Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Milei Called the Pope a ‘Filthy Leftist.’ He Could Be Argentina’s Next President.

      by

      Javier Milei is leading the race to be Argentina’s next president. But he is dogged by his past broadsides against a fellow countryman: Pope Francis.Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian leading the polls in Argentina’s presidential election this month, has made a lot of contentious statements in recent years: Humans did not cause climate change; people should be able to sell their organs; his nation’s currency “is not even good as manure.”But, to many Argentines, he has done something far worse: attacked the pope.In 2020, Mr. Milei, a self-identifying Catholic, called Pope Francis an “imbecile” and “the representative of the Evil One on earth” because he defends “social justice.” Last year, Mr. Milei said the pope “always stands on the side of evil” because he supports taxes.And last month, in an interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Mr. Milei said the pope “has an affinity for murderous communists” and is violating the Ten Commandments.Those are bold words for a man trying to become president in Argentina, where nearly two out of three people identify as Catholic, where the state is officially Catholic and where the Argentine pope is, to many, a national hero.But Mr. Milei — a Rolling Stones cover band singer turned libertarian economist turned television pundit turned politician — is not your average presidential candidate.He has run with little party structure around him. He has vowed to decimate the government he is vying to lead. He promises deep cuts to social services. He wants to discard his nation’s currency.And instead of campaigning with a spouse and children, Mr. Milei has an immediate family that consists of his sister (who runs his campaign), his girlfriend (who gets paid to impersonate a political archrival) and his five Mastiff dogs (which are clones of his previous dog).The approach may be unorthodox, but it is working.In August, Mr. Milei won open primaries with 30 percent of the vote, ahead of candidates from the center-left party running the country and the establishment conservative party.Since then, he has continued to lead polls and analysts say he is likely to attract enough votes in the election on Sunday to either head to a runoff or win the presidency outright.But his past comments are still shadowing him.“He talked trash about the pope,” said Maria Vera, 47, an empanada seller in a large slum called Villa 21-24 in southern Buenos Aires. “If Milei doesn’t have respect for our holiest priest, I don’t know whom he’s going to have respect for.” She is not voting for him, she said.On a road leading to the slum, walls were covered with posters of the pope’s face and a clear message: “Milei hates him. The people love him. Which side are you on?”Posters near the Villa 21-24 slum in Buenos Aires read, “Milei hates him. The people love him. Which side are you on?”Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe Vatican has stayed quiet on the issue and did not respond to a request for comment. But in Argentina, church leaders are pushing back.Last month, some of Argentina’s top Catholic priests organized a mass in Villa 21-24 to atone for Mr. Milei’s “shameful insults” toward the pope. They erected an altar outside the church, and 30 priests stood and read a statement supporting Pope Francis, as parishioners filled the road.The leader of the church, the Rev. Lorenzo de Vedia, known widely as Padre Toto, said much of his flock continued to bring up Mr. Milei’s comments. “Even people who are not so involved in the daily life of the church are really offended,” all the more so, he said, now that Mr. Milei “has a chance to be president.”Mr. Milei’s campaign declined to make him available for an interview.His opponents have tried to seize on the controversy.Sergio Massa, Argentina’s finance minister, who is polling just behind Mr. Milei, used his one chance to question Mr. Milei during a debate this month to needle him about the pope. “You insulted the head of the church,” he said. “Please use these 45 seconds to ask for forgiveness to the most important Argentine in history.”Mr. Milei sought to dismiss his past comments, saying he made them before he entered politics, though several have come since he was elected to Congress in 2021. He also said he had apologized to the pope, though The Times could not find a record of that and his campaign could not provide specifics.“I have no problem apologizing if I am wrong,” Mr. Milei said to his opponent at the debate. “Stop taunting me and focus on lowering inflation.”The Rev. Lorenzo de Vedia at his church in the Villa 21-24 slum. He said his parishioners had been offended by Mr. Mille’s comments about the pope.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesSome people who were once close to Mr. Milei have criticized his comments about the pope.Eduardo Eurnekian, one of Argentina’s most prominent businessmen and Mr. Milei’s former boss when he was an economist, said in a radio interview that Mr. Milei’s comments were “totally out of line,” adding that “the pope is the pope, he has a huge responsibility, and we’ve been respecting his figure for over 2,000 years.”But plenty of other allies — and voters — are less troubled by his comments.In the tiny town of Chicoana in northern Argentina, Daniel Mamani, 64, has played the role of Jesus Christ in the town’s Easter celebration for more than a decade.While Mr. Milei’s comments about the pope made him uncomfortable, he said, he plans to vote for him because the country needs change. “He will have to pay for his debts, won’t he? That is, with the Lord above,” Mr. Mamani, an auto mechanic, said. “I’m interested in the part that is going to help Argentina’s well-being.”Daniel Mamaní, a mechanic, says he plans to vote for Mr. Milei despite the candidate’s views on the pope.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesLilia Lemoine, Mr. Milei’s friend and hair stylist running for Congress on his ticket, said that she and Mr. Milei had long spoken about what she described as the pope’s leftist positions.“I think exactly the same as he does,” she said of Mr. Milei. The pope “supports communism and gender ideology, and I don’t think that’s what Catholicism is.” She added, “Javier apologized for what he said, but I wouldn’t.”Ms. Lemoine said that Mr. Milei had also been moving away from the Catholic church in other ways. “Now he is studying kabbalah,” a form of Jewish mysticism, she said. “He became really close friends with a couple of rabbis.”In fact, after Mr. Milei won a seat in Argentina’s Congress in 2021, several Argentine news outlets quoted him as saying that he was considering converting to Judaism and aspired “to become the first Jewish president in the history of Argentina.” Mr. Milei’s campaign denied that he had ever said that.In August, in an interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nación, Mr. Milei said that, in many ways, he felt Jewish. “I don’t go to church, I go to temple,” he said. “I don’t talk to priests, I have a head rabbi and I study Torah. I am internationally recognized as a friend of Israel and a Torah scholar.” Last month, Mr. Milei said he went to Miami to spend Shabbat with friends and then flew to New York to meet with a rabbi.Still, Mr. Milei has continued to describe himself as a Catholic and has staked out positions more in line with Vatican policy than his opponents, including aiming to ban abortion, which was legalized in Argentina in 2020.Pope Francis was born as Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires in 1936. From 1998 to his election as pope in 2013, he was Argentina’s highest Catholic official, known for his work with the poor.Pope Francis, then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, on the subway in Buenos Aires in 2008. He is the first pope from the Americas.Pablo Leguizamon/Associated PressThe pope has clashed with politicians before. His staunch support for the Vatican’s positions on social issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and adoptions by gay couples, also made him a sort of political rival to the former left-wing presidents of Argentina, Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.In 2010, when Mrs. Kirchner’s government supported legalizing same-sex marriage, Francis, who was not yet pope, described the law as “a maneuver by the devil.” Mrs. Kirchner fired back that the church’s stance was “medieval.”Mr. Milei’s criticism has been much harsher. He has called Pope Francis a “filthy leftist,” an “embarrassing communist,” a “piece of shit” and a “potato.” (The Spanish word for “pope” also means “potato.”)During his 10 years as the first pope from the Americas, Pope Francis has visited all of Argentina’s neighbors — but not Argentina. It has been widely speculated that he has avoided his home country to keep out of its polarizing politics.But Francis has said he plans to return home next year.Who might be welcoming him? President Milei.Natalie Alcoba More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Poland Election: Centrists Poised to Oust Law and Justice Party

