Europe

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Fears of a NATO Withdrawal Rise as Trump Seeks a Return to Power

      by

      For 74 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been America’s most important military alliance. Presidents of both parties have seen NATO as a force multiplier enhancing the influence of the United States by uniting countries on both sides of the Atlantic in a vow to defend one another.Donald J. Trump has made it clear that he sees NATO as a drain on American resources by freeloaders. He has held that view for at least a quarter of a century.In his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” Mr. Trump wrote that “pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.” As president, he repeatedly threatened a United States withdrawal from the alliance.Yet as he runs to regain the White House, Mr. Trump has said precious little about his intentions. His campaign website contains a single cryptic sentence: “We have to finish the process we began under my administration of fundamentally re-evaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission.” He and his team refuse to elaborate.That vague line has generated enormous uncertainty and anxiety among European allies and American supporters of the country’s traditional foreign-policy role.European ambassadors and think tank officials have been making pilgrimages to associates of Mr. Trump to inquire about his intentions. At least one ambassador, Finland’s Mikko Hautala, has reached out directly to Mr. Trump and sought to persuade him of his country’s value to NATO as a new member, according to two people familiar with the conversations.In interviews over the past several months, more than a half-dozen current and former European diplomats — speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from Mr. Trump should he win — said alarm was rising on Embassy Row and among their home governments that Mr. Trump’s return could mean not just the abandonment of Ukraine, but a broader American retreat from the continent and a gutting of the Atlantic alliance.“There is great fear in Europe that a second Trump presidency would result in an actual pullout of the United States from NATO,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who was NATO’s supreme allied commander from 2009 to 2013. “That would be an enormous strategic and historic failure on the part of our nation.”Formed after World War II to keep the peace in Europe and act as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, NATO evolved into an instrument through which the U.S. works with allies on military issues around the world. Its original purpose — the heart of which is the collective-defense provision, known as Article V, that states that an armed attack on any member “shall be considered an attack against them all” — lives on, especially for newer members like Poland and the Baltic States that were once dominated by the Soviet Union and continue to fear Russia.Ukrainian soldiers test-fired the guns of tanks provided by NATO before moving to the frontline in Ukraine. NATO’s purpose as a bulwark against the Soviet Union lives on for newer members in Eastern Europe who continue to fear Russian aggression.David Guttenfelder for The New York TimesThe interviews with current and former diplomats revealed that European officials were mostly out of ideas for how to deal with Mr. Trump other than returning to a previous playbook of flattery and transactional tributes.Smaller countries that are more vulnerable to Russian attacks are expected to try to buy their way into Mr. Trump’s good graces by increasing their orders of American weapons or — as Poland did during his term — by performing grand acts of adulation, including offering to name a military base Fort Trump in return for his placing a permanent presence there.At this point in the campaign, Mr. Trump is focused on the criminal cases against him and on defeating his Republican primary rivals, and he rarely talks about the alliance, even in private.As he maintains a broad lead in his campaign to become the Republican nominee, the implications for America’s oldest and most critical military alliance are not clearly advertised plans from Mr. Trump, but a turmoil of widely held suspicions charged with unknowability.UkraineAmid those swirling doubts, one thing is likely: The first area where Mr. Trump’s potential return to the White House in 2025 could provoke a foreign policy crisis is for Ukraine and the alliance of Western democracies that have been supporting its defense against Russia’s invasion.Helping Ukraine stave off the attempted Russian conquest has become a defining NATO effort. Ukraine is not a NATO member but has remained an independent country because of NATO support.Camille Grand, who was NATO’s assistant secretary general for defense investment early in the war, said that how Mr. Trump handled Ukraine would be the first “big test case” that Europeans would use to assess how reliable an ally — or not — he might be in a second term.