the context at all, I am exaggerating a bit, that’s not going to be our line,” Yeşilgöz said. “But being very flexible and actually making things less clear and more complex is not our line either. Europe must be a stable cooperation, and clear financial agreements are very important to this end.”
Post-Rutte
Although the VVD is leading in the polls, the race is far from done.
The main challenge for Yeşilgöz during the campaign has been to convince voters that she wants renewal despite her party being in power for more than a decade.
The past thirteen years a lot of things have been going well, she said, pointing to the fact that The Netherlands weathered the economic crisis and coronavirus pandemics relatively safely.
“At the same time, when you zoom in and see that many people with normal jobs and incomes lie awake at night because of their bills … so I can’t say that things are going well for everyone,” she said.
“On top of that there have been in the past years some blind spots,” she said. These included the poor handling of compensation claims in relation to earthquake damage in Groningen and a childcare benefits fiasco in which thousands of people, often dual-nationals, were incorrectly labeled fraudsters. “It is evident that we have learned from that and need to prevent new blind spots from appearing.”
And what of her former lader, Rutte? He was spotted in Brussels earlier this month on a visit to NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, after hinting he would like to take over the position at the top of the military alliance himself.
Asked whether Rutte was gunning to lead NATO, Yeşilgöz laughed.“Wherever he ends up, that organization is very lucky to have him,” she said.
LONDON — Rishi Sunak has said Britain will do “everything we can” to get aid into stricken Gaza — but warned any pause in fighting may be impossible to arrange.
Speaking to POLITICO’s Power Play podcast, the U.K. prime minister said he had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday about “the concept of humanitarian pauses” to allow aid to enter Gaza via the Mediterranean.
But Sunak added the strategy was not without risks.
“It’s hard to have completely reliable conversations with Hamas when you’re dealing with a terrorist organization, which is obviously present on the ground,” he told host Anne McElvoy.
Sunak’s statement comes after the first British nationals crossed the Rafah border crossing from Gaza into Egypt, following days of uncertainty about when foreign nationals would be able to leave the embattled territory.
Sunak added: “I remain cautiously optimistic that the flow of aid should and will increase across the Rafah crossing.”
Israel, which controls Gaza’s air, land and sea borders, imposed a “complete siege” on the territory in early October after an attack by Hamas. In doing so it cut off fuel, water and electricity — and stopped aid delivery of food and medicine — to 2.2 million people.
The majority of Gaza’s residents rely on humanitarian assistance, and before the Israel-Hamas war hundreds of aid trucks crossed into Gaza daily. Since the outbreak of hostilities, however, only dozens have been allowed across the border.
You can hear the full interview with Rishi Sunak here.
BRUSSELS — Defense ministers flying into the Belgian capital for a NATO meeting starting Wednesday were expecting to spend their time backing Ukraine — instead, they find their intel briefings full of a region mostly forgotten in the past two years: the Middle East.
From the White House’s new military support for Israel to emergency meetings across European capitals, to a fumbled EU response to the crisis, NATO allies are grappling with a renewed sense of urgency over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas’ surprise attacks on Israel over the weekend has led to the Israeli government’s vow of total retaliation in the Gaza Strip, with a record number of 300,000 reservists already drafted within 48 hours.
The timing is an inconvenience for the Ukrainians, who aim to galvanize further support from NATO countries in what will be the first defense ministers’ meeting following a NATO leaders’ summit in July that saw beefed-up pledges for Ukraine’s security and military support.
Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of the Ukrainian parliament’s committee on foreign policy, acknowledged the “fears” among his compatriots over whether the West can stay focused on Russia’s invasion while also dealing with the ongoing Israeli-Hamas situation.
“I can only speak for myself. Yes, there are such fears,” Merezhko told POLITICO. “But, at the same time, I think that in the end it will not be a problem, because the USA is such a powerful country in economic and military terms.”
While Ukraine’s new Defense Minister Rustem Umerov is scheduled to get hours of attention, Israel is also expected to be discussed — at least on the sidelines.
“I would be surprised if the situation in the Middle East isn’t mentioned at the meeting,” said a NATO diplomat granted anonymity to speak freely. A second diplomat said they expected strong interest in what U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had to say.