      by

      The election, seen as one of the most significant in decades, was cast as a choice between the defense of Polish sovereignty and liberal values.Centrist and progressive forces appeared capable of forming a new government in Poland after securing more seats in a critical general election on Sunday, despite the governing nationalist party, Law and Justice, winning the most votes for a single party.Exit polls showing a strong second place finish by the main opposition group, Civic Coalition, and better than expected results for two smaller centrist and progressive parties suggested a dramatic upset that would frustrate the governing party’s hope of an unprecedented third consecutive term.A jubilant Donald Tusk, Civic Coalition’s leader, declared the projected results a resounding “win for democracy” that would end the rule of Law and Justice, known by its Polish acronym PiS, in power since 2015.“We did it! We really did!” Mr. Tusk, a former prime minister, told supporters Sunday night. “This is the end of this bad time! This is the end of PiS rule!”The election for a new Parliament, held after a vicious campaign in the highly polarized nation, was closely watched abroad, including in Russia and Ukraine, and viewed by many Poles as the most consequential vote since they rejected communism in the country’s first partly free election in 1989. Reflecting the high-stakes, nearly 73 percent of the electorate voted, the highest turnout in a Polish election since the end of communist rule.Both the governing Law and Justice and Civic Coalition cast the election as an existential moment of decision on Poland’s future as a stable democratic state.Voting on Sunday in Gdansk, Poland. The election in Poland, held after an often vicious campaign in the highly polarized nation, has been closely watched abroad.Mateusz Slodkowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIf early forecasts turn out to be correct when final official results are announced, probably on Tuesday, Civic Coalition and its potential partners won 248 seats in the 460-member legislature, compared with 200 won by Law and Justice.Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the governing party’s chairman and Poland’s de facto leader for the last eight years, also claimed victory, declaring the vote “a great success for our formation, our project for Poland.” But he acknowledged that his party would have trouble forming a government if the exit polls are correct.Konfederacja, a radical right-wing grouping that shares many of the nationalist views of Law and Justice, won only 6.2 percent of the vote, giving it 12 seats. Exit polls are generally reliable in Poland but some experts cautioned that the unusually high turnout could make them less accurate. Because of long queues at polling stations voting continued late into the night in some places.Exit polls released by Poland’s three main television channels indicated that Law and Justice had won the most votes overall — 36.8 percent — compared with 31.6 percent for Civic Coalition. Two smaller parties, Third Way, an alliance of centrists, and The Left reached the necessary threshold to enter the more powerful lower house of Parliament, the Sejm.Seats in the Sejm are apportioned under a complicated proportional system that makes it difficult to determine with precision the future balance of power until all of the votes have been counted and those of smaller parties that failed to reach the threshold (5 percent for parties and 8 percent for coalitions) are redistributed among the top finishers.Przemyslaw Adynowski, a Warsaw lawyer, said he had voted for Civic Coalition in what he described as “probably the most important election in 30 years.” A victory for Law and Justice, he added, would complete Poland’s “phase of transition from democracy to an authoritarian system” and put it at odds with its allies in NATO and the European Union, except for Hungary, a much smaller nation with little clout.Campaign posters last week in Gorno, Poland. The governing Law and Justice party and its main rival, Civic Coalition, cast the election as an existential moment of decision on Poland’s future as a stable democratic state.Wojtek Radwanski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPiotr Buras, the head of the Warsaw office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, declared the election “a triumph of both democracy and liberalism” that “opens the way for a massive reorientation of Poland’s domestic and European policy.”The result was particularly striking given that Law and Justice enjoyed a big advantage thanks to its tight control of Poland’s public broadcasting system, a nationwide network of television and radio stations that is supposed to be neutral but mostly served as a propaganda bullhorn for the incumbent party.The playing field was further tilted in the governing party’s favor by the holding of a referendum alongside the parliamentary election. Voters were asked to answer four loaded questions about immigration and other issues that were clearly intended to cast the European Union, and by association the opposition, in a bad light.One asked: “Do you support the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, in accordance with the forced relocation mechanism imposed by European bureaucracy?”The referendum short-circuited campaign finance restrictions, allowing Law and Justice to deploy state funds to promote supposedly neutral information about questions heavily slanted in its favor. Many voters, however, declined to answer referendum questions, viewing the exercise as a stunt by the governing party.Law and Justice hoped that the referendum would help revive an anti-migrant message that has for years been its electoral strong suit, but one that lost its edge in the final weeks of the campaign when some of its officials became embroiled in a visas-for-cash scandal. Evidence that a large number of Polish work visas, valid across the European Union, had been sold to African and Asian migrants led to the abrupt resignation of a deputy foreign minister and his removal from a list of candidates put forward by Law and Justice.Mr. Kaczysnki, the party’s chairman, warned that a vote for his opponents, led by Mr. Tusk, a former president of the European Council, the European Union’s main power center, would mean subordinating Poland’s national interests to those of Berlin and Brussels and the end of Poland as an independent democratic country.“They intend to eliminate democracy and any traces of the rule of law in Poland,” Mr. Kaczysnki said this month at a party convention.Mr. Tusk’s camp, for its part, presented Mr. Kaczynski as a mortal threat to liberal democracy and to Poland’s continued membership of the European Union, with which the departing Law and Justice government clashed repeatedly over the rule of law, the protection of minority rights and other issues.The election campaign was so vituperative and unsettling that many Poles, particularly opposition supporters, could not wait for it to be over.“It was awful, so brutal,” said Ewa Zabowska, a retired Health Ministry official, after casting her vote for the opposition at a Warsaw primary school. “It went on for too long. Nonstop lies for months.”What Ms. Zabowska viewed as lies, however, fans of Law and Justice accepted as alarming truths. “Tusk is an emissary of Germany — he will do exactly what Germany dictates,” Antoni Zdziaborski, a retired Warsaw tram driver, said after voting for the governing party.Anatol Magdziarz in Warsaw contributed reporting. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Daniel Noboa gana la elección presidencial de Ecuador