“Will he throw Zelensky under the bus in the first three months of his term?” Mr. Grand, now at the European Council on Foreign Relations, asked, referring to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.NATO’s collective response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has helped President Biden, center, rebuild traditional alliances after the turmoil of Mr. Trump’s presidency.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Trump has repeatedly declared that he would somehow settle the war “in 24 hours.” He has not said how, but he has coupled that claim with suggestions that he could have prevented the war by making a deal in which Ukraine simply ceded to Russia its eastern lands that President Vladimir Putin has illegally seized.Mr. Zelensky has said Ukraine would never agree to cede any of its lands to Russia as part of a peace deal. But Mr. Trump would have tremendous leverage over Ukraine’s government. The United States has supplied huge quantities of vital weapons, ammunition and intelligence to Ukraine. European countries have pledged the most economic assistance to Ukraine but could not make up the shortfall if America stopped sending military aid.Some of Mr. Trump’s congressional allies, who have followed his lead in preaching an “America First” mantra, already oppose sending further military assistance to Kyiv. And in a broader sign of waning support, Senate Republicans last week blocked an emergency spending bill to further fund the war in Ukraine after demanding unrelated immigration policy concessions from Democrats as a condition of passing it.But even if Congress appropriates further aid, Mr. Trump could withhold delivery of it — as he did in 2019 when trying to coerce Mr. Zelensky into announcing a criminal investigation into Mr. Biden, the abuse-of-power scandal that led to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment.Against that backdrop, Russia’s battlefield strategy for now appears to be biding its time; it is carrying out attacks when it sees opportunities and to tie up Ukrainian forces but is not making paradigm-shifting moves or negotiating, officials said. That stasis raises the possibility that Mr. Putin has calculated he could be in a much better position after the 2024 U.S. election.‘Everybody Owes Us Money’Mr. Trump likes to brag that he privately told leaders of NATO countries that if Russia attacked them and they had not paid the money they owed to NATO and to the United States, he would not defend them. He claimed at a rally in October that after he had declared that “everybody owes us money” and was “delinquent,” he made that threat at a meeting and so “hundreds of billions of dollars came flowing in.”That story is garbled at best.There was a spending-related dispute, but it was over Europeans’ meeting their spending commitments to their own militaries, not money they somehow owed to NATO or to the United States. They did increase military spending during the Trump administration — though by nowhere near the amounts Mr. Trump has claimed. And their spending rose significantly more in 2023, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.But Mr. Trump’s exuberance for retelling his story, coupled with his past displeasure with NATO, is giving fresh alarm to NATO supporters.Pressed by The New York Times to explain what he means by “fundamentally re-evaluating” NATO’s mission and purpose, Mr. Trump provided a rambling statement that contained no clear answer but expressed skepticism about alliances.“It is the obligation of every U.S. president to ensure that America’s alliances serve to protect the American people, and do not recklessly endanger American blood and treasure,” Mr. Trump’s statement read.Some Trump supporters who are pro-NATO have argued that Mr. Trump is bluffing. They said he was merely looking to put more pressure on the Europeans to spend more on their own defense.“He’s not going to do that,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a Trump supporter, said of the prospect of Mr. Trump’s withdrawing from NATO. “But what he will do is, he will make people pay more, and I think that will be welcome news to a lot of folks.”Robert O’Brien, who served as Mr. Trump’s final national security adviser, echoed that view.“President Trump withdrawing from NATO is an issue that some people in D.C. discuss, but I don’t believe it’s a real thing,” Mr. O’Brien said. “He understands the military value of the alliance to America, but he just feels — correctly, I might add — like we’re getting played by the Germans and other nations that refuse to pay their fair share for their own defense.”But John Bolton, a conservative hawk who served as national security adviser from 2018 to 2019, wrote in his memoir that Mr. Trump had to be repeatedly talked out of withdrawing from NATO. In an interview, Mr. Bolton said “there is no doubt in my mind” that in a second term, Mr. Trump would withdraw the United States from NATO.Germany has increased its defense spending but will still fall short of the 2 percent target European members of the alliance agreed to.Laetitia Vancon for The New York TimesAs a legal matter, whether Mr. Trump could unilaterally withdraw the