The interest isn’t unusual because Israel has a longtime partnership with NATO, another diplomat pointed out, so it would only be “natural” for the alliance to be concerned about its next steps.
Just a week before the Hamas attack, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, visited Israel to meet with President Isaac Herzog and military officials. Bauer also visited the Gaza border crossing, where he praised the Israeli military’s “unique expertise in underground counterterrorism activity.”
While the line from the White House is that the United States can deal with two regional crises at the same time, domestic skeptics of helping Ukraine are already piling on.
“Israel is facing existential threat. Any funding for Ukraine should be redirected to Israel immediately,” Josh Hawley, a Republican senator allied with former President Donald Trump, said on social media.
Pledges for Kyiv
U.S. officials are trying to dispel Ukrainian concerns, pointing out that the two countries have differing needs because they face very different threats.
“On the question of whether or not U.S. support for Israel could possibly come at the expense of U.S. support for Ukraine, we don’t anticipate any major challenges in that regard,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith told reporters on Tuesday. “I suspect the United States will be able to stay focused on our partnership and commitment to Israel’s security, while also meeting our commitments and promise to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends its territory.”
Hamas’ surprise attacks on Israel over the weekend has led to the Israeli government’s vow of total retaliation in the Gaza Strip | Eyad Baba/AFP via Getty Images
“I think allies no doubt will want to talk about what happened in Israel and express their solidarity. We’ve seen all members of the alliance issue their own national statements — really in real time almost as the attack was ongoing. And I suspect that will be part of our conversation,” Smith said.
Ukraine still remains a key focus for this week’s NATO meeting.
It begins on Wednesday with the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a regular gathering of NATO and Ukrainian ministers to discuss what weapons to give Ukraine. It will be followed by the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting, a format that’s already in its fourth edition since it was created in July, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended the NATO Summit in Lithuania.
“I anticipate that the emphasis will be mostly on air defense and ammunition although no doubt the Ukrainians will come in with a variety of other requests,” Smith said. “It always is an organic meeting where ministers step forward and offer assistance in real time.”
Shortly before the NATO meeting, Umerov, the Ukrainian defense minister, reached out to his Dutch counterpart, Kajsa Ollongren, on Ukraine’s “urgent needs” for air defense systems, long-range missiles and artillery. The Netherlands has also been leading on the F-16 fighter jet training for Ukraine’s pilots.
That’s a sign that the alliance can juggle both Ukraine and Israel, Ollongren told POLITICO.
“Splits? No. But I think of course there will also be attention and focus on Israel and how the situation is developing over there,” she said. “But I think it’s very important, it’s a good thing that we are meeting tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, to underline that the support for Ukraine is not affected.”
CORRECTION: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of the Dutch defense minister’s name: it is Kajsa Ollongren.
[ad_2]
Veronika Melkozerova, Stuart Lau, Paul McLeary and Laura Kayali
The Netherlands confirmed that it will provide Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets following approval from the U.S. allowing Ukrainian pilots to get training to fly the planes and eventually to provide the aircraft themselves.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received the assurance on the jets, which he called a “breakthrough agreement,” from Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte on a visit to Eindhoven on Sunday. Rutte confirmed that Denmark also will deliver F-16 aircraft to Kyiv, after the Biden administration last week gave final approval for the delivery of Dutch and Danish F-16s to Ukraine as soon as pilot training is complete.
The Dutch government did not immediately say when the first F-16s might enter the conflict or how many the Netherlands will send. Zelenskyy told reporters that the exact number of aircraft will be discussed “a little later,” Reuters reported.
“Today we can announce that the Netherlands and Denmark commit to the transfer of F-16 aircraft to Ukraine and the Ukrainian Air Force, including cooperation with the United States and other partners once the conditions for such a transfer have been met,” Rutte said at a joint press conference with Zelenskyy at a military air base in Eindhoven, according to Reuters.
Rutte said the Netherlands has 42 F-16s, but it is too early to say how many will be donated. The Danish Foreign Ministry confirmed its commitment to delivering F-16s in a statement on Sunday, also without specifying the number of aircraft or the timing.
Zelenskyy later Sunday traveled to Denmark, where Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she hoped the first Danish F-16s could be provided to Ukraine around year end.