      by

      El candidato de centroderecha enfocado en el empleo se impuso a la candidata de izquierda en unas elecciones decisivas centradas en la economía y el aumento de la violencia de las pandillas.Daniel Noboa, el heredero de un imperio de banano de 35 años, ganó la elección presidencial de Ecuador el domingo, en una campaña electoral en la que había mucho en juego y estuvo impulsada por la frustración del electorado de un país afectado por la violencia y una economía en crisis.Noboa, figura outsider de centroderecha, derrotó a Luisa González, la candidata de la izquierda elegida personalmente por el expresidente Rafael Correa, quien contendió con la promesa de regresar al país al periodo de prosperidad y bajas tasas de homicidios durante el gobierno correísta.Los resultados de la votación indican un deseo de cambio en un país de más de 17 millones de habitantes en la costa occidental de Sudamérica que ha experimentado un aumento en la violencia de grupos criminales internacionales y pandillas locales, que han transformado Ecuador en un actor clave en el tráfico mundial de las drogas, lo que ha llevado a decenas de miles de ecuatorianos a migrar hacia la frontera entre México y Estados Unidos.Como buena parte de América Latina, Ecuador ha sufrido un golpe económico importante por la pandemia del coronavirus, y muchas personas han batallado para ganar suficiente dinero para proveer para sus familias. Solo el 34 por ciento de los ecuatorianos tienen un empleo adecuado, según los datos del gobierno.Noboa, lleva el 52,29 por ciento de los votos, mientras que González lleva el 47,71 por ciento, con más del 93 por ciento de los votos escrutados el domingo en la tarde, de acuerdo con las cifras oficiales.González aceptó su derrota en un discurso y agradeció a sus seguidores.“A los que no votaron por nosotros, pues nuestras felicitaciones, porque ha ganado aquel candidato que eligieron y, como ecuatorianos, también abrazarlos”, dijo. “Y, por supuesto, al candidato, ahora presidente electo, Daniel Noboa, nuestras felicitaciones profundas porque es democracia. Nosotros jamás hemos llamado a incendiar una ciudad ni jamás salimos gritando fraude”.Ecuador había sido un país pacífico en comparación con sus vecinos, en especial Colombia, que por décadas estuvo afectada por la violencia de grupos armados guerrilleros, unidades paramilitares y carteles de las drogas.Ese panorama cambió en los años recientes, cuando Colombia forjó un acuerdo de paz con el grupo guerrillero, de corte izquierdista, más grande del país, y Ecuador comenzó a estar dominado por la red cada vez más poderosa del narcotráfico, que incluye a cárteles mexicanos y pandillas albanesas. A través de los puertos de la costa del Pacífico, Ecuador se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo de la cocaína que se contrabandea a Europa.Oficiales de la policía inspeccionan productos del mar destinados a exportación en el puerto de Guayaquil, Ecuador. El país se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo de cocaína que se contrabandea a Europa.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesCon regularidad, las noticias presentan decapitaciones, atentados con coches bomba, asesinatos de policías, jóvenes colgados de puentes y niños asesinados a tiros frente a sus casas o escuelas.Cuando Noboa tome juramento, tendrá un mandato presidencial hasta mayo de 2025. En ese tiempo, será obligado a lidiar con los grupos internacionales que han unido fuerzas con las pandillas de las prisiones en una competencia brutal por el lucrativo mercado de las drogas.Y con poca experiencia en cargos del gobierno y una Asamblea Nacional fragmentada, los analistas aseguran que será un desafío.Es posible que le tome mucho tiempo lograr formar una coalición de gobierno, y probablemente esta será ideológicamente incoherente e impredecible, dijo Will Freeman, investigador de Estudios Latinoamericanos en el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, un instituto de investigación estadounidense.Noboa ha intentado superar la polarización entre la izquierda y la derecha durante su campaña electoral. Sin embargo, su elección de compañera de fórmula, Verónica Abad, desconcertó a muchos analistas. Abad es una coach de negocios de derecha que se ha pronunciado en contra del aborto, el feminismo y los derechos de la comunidad LGBTQ, y que ha expresado apoyo por Donald Trump y Jair Bolsonaro, el expresidente de extrema derecha de Brasil.“Si eso es un indicio”, dijo Freeman, “creo que este gobierno va a ser un verdadero revoltijo”.Noboa ha prometido detener la violencia, aunque ni él ni González hicieron de la seguridad un tema central de sus campañas.Ambos candidatos han mencionado que brindarán más fondos a la policía y emplearán al ejército para resguardar los puertos, que se usan para el narcotráfico, y las prisiones, que están bajo el control de pandillas violentas.Soldados patrullando las calles de Durán, una ciudad en la costa del Pacífico de Ecuador dominada por grupos locales vinculados al narcotráfico.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesNoboa ha propuesto utilizar la tecnología, como drones y sistemas de rastreo satelital, para detener al narcotráfico; sugirió buques prisión como una forma de aislar a los reos más violentos.Pero los analistas comentan que los dos candidatos han fallado al no priorizar el combate al crimen que ha desestabilizado a Ecuador y lo ha convertido en uno de los países más violentos de América Latina.El presidente saliente, Guillermo Lasso, convocó a elecciones anticipadas en mayo al enfrentarse a un proceso de destitución por acusaciones de malversación de fondos. Lasso también se ha hecho cada vez más impopular entre los votantes enfadados por la incapacidad del gobierno para hacer frente a la espiral de violencia.El asesinato en agosto de un candidato presidencial, Fernando Villavicencio, conmocionó a una nación que acudió a las urnas durante la que ha sido quizás la temporada electoral más violenta en su historia.Además de Villavicencio —quien se expresó abiertamente sobre supuestos vínculos entre el crimen organizado y el gobierno— otros cinco políticos han sido asesinados este año. A principios de este mes, siete hombres acusados de asesinar a Villavicencio fueron hallados muertos en prisión. Estos sucesos solo han agudizado el deseo de cambio de los ecuatorianos.La probable victoria de Noboa desafía la reciente tendencia de las victorias de la izquierda en otros países de la región, como Colombia, Chile, Brasil y Bolivia, pero se alinea con una incipiente demanda de figuras al margen de la política tradicional en las próximas elecciones argentinas.González, de 45 años, fue la candidata elegida por Correa, quien dirigió el país de 2007 a 2017. Su estrecha relación con él contribuyó a elevar su perfil político, pero también la perjudicó entre algunos votantes.Luisa González, quien aspiraba a ser la primera mujer elegida a la presidencia, llegando a votar el domingo.Ariel Ochoa/Associated PressEn cambio, Noboa, educado en Harvard, proviene de una de las familias más ricas de América Latina, conocida por la mayoría de los ecuatorianos por su imperio bananero, que cuenta con una de las marcas de fruta más conocidas del mundo, Bonita Banana.Pero los vastos activos de la familia Noboa son variados e incluyen fertilizantes, plásticos, cartón y el complejo de almacenamiento de contenedores más grande del país.El padre de Noboa se postuló cinco veces a la presidencia sin éxito, pero la carrera política del joven Noboa apenas se remonta a 2021, cuando fue elegido para la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Noboa se ha calificado a sí mismo como el “presidente del empleo”, hasta el punto de incluir una planilla de solicitud laboral en su sitio web, y ha prometido atraer la inversión y el comercio internacional y reducir los impuestos.A pesar de su pedigrí familiar, Noboa ha tratado de diferenciarse, señalando que tiene su propio negocio y que su riqueza personal está valorada en menos de un millón de dólares.Daniel Noboa, candidato de centroderecha, ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSu padre, que perdió contra Correa en 2006, se refirió con frecuencia a su oponente de izquierda como un “diablo comunista”. Pero su hijo ha evitado atacar directamente al “correísmo”, y la victoria del joven Noboa demuestra que los votantes están hartos de las divisiones políticas tradicionales.Pablo Pérez, de 29 años, ingeniero de datos en la ciudad portuaria de Guayaquil, dijo que votó por Noboa porque “más que todo, él es una persona nueva, que trae cosas nuevas”.“La otra candidata, en cambio”, dijo Pérez, “representa un gobierno que ya tuvimos en el país y que aunque tuvo sus cosas buenas, tuvo, sobre todo, cosas malas”.También se sintió atraído por las propuestas en cuanto a seguridad de Noboa.“Necesitamos que la seguridad mejore inmediatamente, porque no podemos salir a la calle así como estamos”, dijo. “Todos los negocios están cerrados. Hay una sensación de miedo”.Nelson Ramiro Obando, de 60 años, un trabajador jubilado en Quito, dijo que votó por Noboa por su juventud, su experiencia empresarial y su actuación en uno de los debates, en el que pareció “mucho más preparado”.“Estamos en riesgo todos los días los ciudadanos”, dijo Obando. “El señor Noboa no va a poder hacer mucho —es apenas un año y medio— pero con que solucione un poco la inseguridad que vivimos, yo estaría más que agradecido”.Genevieve Glatsky More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Ecuador a segunda vuelta presidencial: lo que hay que saber