United States from NATO is likely to be contested.The Constitution requires Senate consent to ratify a treaty but omits procedures to annul one. This has led to debate about whether presidents can do so on their own or need lawmakers’ authorization. There are only a few court precedents regarding the issue, none definitive.Decisions to revoke treaties by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 and by President George W. Bush in 2001 led members of Congress to file lawsuits that were rejected by courts, partly on the grounds that the disputes were a “political question” for the elected branches to work out. While the legal precedents are not perfectly clear, both of those presidents effectively won: the treaties are widely understood to be void. Still, any attempt to withdraw from NATO would likely invite a broader challenge.In reaction to Mr. Trump’s threats, some lawmakers — led by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, and Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida — put a provision in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress is likely to vote on this month. It says the president shall not withdraw the United States from NATO without congressional approval. But whether the Constitution permits such a tying of a president’s hands is also contestable.And European diplomats say that even if Mr. Trump were to nominally keep the United States in NATO, they fear that he could so undermine trust in the United States’ reliability to live up to the collective-defense provision that its value as a deterrent to Russia would be lost.A Transactional AttitudeThe uncertainty stemming from Mr. Trump’s maximalist and yet vague rhetoric is bound up in his past displays of consistent skepticism about NATO and of unusual solicitude to Russia.As a candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump rattled NATO allies by saying that if Russia attacked the Baltic States, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether they had “fulfilled their obligations to us.” He also repeatedly praised Mr. Putin and said he would consider recognizing Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.As president in July 2018, Mr. Trump not only nearly withdrew from NATO at an alliance summit but denounced the European Union as a “foe” because of “what they do to us in trade.” He then attended a summit with Mr. Putin, after which he expressed skepticism about the idea that the United States should go to war to defend a tiny NATO ally, Montenegro.Mr. Trump held a summit in Helsinki with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in 2018 after repeatedly praising him and displaying an unusual solicitude toward Russia.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWith no prior experience in the military or government, Mr. Trump brought a transactional, mercantilist attitude to interactions with allies. He tended to base his views of foreign nations on his personal relationships with their leaders and on trade imbalances.Mr. Trump particularly disliked Angela Merkel, the former German chancellor, and often complained that German automakers were flooding America with their products. His defenders say his anger was in some ways justified: Germany hadn’t been meeting its military spending commitments, and over his objections, Ms. Merkel pushed ahead with a natural-gas pipeline to Russia. Germany only suspended that project two days before Russia invaded Ukraine.Mr. Trump’s allies also point out that he approved sending antitank weapons to Ukraine, which President Obama had not done after Russia seized Crimea in 2014.Still, in 2020, Mr. Trump decided to withdraw a third of the 36,000 American troops stationed in Germany. Some were to come home, as he preferred, with others redeployed elsewhere in Europe. But the following year, as Russia built up troops on Ukraine’s border, Mr. Biden canceled the decision and added troops in Germany as a show of support for NATO.A Supportive MovementIf he returns to power, Mr. Trump will be backed by a conservative movement that has become more skeptical of allies and of U.S. involvement abroad.Anti-interventionist foreign policy institutes are more organized and better funded than they were during Mr. Trump’s time in office. Those groups include the Center for Renewing America, a Trump-aligned think tank that published a paper titled “Pivoting the U.S. Away From Europe to a Dormant NATO,” which provides a rationale for minimizing America’s role in NATO.On Nov. 1, the Heritage Foundation — a traditionally hawkish conservative think tank that has lately refashioned itself in a Trumpist mold, on matters including opposition to aid to Ukraine — hosted a delegation from the European Council on Foreign Relations.The Europeans exchanged views with ardent nationalists, including Michael Anton, a National Security Council official in the Trump administration; Dan Caldwell, who managed foreign policy at the Center for Renewing America; and national security aides to Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio and other Trump-aligned senators.According to two people who attended, Mr. Anton told the Europeans he could imagine Mr. Trump setting an ultimatum: If NATO members did not sufficiently increase their military spending by a deadline, he would withdraw the United States from the alliance. As the meeting broke up, Eckart von Klaeden, a former German politician who is now a Mercedes-Benz Group executive, implored Mr. Anton to ask Mr. Trump to please talk to America’s European allies as he formulated his foreign policy.That seems like wishful thinking.In his statement to The Times, Mr. Trump invoked his slogan “America First” — a phrase once popularized by American isolationists opposed to getting involved in World War II.