To meet the conditions for the F-16 transfers, Ukrainian pilots will first have to undertake at least six months of training on the aircraft, as part of the terms set by the U.S.
The U.S. decision marks a sharp turnaround by the Biden administration, which for the last year had refused to approve any transfer of the aircraft or conduct training for fear that it could escalate tensions with Russia. The change indicates a new sense of urgency from Washington to get fighter jets to the battlefield as soon as possible, amid growing concerns about the prospects for Kyiv’s slow-going counteroffensive.
Zelenskyy has spent months pressing the West to provide his forces with modern jets to repel Moscow’s all-out invasion. And Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on Saturday stressed the need for Kyiv’s allies to continue supplying Ukrainian forces with the assistance needed to make its military push succeed.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned last month that Moscow will consider the supply of F-16s to Ukraine as “a threat from the West in the nuclear sphere” because of the jets’ ability to carry nuclear weapons. On Friday, he renewed the warning that in providing arms to Ukraine, the NATO allies risk entering “a situation of direct armed confrontation of nuclear powers.”
BRUSSELS — The Netherlands on Friday started enforcing new export controls restrictions on advanced microchips production machines to China, siding with Washington in the geopolitical tussle over who controls the critical technology.
The Dutch rules come in support of a U.S.-led strategy to choke off China from critical parts of the supply chain needed to manufacture high-end microchips used in consumer electronics, computing and other domains — including military applications. “It’s necessary to check in advance who’s the end user and what the end use is of the production equipment,” the Dutch advocate in the regulation.
But the measures also put a target on the back of Dutch semiconductor champion ASML — Europe’s highest-valued tech company with a market value of around €240 billion — and have caused critics in Europe to accuse the Dutch government of bowing to U.S. pressure too easily.
ASML already faced restrictions on the export of its most advanced machines, which use extreme ultraviolet light (EUV). The new rules require the company to apply for a permit for at least three types of its machines that use less advanced deep ultraviolet (DUV). The government expects about 20 annual applications in total for a permit because of the additional DUV restrictions.
Decoupling will be ‘extremely expensive’
The Dutch decision to align export controls policy with Washington and Tokyo has sidelined other European Union member countries and Europe’s own chips industry in past months.
The rules don’t seem to bite in the short term: ASML didn’t change its financial outlook for this year, nor its “longer-term scenarios.” Part of the explanation there is that ASML was still granted the necessary licenses it needed until the end of the year, an ASML spokesperson said Thursday, allowing the company to “fulfill contractual obligations.” The company added though that it was “unlikely” to receive export licences for Chinese customers from January onward.
But the company is fully aware that restrictions to the Chinese market out of security concerns could become a slippery slope, threatening its unique position in a global — and highly efficient — supply chain.
Decoupling between the West and China will be “extremely difficult and extremely expensive,” Christophe Fouquet, the company’s executive vice president, said in June. Earlier, ASML CEO Peter Wennink said that putting “locks” on the global chips ecosystem would have “far-reaching consequences.”
It could also incite China to accelerate its own production ecosystem for advanced chips — something that has not been sufficiently taken into consideration, according to critics of the export restrictions.
ASML CEO Peter Wennink said that putting “locks” on the global chips ecosystem would have “far-reaching consequences” | Bas Czerwinski/EFE via EPA
“We’re giving a clear signal to the world: The export of our products can stop if a country bothers the U.S., because the Netherlands immediately succumbs under the pressure,” Laurens Dassen, a Dutch lawmaker for the pan-European Volt party, said in a statement.
“You already see that China is starting to produce these chips itself instead of buying them from us,” Dassen said.
Seeking security
The Dutch decision has prompted the rest of the European Union to speed up their work to coordinate export controls and manage risks emanating from trading with China.
Before the summer, the European Commission presented its economic security package — including a promise to review the bloc’s export control regime. The Commission has said that it wants to come up with a “list of technologies which are critical to economic security” as part of the package.
Behind the scenes, diplomats and officials are squabbling over how to balance Europe’s need for trade defenses for security purposes with its strategy to promote free trade and keep its industries competitive with other regions.
It’s something that Dutch politicians welcome, if only to avoid being the only ones in Europe pioneering ways to regulate sensitive tech.