      by

      En las elecciones del domingo está en juego el futuro de un país que ha sido azotado por grupos criminales que han convertido a la nación en una pieza clave en el comercio internacional de la droga.Daniel Noboa es uno de los candidatos que aspira a convertirse en el presidente de Ecuador. Aspirante de centroderecha, Noboa es el heredero de un imperio de banano a quien un electorado ansioso de cambio, en un país que sufre por la violencia y una economía en crisis, respaldó para llegar a un sorprendente segundo lugar en la primera vuelta en agosto.Noboa se enfrenta a Luisa González, una candidata de izquierda del establishment quien, en su intento por convertirse en la primera mujer elegida para la presidencia del país, les ha prometido a los votantes el regreso a un momento en el que el nivel de la violencia era bajo y el precio del petróleo, una industria clave, era alto.En las elecciones del domingo está en juego el futuro de este país latinoamericano de más de 17 millones, que una vez fue un remanso tranquilo que ha sido trastocado por grupos criminales internacionales, convirtiendo a Ecuador en un jugador clave en el comercio internacional de la droga.Grupos criminales internacionales que trabajan con pandillas locales han desatado una oleada de violencia sin precedentes que ha hecho que decenas de miles de ecuatorianos se encaminen a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, parte de una afluencia de migración que ha desbordado al gobierno de Joe Biden.Como gran parte del resto de América Latina, Ecuador recibió un fuerte golpe financiero por la pandemia del coronavirus y a muchos trabajadores les cuesta obtener suficiente dinero para mantener a sus familias.Esto es lo que debes saber sobre la votación.Guillermo Lasso, presidente saliente de Ecuador, antes de hablar en las Naciones Unidas el mes pasado. Convocó a elecciones anticipadas tras enfrentar un proceso de juicio de destitución por parte de la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Maansi Srivastava/The New York Times¿Qué hace a estas elecciones diferentes de otras?Guillermo Lasso, el presidente saliente, convocó en mayo elecciones anticipadas para evitar un juicio de destitución por acusaciones de malversación de fondo. Lasso también se ha vuelto cada vez más impopular con los votantes indignados ante la incapacidad del gobierno por detener la violencia.El asesinato del candidato presidencial Fernando Villavicencio mientras salía de un evento de campaña en agosto conmocionó a una nación que se dirigirá a las urnas de votación durante la que ha sido quizás la temporada electoral más violenta en su historia.Este año han sido asesinados cinco políticos, además de Villavicencio —quien se expresó abiertamente sobre supuestos vínculos entre el gobierno y el crimen organizado— y la semana pasada siete hombres imputados por el asesinato de Villavicencio fueron hallados muertos en prisión.Quien gane ocupará la presidencia solo durante alrededor de un año y medio. Noboa ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días y algunas encuestas lo muestran muy cercano a González.Oficiales de la policía inspeccionan productos del mar destinados a exportación en el puerto de Guayaquil, Ecuador. El país se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo de cocaína que se contrabandea a Europa.Victor Moriyama para The New York Times¿Qué está en juego en estas elecciones?Ecuador solía ser un país pacífico en comparación con sus vecinos, en particular Colombia, nación que por décadas estuvo azotada por la violencia entre unidades guerrilleras armadas, grupos paramilitares y organizaciones del narcotráfico.Todo eso cambió en los últimos años, cuando Colombia forjó un acuerdo de paz con el grupo guerrillero de izquierda más grande del país, y Ecuador empezó a ser dominado por una red del tráfico de drogas cada vez más poderosa que incluye cárteles mexicanos y pandillas albanesas.A través de sus puertos en la costa del Pacífico, Ecuador se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo para la cocaína que es contrabandeada a Europa. Algunas organizaciones internacionales han unido fuerzas con pandillas radicadas en prisiones en una competencia brutal por el lucrativo mercado de la droga.Las noticias presentan periódicamente decapitaciones, atentados con coches bomba, asesinatos policiales, jóvenes colgados de puentes y niños asesinados frente a sus casas o escuelas.Luisa González es la candidata del establishment de izquierda, elegida personalmente por un expresidente.Rodrigo Buendia/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images¿Quién es Luisa González?González, de 45 años, es la candidata elegida personalmente por el expresidente Rafael Correa, quien lideró el país de 2007 a 2017. González ostentó varios cargos en su gobierno antes de ser elegida a la Asamblea Nacional en 2021, una posición que mantuvo hasta que Lasso disolvió la legislatura en mayo.Su campaña ha buscado apelar a la nostalgia de los votantes por las bajas tasas de homicidios y el auge de las materias primas que sacaron a millones de la pobreza durante el gobierno de Correa. El lema de campaña de González en la primera vuelta fue “ya lo hicimos y lo volveremos a hacer”.Pero el estrecho vínculo de González con el expresidente también conlleva riesgos. El estilo autoritario de Correa y las acusaciones de corrupción dividieron profundamente el país. Correa vive en el exilio, en Bélgica, huyendo de una sentencia de cárcel por violaciones en la financiación de su campaña, y muchos ecuatorianos temen que una presidencia de González allane el camino para que Correa regrese y vuelva a postularse para la presidencia.González se ha comprometido a recurrir a las reservas del banco central para estimular la economía e incrementar el financiamiento al sistema de salud pública y las universidades públicas.“Sabemos que está con el pueblo, no con la gente rica y por eso va a mejorar las cosas para nosotros”, dijo Oswaldo Proaño, un vendedor ambulante de 40 años, en Quito, la capital, quien habló en medio de gritos y silbidos en un mitin de campaña reciente de González.“Con Luisa vamos a tener seguridad, como la teníamos en el tiempo de Rafael Correa”, dijo Luisa María Manteca, de 65 años, quien trabaja en una distribuidora de productos cosméticos en Quito. “Con él, el país marchó bien y hay que continuar por ese rumbo”.La posibilidad de que González se convierta en la primera mujer en ganar la presidencia de Ecuador también atrae a muchos votantes.“Es una persona muy humilde”, dijo Debora Espinosa, una estudiante universitaria de 19 años. “Como mujer nos entiende”.Daniel Noboa, candidato de centroderecha, ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images¿Quién es Daniel Noboa?Noboa, de 35 años, proviene de una de las familias más ricas de América Latina, conocida por la mayoría de los ecuatorianos por su imperio bananero, que tiene una de las marcas de fruta más conocidas del mundo, bananas Bonita.Pero los vastos activos de la familia Noboa son variados e incluyen fertilizantes, plásticos, cartón y el complejo de almacenamiento de contenedores más grande del país.El padre de Noboa se postuló cinco veces a la presidencia sin éxito, pero la carrera política del joven Noboa apenas se remonta a 2021, cuando fue elegido para la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Noboa se ha calificado a sí mismo como el “presidente del empleo”, hasta el punto de incluir una planilla de solicitud laboral en su sitio web, y ha prometido atraer la inversión y el comercio internacional y reducir los impuestos.Pero al igual que su padre, Noboa también ha generado críticas de analistas que temen que pueda utilizar su presidencia para favorecer el cada vez mayor imperio empresarial de su familia.En un reciente evento de campaña, cientos de estudiantes universitarios hicieron fila en la ciudad costera de Guayaquil, la ciudad más poblada del país y uno de los epicentros de la violencia, donde esperaron más de una hora para ver a Noboa.Noboa se quitó el chaleco antibalas y, lenta y tranquilamente, respondió las preguntas de los estudiantes, repitiendo sus temas de debate sobre convertir a Ecuador en un mercado atractivo para la banca internacional. Fue recibido con aplausos, vítores y adolescentes corriendo para tomarse selfies con él.“He estado viendo sus entrevistas y me gustan sus propuestas en temas como la dolarización, la educación y el trabajo”, dijo Dereck Delgado, un estudiante de ingeniería eléctrica de 17 años, quien planea votar por Noboa. (La edad mínima para votar en Ecuador es 16, y es un deber obligatorio para los mayores de 18 años).Muchos votantes también apoyan a Noboa porque representa una alternativa al partido de Correa. Valeria Vásquez, de 33 años, quien administra una compañía local de productos de belleza en Guayaquil, dijo que le gustaba que Noboa “no es socialista”.Otra simpatizante de Noboa, Natasha Villegas, una estudiante universitaria de 19 años en Guayaquil, afirmó que creía que había llegado la “hora de darle la oportunidad a una persona joven”.¿Qué dicen los candidatos sobre la seguridad?Noboa y González han prometido frenar la violencia, pero ninguno de los dos ha hecho de la seguridad una parte central de sus campañas.Ambos candidatos han hablado sobre proporcionarle más dinero a la policía y desplegar las fuerzas militares para asegurar los puertos que se utilizan para el contrabando de drogas fuera del país y las prisiones, las cuales están controladas por violentas pandillas.González ha señalado los arrestos de varios líderes de pandillas criminales durante su tiempo en el gobierno de Correa como evidencia de su intención de aplicar una mano firme.Noboa ha propuesto el uso de la tecnología, como drones y sistemas de rastreo satelital, para combatir el narcotráfico, y ha sugerido la construcción de barcos prisión para aislar a los reclusos más violentos.Sin embargo, los analistas afirman que ninguno de los dos candidatos ha hecho lo suficiente para darle prioridad al combate del crimen que ha desestabilizado a Ecuador y ha convertido a la nación en uno de los países más violentos de América Latina.Thalíe Ponce colaboró con reportería desde Guayaquil; Emilia Paz y Miño y José María León Cabrera colaboraron desde Quito. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Ecuador’s Presidential Election: What to Know