“My highest priority,” Mr. Trump said in the statement, “has always been, and will remain, to America first — the defense of our own country, our own borders, our own values, and our own people, including their jobs and well-being.”Steven Erlanger More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US ‘out of money’ to help Ukraine: six key things to know about aid budget standoff

      by

      The White House issued an urgent warning to Congress on Monday, predicting that Ukraine will soon lose ground in its war against Russia without another infusion of financial aid from the US.“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Shalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in her letter to congressional leaders.“There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money – and nearly out of time.”In October, the White House asked Congress to approve a $106bn supplemental funding bill that would provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific while also strengthening border security. However, bipartisan negotiations over that bill have now stalled.Although previous funding packages for Ukraine have won widespread bipartisan support in Congress, the issue has become increasingly contentious in the Republican-controlled House.Given hard-right Republicans’ entrenched opposition to additional Ukraine aid, the new House speaker, Republican Mike Johnson, must walk a fine line in his negotiations with the Senate.Here’s everything you need to know about the path forward for Ukraine aid:How much additional aid has the White House requested?The supplemental funding request that the White House outlined in October included roughly $60bn in additional aid for Ukraine. Although Congress has already appropriated more than $111bn to bolster Ukraine’s war efforts, Young warned in her letter to congressional leaders that resources are quickly running out.According to Young, the defense department has already used 97% of the $62.3bn it received, while the state department has none of its $4.7bn remaining. Noting the global stakes of the war in Ukraine, Young stressed that Congress must act immediately to prevent disaster.“This isn’t a next year problem. The time to help a democratic Ukraine fight against Russian aggression is right now,” Young said. “It is time for Congress to act.”Where do negotiations over the bill stand now?Bipartisan negotiations to craft a supplemental aid package that can pass both chambers of Congress appeared to stall over the weekend. House Republicans have pushed to include harsher immigration policies in the bill, particularly on the issues of asylum and parole applications, but those proposals are a non-starter for many Democrats.One of the lead Democratic negotiators in the talks, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, told Politico on Monday that hard-right Republicans wanted to “essentially close the border” in exchange for supporting more Ukraine funding.“Right now, it seems pretty clear that we’re making pretty big compromises and concessions and Republicans aren’t willing to meet us anywhere close to the middle,” Murphy said.Why do hard-right Republicans oppose additional aid?As more members of the Republican party have embraced Donald Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy, more rightwing lawmakers have grown suspicious of providing funding to Ukraine.They have argued the US should not be sending so much money to Ukraine when those funds could be better used to address border security, even though US assistance to Ukraine represents less than 1% of the nation’s GDP.But many prominent Republicans, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, continue to support funding for Ukraine, and that division has caused a growing rift in the party.The issue drew increased attention in October, when the hard-right congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida accused the then speaker Kevin McCarthy of cutting a “a secret side deal” with Joe Biden to provide additional funding to Ukraine. McCarthy rejected that characterization, but Gaetz’s charge underscored how the speaker’s support for Ukraine had become a wedge issue between him and the hard-right flank of his caucus.McCarthy was then removed as speaker, after Gaetz and seven other House Republicans joined Democrats in supporting a motion to vacate the chair.How has the new House speaker navigated the negotiations?Although Johnson initially expressed support for Ukraine following the Russian invasion in February 2022, his stance has since shifted. The group Republicans for Ukraine gave Johnson a grade of “F” on its congressional scorecard, noting that he has repeatedly voted against measures aimed at strengthening US support for Ukraine.Last week, Johnson said he was “confident and optimistic” that Congress would approve aid for both Israel and Ukraine, but he has suggested the two priorities should not be linked in one bill. Responding to Young’s letter on Monday, Johnson reiterated his demand that any aid for Ukraine must be tied to stiffer border policies.