“In the previous decades, technology has become determinate for geopolitical relations. If that’s the case, you will need a policy in the area of technology,” Bart Groothuis, a liberal lawmaker who co-negotiated the bloc’s Chips Act, said. The Chips Act already has some provisions that allow for more European cooperation on export controls.
The Netherlands and Europe shouldn’t follow the U.S. “blindly” in that area, Volt’s Dassen added: “It’s about time that Europe determines its own fate. We have to make our own strategic choices and not be dependent” — on China, nor on the U.S.
BRUSSELS — The chips industry faces a different kind of summer heat: Chinese and Western governments meddling with its supply chains.
From Tuesday, China is putting the brakes on the export of two critical metals for making chips — gallium and germanium — in retaliation for the United States, the Netherlands and Japan curbing exports of some advanced chip printers. The Dutch restrictions, published before summer, will apply from September 1.
This tit-for-tat trade war is unfolding against the backdrop of a global subsidies race to re-shore and secure microchip production. What began in a time of pandemic-era shortages is now a race to avoid supply chokepoints in case conflict breaks out in Taiwan, a major chips hub.
Despite China’s stranglehold on raw materials — with, for example, 95 percent of the world’s supply of primary gallium — chips companies have stayed relatively quiet about the incoming restrictions in their recent quarterly earnings reports.
Europe’s leading chip makers, like NXP Semiconductors, rarely mention China’s upcoming raw materials restrictions in their earnings releases or follow-up calls with analysts.
There was equal indifference to the Western restrictions that provoked the Chinese counter-move. ASML, the Dutch chip equipment supplier that is the main target of the Dutch export controls, said the measures would not have a “material impact” on the firm’s 2023 outlook, nor on longer-term scenarios.
But that doesn’t mean there won’t be any consequences.
Because Chinese gallium and germanium producers will have to seek export permits, much will depend on how rigorous the permitting procedure is, analysts from research firm Wood Mackenzie wrote in a report in early July with the ominous title, “Chips wars: a sign of things to come?”
“If the permitting process restricts the supply of raw materials to chip manufacturers outside China, this will impact downstream end-use markets, including electric vehicles,” the report reads. That brings back memories of the chips shortages in 2020 and 2021, which increased waiting times for car deliveries.
Particularly vulnerable countries in Europe: Germany — the second-largest importer of gallium after Japan — and the Netherlands.
Ramping up
A bigger concern, however, is that the current restrictions are only the start of a larger escalating trade war. “The concern is that this protectionism could escalate to other critical materials end sectors,” according to the Wood Mackenzie report.
ASML CEO Peter Wennink was already forced to comment during the company’s quarterly earnings presentation on media reports that more chip export controls out of the U.S. are coming: “Of course, we will and cannot respond to speculation.” But more in general, he had to admit during the same earnings call that there’s “significant uncertainty” in the market, citing “the geopolitical environment, including export controls” as one of the reasons.
The message: The industry is waking up to the fact that governments consider semiconductors to be strategically important and no longer hesitate to intervene to secure their national security interests.
Both the U.S. and the EU have rolled out multibillions’ worth of subsidy programs — the EU’s Chips Act (€43 billion) and the U.S.’s CHIPS and Science Act ($52 billion) — to lure private investments from U.S.-based Intel, South Korea’s Samsung or Taiwan’s TSMC.
If that’s the carrot tack, some experts point out that governments are also increasingly using the stick approach of export controls — and the current pace of restrictions between the West and China would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
Chris Miller, an associate professor of international history at Tufts University and author of the book “Chip War,” said last week at an event in Washington that he was “surprised by the success” of the U.S.-led effort to build a coalition on export controls.
“Zoom back five years ago, in 2018, ask anyone in this room: Would it have been possible to have established an export control regime bringing together countries from Europe and Asia? Most people would have bet against it,” Miller said.
It’s a new reality for the companies involved — and one that could have unintended consequences.
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger summed it up at the Aspen Security Forum earlier in July: “Right now, China represents 25 to 30 percent of semiconductor exports. If I have 25 or 30 percent less market, I need to build [fewer] factories.”
That comment got a rebuke from U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who said that she didn’t see “any inconsistency” between the export controls to China and the U.S.’s multibillion-dollar plan to re-shore chips capacity.
Brendan Bordelon contributed reporting from Washington.
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.