      by

      A center-right businessman and a leftist candidate are vying for the presidency on Sunday at a moment when the country is facing growing insecurity fueled by international criminal groups.One candidate seeking to become Ecuador’s president is Daniel Noboa, a center-right scion of a banana empire who was lifted to a surprising second-place finish in a runoff in August by an electorate hungry for change in a country suffering from violence and an ailing economy.Mr. Noboa is facing Luisa González, a leftist establishment candidate who, in trying to become the first woman elected the country’s president, is promising voters a return to a period when violence was low and the price of oil, a key industry, was high.At stake in Sunday’s election is the future of this Latin American nation of more than 17 million, a once tranquil haven that has been upended by international criminal groups that have turned Ecuador into a key player in the global drug trade.Working with local gangs, the global cartels have unleashed a surge of violence that has sent tens of thousands of Ecuadoreans fleeing to the U.S.-Mexico border, part of a migration wave that has overwhelmed the Biden administration.Like much of the rest of Latin America, Ecuador was dealt a major financial blow by the coronavirus pandemic and many workers struggle to make enough money provide for their families.Here’s what you need to know about the vote.Guillermo Lasso, the outgoing president of Ecuador, before speaking at the United Nations last month. He called early elections as he faced an impeachment proceeding by Ecuador’s legislature.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesWhat makes this election different from others?The outgoing president, Guillermo Lasso, called for early elections in May as he faced impeachment proceedings against him stemming from accusations of embezzlement. Mr. Lasso had also grown increasingly unpopular with voters angry over the government’s inability to address the spiraling violence.The assassination of a presidential candidate, Fernando Villavicencio, as he left a campaign event in August was a traumatic jolt for a nation that heads to the polls during what has been perhaps the most violent electoral season in its history.Beside Mr. Villavicencio — who was outspoken about what he claimed were links between organized crime and the government — five other politicians have been killed this year. Last week, seven men accused of killing Mr. Villavicencio were found dead in prison.Whoever wins will hold the presidency for only about a year and a half. Mr. Noboa has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though it has narrowed slightly in recent days and some surveys show him neck and neck with Ms. González.Police inspecting seafood destined for export at the port of Guayaquil, Ecuador. The country has become a major transshipment point for cocaine that is smuggled to Europe.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesWhat is at stake in this election?Ecuador was once a peaceful nation compared with its neighbors, particularly Colombia, which for decades was torn by violence among armed guerrilla units, paramilitary groups and drug cartels.That all changed in recent years as Colombia forged a peace deal with the country’s largest leftist guerrilla group, and Ecuador became dominated by an increasingly powerful narco-trafficking industry that includes Mexican cartels and Albanian gangs.Through its ports on the Pacific Coast, Ecuador has become a major transshipment point for cocaine that is smuggled to Europe. International groups have joined forces with prison-based gangs in a brutal competition for the lucrative drug industry.News reports regularly feature beheadings, car bombings, police assassinations, young men hanging from bridges and children gunned down outside their homes or schools.Luisa González is a leftist establishment candidate who is the handpicked candidate of a former president. Rodrigo Buendia/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWho is Luisa González?Ms. González, 45, is the handpicked candidate of former President Rafael Correa, who led the country from 2007 to 2017. She held several positions in his government before being elected to congress in 2021, a position she held until the legislature was dissolved by Mr. Lasso in May.Her campaign has sought to appeal to voter nostalgia for the low homicide rates and commodities boom that lifted millions out of poverty during Mr. Correa’s administration. Ms. González’s campaign slogan in the first round was “we already did it and we will do it again.”But Ms. González’s close association with the former president also carries risks. Mr. Correa’s authoritarian style and accusations of corruption deeply divided the country. He is living in exile in Belgium, fleeing a prison sentence for campaign finance violations, and many Ecuadoreans fear that a González presidency would pave the way for him to return and run for office again.Ms. González has pledged to tap central bank reserves to stimulate the economy and increase financing for the public health care system and public universities.“We know she is with the people, not with the rich, and that is why she is going to improve things,” said Oswaldo Proaño, 40, a street vendor in Quito, the capital, who spoke amid shouts and whistles at a recent campaign rally for Ms. González.“With Luisa we will have security, as we had in the time of Rafael Correa,” said Luisa María Manteca, 65, who works at a cosmetics distributor in Quito. “With him, the country ran smoothly and we have to continue on that path.”The possibility that Ms. González could become the first woman to win Ecuador’s presidency also appeals to many voters. “She is a very humble person,’’ said Debora Espinosa, 19, a university student. “As a woman she understands us.”Daniel Noboa, a center-right candidate, has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though that lead has narrowed slightly in recent days.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWho is Daniel Noboa?Mr. Noboa, 35, comes from one of the richest families in Latin America, known to most Ecuadoreans for its banana empire, which features one of the world’s best known fruit brands, Bonita bananas.But the Noboa family’s vast holdings are varied and include fertilizers, plastics, cardboard and the country’s largest container storage facility.Mr. Noboa’s father ran unsuccessfully for president five times, though the younger Noboa’s political career goes back only to 2021, when he was elected to Ecuador’s Congress.He has positioned himself as “the employment president,” even including a work application form on his website, and has pledged to attract international investment and trade and cut taxes.But like his father, Mr. Noboa has also drawn criticism from analysts who fear he could use the presidency to advance the family’s sprawling business empire.At a recent campaign event, hundreds of university students lined up in the coastal city of Guayaquil, the country’s most populous city and an epicenter of the violence, waiting for more than an hour to see Mr. Noboa.Taking off his bullet-resistant vest, he slowly and calmly answered the students’ questions, repeating his talking points about making Ecuador an attractive market for international banking. He was met with applause, cheers and teenagers running to snap selfies with him.“I have been watching his interviews and I like his proposals on issues such as dollarization, education and work,” said Dereck Delgado, 17, an electrical engineering student, who plans to vote for Mr. Noboa. (The voting age in Ecuador is 16 and votingis mandatory for those 18 and older).Many voters are also drawn to him because he represents an alternative to Mr. Correa’s party. Valeria Vásquez, 33, who manages a local beauty product company in Guayaquil, said she liked that Mr. Noboa is “not a socialist.”Another Noboa supporter, Natasha Villegas, 19, a university student in Guayaquil, said she believed it was “time to give the opportunity to a young person.’’What are the candidates saying about security?Mr. Noboa and Ms. González have vowed to rein in the violence, though neither has made security a central part of their campaigns.Both candidates have talked about providing more money for the police and deploying the military to secure ports used to smuggle drugs out of the country and prisons, which are controlled by violent gangs.Ms. González has pointed to the arrests of several leaders of criminal gangs when she served in the Correa administration as evidence of her intention to apply a firm hand.Mr. Noboa has proposed the use of technology, like drones and satellite tracking systems, to stem drug trafficking, and has suggested building prison boats to isolate the most violent inmates.But analysts say the two candidates have not done enough to prioritize combating the crime that has destabilized Ecuador and turned it into one of Latin America’s most violent countries.Thalíe Ponce contributed reporting from Guayaquil; Emilia Paz y Miño and José María León Cabrera contributed from Quito. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley’s Pro-Israel Record Could Shape Her ’24 Bid