“The Biden administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference’s legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers,” Johnson said on X, formerly Twitter.“House Republicans have resolved that any national security supplemental package must begin with our own border. We believe both issues can be agreed upon if Senate Democrats and the White House will negotiate reasonably.”Can Congress still pass another aid package before the end of the year?That remains highly unclear, as the two parties currently appear far apart in their negotiations. But one of the lead Republican negotiators, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, voiced confidence on Monday that lawmakers would ultimately reach a consensus.“We continue to work to find a solution that will protect our national security, stop the human trafficking, and prevent the cartels from exploiting the obvious loopholes in our law,” Lankford said on X. “That is the goal [and] we will continue to work until we get it right.”What are the potential consequences if a deal fails?In her letter, Young predicted that the loss of US financial support would “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories”.Such a scenario could cause the war to spill over into a broader regional conflict involving America’s other European allies, Young warned, and that perilous situation may endanger US troops abroad.“I must stress that helping Ukraine defend itself and secure its future as a sovereign, democratic, independent, and prosperous nation advances our national security interests,” Young said. “The path that Congress chooses will reverberate for many years to come.” More

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      White House condemns protest targeting Philadelphia Jewish restaurant as ‘completely unjustifiable’ – as it happened

      by

      The White House has decried a Sunday evening protest targeting a Jewish restaurant in Philadelphia as “antisemitic and completely unjustifiable”.Video circulating on Twitter shows protesters chanting outside Goldie, a Kosher restaurant in the city owned by Israeli chef Michael Solomonov:Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor Josh Shapiro condemned the protest as “blatant antisemitism”, saying the restaurant was targeted simply because its owner is Jewish:In a statement from spokesman Andrew Bates, the White House echoed that criticism:
      It is Antisemitic and completely unjustifiable to target restaurants that serve Israeli food over disagreements with Israeli policy, as Governor Shapiro has underlined. This behavior reveals the kind of cruel and senseless double standard that is a calling card of Antisemitism. President Biden has fought against the evil of Antisemitism his entire life, including by launching the first national strategy to counter this hate in American history. He will always stand up firmly against these kinds of undignified actions.
      Lawmakers condemned a Sunday evening protest in Philadelphia that called for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza while also specifically targeting a Jewish restaurant owned by an Israeli chef. The White House said the demonstration was “antisemitic and completely unjustifiable”, while Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, decried the protesters’ “hate and bigotry” – comments echoed by numerous members of Congress. Elsewhere, the White House is warning that it will run out of money to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion within weeks. A proposal to send military assistance to both Ukraine and Israel is tied up in negotiations over stricter border security, which reportedly have broken down.Here’s what else happened today:
      Doug Burgum, the North Dakota governor, dropped out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination, winnowing the field to five major contenders.
      Antisemitism and Islamophobia have both increased since the 7 October terrorist attack and Israel’s invasion of Gaza, advocacy groups say.
      Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, said lawmakers who oppose aid to Ukraine are helping Vladimir Putin’s invasion succeed.
      The US defense industry would benefit from increased aid to Ukraine and Israel, the White House is arguing, as it presses Congress to approve a new military assistance package.
      Liz Cheney said she hopes Democrats will win next year, arguing the GOP will help turn the country into a dictatorship.
      Speaking at the White House press briefing today, national security adviser Jake Sullivan warned members of Congress who oppose military assistance to Ukraine that they are helping Russian president Vladimir Putin’s campaign to conquer the country:Earlier today, the White House office of management and budget warned that the funds allocated for military assistance to Ukraine will run out by the end of the year. Joe Biden has proposed legislation that would approve more money for Ukraine and Israel’s militaries as well as to pay for tighter US border security, but it needs Republican support to pass, and the party wants even stricter border security before they will agree.Speaking of former members of Congress, the Guardian’s Ramon Antonio Vargas reports that ex-House lawmaker Liz Cheney is rooting for the Democrats:Liz Cheney, whose opposition to Donald Trump’s presidency alienated her from her fellow Republicans, has said she would prefer Democrats to win in the 2024 elections over members of her own party because she feared the US was “sleepwalking into dictatorship”.In an interview with CBS on Sunday, Cheney suggested a Republican congressional majority that would be subservient to another Trump White House presented a tangible “threat” to American democracy.“I believe very strongly in those principles and ideals that have defined the Republican party, but the Republican party of today has made a choice, and they haven’t chosen the constitution,” the former Wyoming congresswoman said when asked if she was rooting for Democratic victories in the 2024 election cycle. “And so I do think it presents a threat if the Republicans are in the majority in January 2025.”She went on to say that the US was “sort of sleepwalking into dictatorship” with Trump emerging as the clear favorite for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, notwithstanding the fact that he faces more than 90 criminal charges, including some for attempting to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election against his Democratic rival Joe Biden.George Santos’s departure has created a vacancy in Congress that must be filled via a special election.Democrats are keen to see one of their own win the open seat, as it would put them closer to retaking the chamber in 2024. Tom Suozzi, the congressman who Santos defeated last year, is running again, and Axios reports that he today announced endorsements from several mayors in the Long Island district:Here’s more from the Guardian’s Edward Helmore on the big news of this morning, when the White House warned it may run out of money to assist Ukraine within weeks:The White House has said it is “out of money and nearly out of time” to provide more weapons to Ukraine as it tries to ward off Russia’s invasion unless Congress acts to approve additional funding and support.The warning, issued on Monday in a letter to congressional leaders, laid out how the government had already gone through about $111bn appropriated for Ukraine military aid.“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Shalanda Young, director of the office of management and budget, wrote in the letter, parts of which were published by the Hill.The latest plea for money comes after the White House asked Congress to act on a $100bn supplemental funding request in October, arguing that it “advances our national security and supports our allies and partners”.The request identified border security, allies in the Indo-Pacific, Israel and Ukraine. About $61bn covered money for Ukraine, which included $30bn to restock defense department equipment sent to support the country after Russia invaded in February 2022.In the letter to leaders in the House and Senate, Young said a failure to provide more funding would “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories”.Lawmakers are condemning a Sunday evening protest in Philadelphia that called for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza while also specifically targeting a Jewish restaurant owned by an Israeli chef. The White House said the demonstration was “antisemitic and completely unjustifiable”, while Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, decried the protesters’ “hate and bigotry” – comments echoed by numerous members of Congress. Elsewhere, the White House is warning that it might run out of money to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion within weeks. A proposal to send military assistance to both Ukraine and Israel is tied up in negotiations over tightening border security, which reportedly have broken down.Here’s what else has happened today:
      Doug Burgum, the North Dakota governor, dropped out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination, winnowing the field to five major contenders.
      Antisemitism and Islamophobia have both increased since the 7 October terrorist attack and Israel’s invasion of Gaza, advocacy groups say.
      The US defense industry would benefit from increased aid to Ukraine and Israel, the White House is arguing, as it presses Congress to approve a new military assistance package.