      by

      In January 2017, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, received a phone call from Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and Donald Trump’s newly appointed ambassador to the United Nations.Ms. Haley wanted to apologize.A month earlier, the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in the West Bank. The Obama administration, by abstaining from the vote, had allowed the measure to pass, a parting rebuke to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s increasingly right-wing prime minister.In her first phone call to a fellow ambassador, Ms. Haley wanted to be clear that things would be different.“She guaranteed that it would not happen as long as she was serving as ambassador,” Mr. Danon recalled recently, “that she would get our back and support us.”That promise would set the tone for much of Ms. Haley’s time at the U.N. Over her nearly two-year tenure, she transformed herself from a foreign policy novice to a blunt-talking stateswoman, making the defense of Israel her defining cause.Ms. Haley blocked a Palestinian envoy’s appointment and took credit for forcing the withdrawal of a report that described the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians as “apartheid.” She walked out of a Security Council meeting during a Palestinian official’s speech and criticized the U.N.’s Palestinian refugee aid program, which she has since said “uses American money to feed Palestinian hatred of the Jewish state.”She was an enthusiastic face of the Trump administration’s diplomatic largess toward Israel, and described herself as turning back the tide of “Israel-bashing” at the world body.Denizens of the U.N.’s New York headquarters began joking that Israel now had two ambassadors.American ambassadors have generally stood with Israel at the U.N., but observers of Ms. Haley’s time there saw something new in her often confrontational advocacy for the Trump administration’s no-questions support for Mr. Netanyahu’s government.Critics have noted the political convenience of her approach — which ingratiated her with Mr. Trump’s inner circle and cemented relationships with major Republican donors and evangelical leaders — as well as its made-for-television tenor.“I wear heels,” she told the audience at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in 2017. “It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong, we’re going to kick them every single time.” A clip of the statement appeared in a video teasing her presidential campaign early this year.“There was always a clear distinction between her relatively pragmatic approach to most issues and an incredibly performative, purist approach to diplomacy regarding Israel,” said Richard Gowan, the U.N. director of the International Crisis Group.As Israel plunges into a new war in the Gaza Strip, after a stunning wave of attacks by Hamas fighters, this chapter of Ms. Haley’s career has taken on a sudden importance.Ms. Haley, one of the few candidates with a foreign policy record to run on, has cast herself as an unwavering Israel hawk whose views are grounded in experience. Last weekend, Ms. Haley urged Mr. Netanyahu to “finish” Hamas. During an appearance on “Meet the Press,” she recalled her 2017 visit to Hamas-dug tunnels near the Gaza border.When Mr. Trump criticized Mr. Netanyahu — who angered him by recognizing Joseph R. Biden’s victory in 2020 — Ms. Haley used the moment to reinforce her case against her former boss.“To go and criticize the head of a country who just saw massive bloodshed — no, that’s not what we need in a president,” she said at a news conference in Concord, N.H., on Friday.Ms. Haley, who declined to comment for this article, has seen a recent uptick in polling, although she continues to run far behind Mr. Trump. As a new conflict pushes world affairs to the foreground of the campaign, this may be her best chance to emerge as the leading Republican alternative to the former president.“This was always political capital that she was banking while she was at the U.N.,” Mr. Gowan said. “And it may pay off for her now.”A Keen Eye for Set Pieces“I wear heels,” Ms. Haley told an audience of staunch Israel supporters at the meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in 2017. “It’s not for a fashion statement. It’s because if I see something wrong we’re going to kick them every single time.”Pete Marovich/European Pressphoto AgencyIn interviews, close observers of Ms. Haley’s work — veterans of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, the Trump White House and State Department, United Nations officials, and foreign policy lobbyists and experts — described it in similar terms.They recalled a diplomat who quickly became a more pragmatic negotiator than her own accounts of her tenure, which tend to focus on her confrontations, suggested. They also remembered her as a politician: someone who understood the United Nations post as a stopover on a trajectory toward bigger things.Ms. Haley was not enamored with the minutiae of diplomacy. She requested that staff cut down background papers to a single page of talking points, written in “eighth-grade English.” In her first address to her new employees, the ambassador told them she wanted to create a humane and efficient office culture, insisting that nobody’s work should keep them at the office after 6 p.m. — a tall order for an institution where meetings often ran into the evening, and diplomatic crises at unusual hours were practically a daily event.Ms. Haley also had a keen eye for what one former mission staff member described as “set pieces”: the confrontations and dramatic gestures that would gain attention.The first such moment for Ms. Haley arrived only days into her tenure. In early February 2017, António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general, was preparing to name Salam Fayyad, the former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, as the U.N.’s special envoy to Libya. Mr. Fayyad was a well-regarded reformer who had been seen as a key Palestinian partner for both the United States and Israel. Mr. Guterres had received informal signoffs from the Security Council members. His office had prepared a news release.But half an hour before the deadline for objections, Ms. Haley informed him that she considered Mr. Fayyad unacceptable.“We thought that this must be a mistake,” said Jeffrey Feltman, an American diplomat who at the time was Mr. Guterres’s under secretary general for political affairs. The appointment had been vetted, and State Department officials had vouched for Mr. Fayyad, he said. The decision had been Ms. Haley’s, her staff has since said, though Mr. Trump approved it. In a statement at the time, she argued that appointing a Palestinian to a significant U.N. position would be tantamount to recognizing Palestinian statehood. “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations,” she said.“Essentially, she punished Salam Fayyad for his nationality, at the same time she was criticizing the U.N. for punishing Israelis for their nationality,” Mr. Feltman said. “It seemed to me to be quite hypocritical.”Speaking before an audience of Israel supporters at the AIPAC conference the following month, Ms. Haley cast the move more provocatively, taking credit for having Mr. Fayyad “booted out” of the U.N. post, and portraying the decision as a response to a culture of “Israel-bashing” at the organization. She announced that unless things changed, “there are no freebies for the Palestinian Authority anymore.”The Trump Translator at the U.N.Ms. Haley made herself the public face at the U.N. of the administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.Al Drago for The New York TimesBefore arriving at the U.N., Ms. Haley had a scant record on Israel policy. She has described her support for the country as “a matter of faith” — raised Sikh, she later converted to Christianity — and compared her own cultural background as the child of Indian immigrants to that of Israelis’. “We’re aggressive, we’re stubborn and we don’t back down from a fight,” she said in 2017.Her main claim was that as the governor of South Carolina, she signed a bill in 2015 banning the state from doing business with companies that boycotted or divested from Israel.Such laws — South Carolina’s was the second, after Illinois — had that year become a focus of pro-Israel political donors, including Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate and backer of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who wielded enormous influence in the G.O.P. and in Israel before his death in 2021.Ms. Haley’s campaign said the she did not discuss the issue with Mr. Adelson at the time. In 2016, Mr. Adelson contributed $250,000 to Ms. Haley’s political action committee — a quarter of the contributions it received that year — and hosted her in his luxury box at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland.Arriving at the United Nations six months later, Ms. Haley quickly became the face of Mr. Trump’s Middle East policy, which reflected the long-held aims of pro-Israel hard-liners as well as conservative evangelicals, who ascribe great theological importance to the rise of a modern Jewish state in the Holy Land.“There’s been a historic tension between Zionism and a belief that the United States had an obligation to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Ralph Reed, the chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. “Under Trump, we moved on, and now the G.O.P. tilts unapologetically pro-Israel.”Ms. Haley leaned into her role at the U.N. as the public defender of the administration’s pullout from the Iran nuclear deal, its support for expanding West Bank settlements and its decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.After the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the embassy move, Ms. Haley hosted a reception at the U.S. Mission, refusing to invite the 21 countries — including longtime American allies like Britain, France, Germany and Japan — who voted for the measure.“The United States will remember this day,” she warned.Some who watched her work up close detected less absolutism in her views, and her diplomacy, than she presented at the General Assembly and in interviews.Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N.’s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process at the time, recalled traveling in Israel to the Gaza border with Ms. Haley. “I think that trip really opened her eyes to the fact that there are two competing narratives, two competing realities in this situation,” he said. “Whatever the public speeches she made,” he added, “when we sat down to talk, she would say, ‘OK, what can we do about this?’”Palestinian supporters, however, saw a rhetorical escalation, even by the standards of a resolutely pro-Israel Republican Party.“You look at some of her statements and actions, it was comically over the top — not just willingness to support Israel, but a willingness to hurt Palestinians,” said Yousef Munayyer, who directs the Palestine/Israel Program at the Arab Center Washington D.C.Her public performances served her well in the often vicious internal politics of the administration. Amid a divide between foreign policy traditionalists — the long-résuméd appointees often cast as the “adults in the room” — and the coterie of Trump confidants who largely drove his Middle East policy, Ms. Haley aligned herself with the latter group.Her Israel advocacy gave her common cause with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who had been tasked with the Middle East policy portfolio. When Mr. Kushner and others began drafting the White House’s Middle East peace plan, Ms. Haley was one of only a handful of policymakers allowed to see it and offer comments, said Jason Greenblatt, Mr. Trump’s special envoy for Middle East peace.“I thought she was one of my most important allies,” he said.Spending Political CapitalMs. Haley’s tenure was watched closely by influential evangelicals. David Brody, an anchor at the Christian Broadcasting Network, said “God is using Nikki Haley for such a time as this,” in his coverage of Ms. Haley’s 2017 visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem.Gali Tibbon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMs. Haley’s work also won accolades from evangelicals and Jewish Republican donors, key constituencies for any aspiring Republican president. Her U.N. tenure was covered closely by the Christian Broadcasting Network, the evangelical-oriented media company.“Clearly God is using Nikki Haley for such a time as this,” the network’s anchor, David Brody, said in a June 2017 segment, over footage of Ms. Haley praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.In 2018, Christians United for Israel, the influential Christian Zionist organization led by the televangelist John C. Hagee, presented Ms. Haley with the organization’s Defender of Israel award. As she neared the end of her speech, someone in the crowd yelled: “Haley 2024!”But early polling has shown that Mr. Haley is struggling to peel away evangelical voters from Mr. Trump. Although Mr. Hagee offered a prayer at her campaign launch event, he has not endorsed her.“Most evangelicals certainly appreciate Nikki Haley’s pro-Israel stance,” said Robert Jeffress, the influential pastor of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch. “But evangelicals also realize that her pro-Israel policy while she was U.N. ambassador was a reflection of Donald Trump’s pro-Israel position.”Among prominent Jewish Republican donors, she has more vocal allies. Toward the end of Ms. Haley’s time at the U.N., Fred Zeidman, a Texas businessman, made her a promise. “I told her if she ever wanted to run for president of the United States, I was going to be with her from Day 1,” recalled Mr. Zeidman, who served as Jewish outreach director for the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush.In March, Mr. Zeidman and two like-minded donors, Phil Rosen and Cheryl Halpern, wrote to the members of the Republican Jewish Coalition urging them to back Haley, citing her U.N. record.But a majority of the group’s benefactors have not yet contributed to any candidate. “They don’t see any reason to actively give when you’ve got nine people out there,” Mr. Zeidman said.Mr. Zeidman and other Haley supporters hope that Republicans seeking an alternative to Mr. Trump will coalesce behind her candidacy. But despite Ms. Haley’s recent signs of momentum, the gulf between her and Mr. Trump remains daunting.“If she would’ve run in Israel,” Mr. Danon, the former Israeli ambassador, said, “I’m sure it would’ve been much easier for her.”

      #youth-jobs-shadow {
      display: none;
      }

      @media only screen and (min-width:1024px){

      #fullBleedHeaderContent h1{
      text-shadow: 1px 0px 8px #000;
      }

      #fullBleedHeaderContent header p.e1wiw3jv0{
      text-shadow: 1px 0px 8px #000;
      }

      } More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      New Zealand Defeats Ardern’s Party, Electing Conservative Coalition

      by

      The rightward shift came as voters punished the party once led by Jacinda Ardern for failing to deliver the transformational change that it had promised.After an election campaign of fits and starts, in which neither major party appeared to offer much solace to a weary nation, voters in New Zealand on Saturday ousted the party once led by Jacinda Ardern and elected the country’s most right-wing government in a generation, handing victory to a coalition of two conservative parties.New Zealand’s next prime minister will be Christopher Luxon, a former chief executive of Air New Zealand, whose center-right National Party will lead a coalition with Act, a smaller libertarian party.Addressing a euphoric crowd at his party’s victory event on Auckland’s waterfront, Mr. Luxon thanked supporters and promised a better and more stable future for the country.“Our government will deliver for every New Zealander,” he said, to whoops and cheers. “We will rebuild the economy and deliver tax relief.”The rightward drift ended six years of the Labour government that was dominated by Ms. Ardern, who stepped down early this year.“She’s probably the most consequential prime minister we’ve had since David Lange,” the Labour leader who came to power in 1984, “and, from an international point of view, most charismatic,” said Bernard Hickey, an economic and political commentator in Auckland, New Zealand. “But this election is the landmark of her failure.”For many voters, Ms. Ardern and her successor, Chris Hipkins, failed to deliver on the Labour Party’s promise of transformational change. In the weeks leading up to the election, New Zealanders, buffeted by the currents of global inflation and its larger Asia Pacific neighbors’ economic woes, overwhelmingly cited cost of living as the primary concern driving their vote.The coalition is a return to form for New Zealand, which since moving to a system of proportional representation in 1993 has had only one single-party government — the Labour government elected in 2020 under Ms. Ardern. But it is the first time National, which last governed alone in the early 1980s, has been in coalition with a more conservative partner.With most of the vote counted, support for the Labour Party, which won 50 percent of the vote in 2020, buoyed by the country’s strong response to the coronavirus pandemic, has collapsed to 27 percent. The National Party won 39 percent of the vote, up from 26 percent in 2020. Among the smaller parties, the Green Party took 11 percent of the vote, and Act won 9 percent. But those results could shift slightly after “special” votes were counted, including those of overseas New Zealanders. That could potentially force Act and National into coalition with New Zealand First, a longtime kingmaker that played a role in Ms. Ardern’s ascent, to push the right-wing coalition over the halfway mark.Addressing party members in Wellington, Mr. Hipkins said he had conceded the election to Mr. Luxon and celebrated Labour’s accomplishments on alleviating child poverty and navigating New Zealand through the coronavirus pandemic, the Christchurch massacres and the White Island volcano eruption.“We will keep fighting for working people, because that is our history and our future,” he said.Voters waiting for their ballots at a voting center in Wellington on Saturday.Ivan Tarlton/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe National Party had campaigned on a platform of tax cuts, saying it would offer relief to ordinary families. Critics have questioned the funding for those cuts, which rely heavily on foreign ownership of New Zealand property, and some have said that they disproportionately favor some 300 New Zealand landlords while cutting benefits for disabled people.Inflation, which was at 6 percent in July compared with 6.7 percent one year earlier, appears to be easing, according to the most recent government data, though New Zealanders will most likely endure pain for some time to come, as the country weathers high house and rent prices, a high cost of borrowing and the effects of global shocks.“When it comes to the economy,” said Grant Duncan, a political scientist in Auckland, “we’re a cork bobbing around on an ocean.”The new National-led government, despite being more conservative, was unlikely to make significant changes on many social issues, said Ben Thomas, a former press secretary for the National Party.“Nobody wants to re-litigate abortion or homosexual marriage,” he said. “Unlike the States, where there’s a constant battle to try and roll back progressive legislation, the conservative tradition in New Zealand is ‘We’ve always gone just about far enough.’”But Act may seek to push policy priorities of its own, including a referendum to reconsider the role New Zealand’s Indigenous Maori people play in policymaking.“What they actually want is a referendum which defines away any kind of standing or rights guaranteed to Maori by the Treaty,” Mr. Thomas said, referring to an 1840 agreement that governs New Zealand legislation to this day.He added: “What you might broadly call racial tensions — over race and policy, Maori policy, Treaty policy — are greater than at any point since 2005.”At the same time, the country was still contending with a multibillion dollar recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle, which in February devastated swaths of the country’s North Island, exposing dangerous infrastructure fault lines, said Craig Renney, an economist for the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.The National Party had not announced any plans for how it would manage New Zealand’s climate vulnerabilities, Mr. Renney said.“Where are we going to be in six years’ time? What are we going to do to tackle some of the really big issues, be it climate change, renting, employment security?” he said. “Those things haven’t been being debated, because the country is tired.”It was unclear whether the new government could easily solve these and other problems, said Dr. Duncan, the political scientist.“I’m not saying they’re going to do a bad job,” he said. “I just don’t have any confidence in them doing a better job.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Australia Likely to Reject Indigenous ‘Voice’ Referendum