      Today is meanwhile the first day that the House of Representatives will convene without George Santos, the prodigious liar who represented a New York district until Friday, when the chamber voted to expel him.Throughout his tumultuous months in office, Santos juked and dodged when confronted about the many fibs, distortions and whoppers he issued – none of which saved him from getting booted out of office. The Guardian’s Edward Helmore went through many of them, so you don’t have to:The war between Israel and Hamas continues, with reports that communications have been cut in the northern Gaza Strip.We have a live blog covering the latest news from the conflict, and you can find it here:Criticism of the protest at Philadelphia Jewish restaurant Goldie continues to roll in, most recently from Democratic New Jersey congressman Josh Gottheimer:As well as from Mondaire Jones, a progressive and former Democratic congressman from New York who is campaigning to claim back his old seat next year. He’s faced criticism in the past for statements allegedly insulting Jews, and was forthright in condemning the Philadelphia protest:Pennsylvania’s Democratic senator John Fetterman also condemned the protest at Goldie in Philadelphia:As did Adam Schiff, a Democratic congressman from California who is running to represent the state in the Senate:Since the start of the war in Gaza, the United States has experienced an uptick both in both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidences, the Guardian’s Maya Yang reported last month:Islamophobia and antisemitism are seeing sharp increases across the US after war between Israel and Hamas erupted last month.According to a new report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair), the Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization received a total of 1,283 requests for help and reports of bias between 7 October and 4 November.Cair, which has called the spike “unprecedented”, revealed that the recent increase in Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment across the US mark a 216% increase over the previous year. In an average 29-day period in 2022, Cair received only 406 complaints.The top reported type of case was first-amendment – or free speech – issues, marking 23.39% of the anti-Arab and Islamophobia reports received by Cair. The organization also said 20.56% of the reports involved targeting employment, and 15.32% consisted of hate crimes. Cair said 9.2% of the anti-Arab and Islamophobia reports revolved around education and bullying.“The Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian rhetoric that has been used to both justify violence against Palestinians in Gaza and silence supporters of Palestinian human rights here in America has contributed to this unprecedented surge in bigotry,” said Cair’s research and advocacy director, Corey Saylor. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      La lección más importante de la victoria de Javier Milei

      by

      La elección como presidente de Argentina de Javier Milei —un personaje peculiar, fanfarrón de cabello indomable, con cinco mastines clonados y una costumbre de comunión psíquica con la difunta mascota que les dio origen— ha suscitado un gran debate sobre la verdadera naturaleza del populismo de derecha en nuestra era de descontento general.En Milei hay muchas manifestaciones de una política trumpiana: la energía extravagante y poco convencional, la crítica a las élites corruptas, los ataques a la izquierda, el apoyo de los conservadores sociales y religiosos. Al mismo tiempo, en política económica es mucho más un libertario doctrinario que un mercantilista o populista al estilo Trump, es una versión más extrema de Barry Goldwater y Paul Ryan que un defensor del gasto público y los aranceles. Mientras que el movimiento al que derrotó, la formación peronista que gobernó Argentina durante la mayor parte del siglo XXI, es de hecho más nacionalista y populista en lo económico, pues llegó al poder tras la crisis financiera de 2001 que puso fin al experimento más notable de Argentina con la economía neoliberal.La divergencia entre Trump y Milei puede interpretarse de varias maneras. Una lectura es que el estilo del populismo de derecha es la esencia del asunto, que su sustancia política es negociable siempre que presente figuras que prometan el renacimiento nacional y encarnen algún tipo de rebelión bufonesca, por lo general masculina, contra las normas del progresismo cultural.Otra lectura es que, sí, la política es bastante negociable, pero en realidad hay profundas afinidades ideológicas entre el nacionalismo económico de derecha