      by

      Sitting on the banks of the Fitzroy River in remote Western Australia, watching a plume of smoke swirling into the air from a distant wildfire, the Aboriginal elder lamented how his parents’ generation worked for sugar, flour and tea, not wages, and his community now relies heavily on welfare after employment programs were withdrawn by the government.But, “we’ve got something coming,” said Hector Angus Hobbs, 67, who is a member of the Walmajarri tribe. “We’re going to win.”His unwavering optimism will be tested on Saturday, when the nation votes on a referendum that would give Indigenous Australians a voice in Parliament in the form of an advisory body.The proposal, polls show, is broadly supported by the country’s Indigenous people, who make up less than 4 percent of the nation’s population. Many of them see it as a sign of Australia taking a step to do right by them after centuries of abuse and neglect. Mr. Hobbs and many of his neighbors in the town of Fitzroy Crossing believe it would help with everything from solving everyday issues like repairs for houses, to moving the needle on weighty aspirations like reparations.In reality, the measure, known as the Voice, is much more modest, making some of these expectations rather lofty.Joe Ross, a community leader in Fitzroy Crossing from the Bunuba tribe, untangling a fishing line from a crocodile in Danggu Geike Gorge, Australia. For him, the debate had “shown the real underbelly of this country.”The Mangkaja Arts Resource Agency in Fitzroy Crossing, Australia, an Aboriginal-owned art center representing the five language groups of the Fitzroy Valley.At the same time, it has given rise to unrealistic fears — like of homeowners being forced to return their land to Indigenous people — that have galvanized opposition to the Voice. And with many Australians perceiving the referendum as racially divisive, polling suggests its defeat is likely.“We now know where we sit,” said Joe Ross, a community leader in Fitzroy Crossing from the Bunuba tribe, adding that the debate had “shown the real underbelly of this country.”The coming vote has surfaced uncomfortable, unsettled questions about Australia’s past, present and future. Does it recognize its colonial history as benign or harmful? How does it understand the disadvantages facing Indigenous people? Should the hundreds of Indigenous tribes that first inhabited the continent have the right to decide if and how to meld their traditions and cultures into modern society, or just be encouraged to assimilate?The Voice was first conceived by Indigenous leaders as a response to entrenched and growing Indigenous disadvantage. Life expectancy in the community is eight years below the general population, while rates of suicide and incarceration are far higher than the national average. The issues are most severe in remote communities, where some Aboriginal people live in order to maintain their connection to their traditional lands.Experts and Indigenous leaders say that by and large Australians are aware of this disadvantage but generally do not understand it. Many in the country, they said, see these problems as failures of Indigenous people and communities, rather than of the systems that govern them.In Fitzroy Crossing, a town surrounded by over 30 small Aboriginal settlements, the historical impact of colonization feels immediate, as Aboriginal people in the region were hunted and killed by settlers well into the 1900s.A horse standing on the veranda of a house to escape the hot sun in Jimbalakudunj.It is something that Australians feel a sense of collective but unexamined shame over, said Julianne Schultz, the author of “The Idea of Australia” and a professor at Griffith University.“The genesis for the shame is when people look at it and think ‘We’ve got some responsibility for why this has happened — but we can’t quite figure it out,’” she said. “And how do you hide that? Well, you blame the victim.”The Voice, which would include constitutional recognition of Indigenous people, also has been criticized as toothless because it would have no power to create or veto government decisions or policies. But this was by design, say Indigenous leaders involved in the creation of the measure, who had hoped that it would be a benign enough to be acceptable to the Australian public. One of those leaders, Marcia Langton, described it as an offer from Aboriginal people to the broader public, to heal the wounds of colonization and “end the postcolonial politics of blame and guilt.” But with Voice expected to fail, she wrote, “The nation has been poisoned. There is no fix for this terrible outcome.”Part of why people in Fitzroy Crossing had such high hopes for the Voice was because many remember how much better things were under a previous policy. From 1990 to 2005, an elected body, the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission, gave advice to the government and ran programs and services for Indigenous communities.Ree-alla Oscar looking after her niece in their camper van in the Wunaamin-Miliwundi Ranges, a temporary refuge after their house was destroyed during floods earlier this year.Wildfires across the Fitzroy River.“Aboriginal people had their own governments,” recalled Emily Carter, the chief executive of the local women’s resource center, who is from the Gooniyandi tribe. “They were able to look after their own finances. They made rules about what work people did in their communities.”That body was abolished by a prime minister who said that the future of Indigenous people “lies in being part of the mainstream of this country,” setting the tone for the next two decades of policy.Since then, residents say, that autonomy has been taken away, community-controlled employment programs have been replaced with what is effectively a welfare alternative, and services have been withdrawn. Indigenous leaders argue this system, under which policies are decided, enacted and withdrawn in their communities at what they see as whims of governments and ideologies, continues the disempowerment and trauma that Indigenous communities have experienced since colonization. That sense of powerlessness shows up in the form of social harms like suicide, domestic violence, and addiction to drugs and alcohol, they say.“What has led to our disadvantage has been our exclusion in the development of the nation state,” said June Oscar, who is the Australian Human Rights Commission’s head for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice program, and who lives near Fitzroy Crossing.Students in front of the Yiramalay Studio School, near Fitzroy Crossing. Students come from Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia to attend the boarding school, which seeks to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal students.June Oscar, who heads the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice program, says that a history of powerlessness and exclusion lies behind Aboriginal disadvantage. Her home was damaged in a flood, and she is relying on canned food supplies until she has a proper kitchen again.In Fitzroy Crossing, a town surrounded by over 30 small Aboriginal settlements, the historical impact of colonization feels immediate. Aboriginal people in the region were hunted and killed by settlers well into the 1900s. For protection, many fled to stations, or ranches, where they were protected by the government, but also stripped of their culture.There, they worked, usually for little or no pay, and were often forbidden to speak their native languages.“Our people built stations, worked hard — only for flour, tea, sugar,” said Mr. Hobbs, the Walmajarri elder.In the 1960s, amid a push for Aboriginal workers to be paid the same as white ones, many were kicked off the stations by owners who didn’t want the extra cost. They settled in and around Fitzroy Crossing, creating the beginnings of the town that exists today.On a recent weekday, as the temperature rose to over 100 degrees, Eva Nargoodah, 65, sitting outside her home in the small community of Jimbalakudunj, about 60 miles from Fitzroy Crossing, explained how sometimes, the high level of chlorine in the water supply caused the residents to experience rashes, watery eyes and sore throats. Other times, it was filled with so much salt, it formed a thick layer on top.Ms. Nargoodah at home looking at family photos. She explained how sometimes, the amount of chlorine in the water supply in the area gave the residents sore throats, watery eyes and rashes.Tamati Smith for The New York TimesA leak from a solar heating system under the house of one of Ms. Nargoodah’s sons. Aboriginal residents of the area live in government-subsidized housing, where repairs have become frustratingly slow in recent years. She said she had been waiting for years for repairs to her home, including filling in holes through which snakes can crawl in. Such maintenance used to be handled by the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission, but now the process is much slower. And she spoke of her father, who had been part of what is known as the Stolen Generation: Indigenous people forcibly removed from their families and culture in an effort to assimilate them into Western society.“They need to give us something back,” she said. If the Voice referendum passed, she was optimistic that “we’ve got the power.”An Indigenous family fishing by the river in Danggu Geike Gorge. More