y lo que podría llamarse paleolibertarismo, a pesar de que no coinciden en cuestiones específicas. En términos estadounidenses, esto significa que el trumpismo lo anticiparon de diferentes maneras Ross Perot y Ron Paul; en términos globales, significa que cabe esperar que los partidos de la derecha populista se muevan constantemente entre tendencias de regulación y libertarias, dependiendo del contexto económico y de los vaivenes políticos.He aquí una tercera interpretación: mientras que el descontento popular debilitó el consenso neoliberal de las décadas de 1990 y 2000 en todo el mundo desarrollado, la era del populismo está creando alineamientos muy distintos en la periferia latinoamericana que en el núcleo euro-estadounidense.En Europa Occidental y Estados Unidos, ahora se ve de manera sistemática a un partido de centroizquierda de las clases profesionales enfrentarse a una coalición populista y de la clase trabajadora de derecha. Los partidos de centroizquierda se han vuelto más progresistas en política económica en comparación con la era de Bill Clinton y Tony Blair, pero se han movido mucho más a la izquierda en cuestiones culturales, sin perder su liderazgo influyente y meritocrático, su sabor neoliberal. Y, en su mayoría, han sido capaces de contener, derrotar o cooptar a aspirantes de izquierda más radicales: Joe Biden al superar a Bernie Sanders en las elecciones primarias demócratas de 2020, Keir Starmer al marginar al corbynismo en el Partido Laborista británico y Emmanuel Macron al forzar a los izquierdistas franceses a votar a su favor en la segunda vuelta contra Marine Le Pen con la estrategia del menor de los males.Por su parte, la derecha populista ha conseguido muchas veces moderar sus impulsos libertarios para apartar a los votantes de clase baja de la coalición progresista, dando lugar a una política de centroderecha que suele favorecer ciertos tipos de proteccionismo y redistribución. Eso podría significar una defensa trumpiana de los programas de prestaciones sociales, los tibios intentos de los conservadores de Boris Johnson de invertir en el desatendido norte de Inglaterra o el gasto en prestaciones familiares de Viktor Orbán en Hungría, así como la recién desbancada coalición populista en Polonia.Te puedes imaginar que el abismo entre estas dos coaliciones mantendrá a Occidente en un estado de crisis latente, en especial teniendo en cuenta la personalidad de Trump, tan propensa a las crisis. Pero también es posible imaginar un futuro en el que este orden se estabilice y normalice un poco y la gente deje de hablar de un terremoto cada vez que un populista asciende al poder o de que la democracia se salva cada vez que un partido del establishment gana unas elecciones.La situación es muy distinta en América Latina. Allí el consenso neoliberal siempre fue más endeble, el centro más frágil, y por ende la era de la rebelión populista ha creado una polarización más clara entre quien esté más a la izquierda y más a la derecha (con la izquierda culturalmente progresista, pero por lo general más expresamente socialista que Biden, Starmer o Macron y la derecha culturalmente tradicional, pero por lo general más libertaria que Trump, Orbán o Le Pen).La nueva alineación en Argentina, con su libertario revolucionario que supera a una izquierda populista-nacionalista, es un ejemplo de este patrón; la contienda entre Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva y Jair Bolsonaro en Brasil el año pasado fue otro. Pero los recientes vaivenes de la política chilena son de especial interés. A principios de la década de 2010, Chile parecía tener un entorno político más o menos estable, con un partido de centroizquierda que gobernaba a través de una Constitución favorable al mercado y una oposición de centroderecha que luchaba por distanciarse de la dictadura de Pinochet. Entonces, las protestas populares echaron por tierra este orden y crearon un giro abrupto hacia la izquierda, además de un intento de imponer una nueva Constitución de izquierda que, a su vez, provocó una reacción adversa, que dejó al país dividido entre un impopular gobierno de izquierda encabezado por un antiguo activista estudiantil y una oposición de derecha en ascenso temporal liderada por un apologista de Pinochet.En cada caso, en relación con las divisiones de Francia y Estados Unidos, se observa un centro más débil y una polarización más profunda entre extremos populistas rivales. Y ahora, si la cuestión para América Latina es qué tan estable será la propia democracia en condiciones tan polarizadas, la cuestión para Europa y Estados Unidos es si la situación argentina o chilena es un presagio de su propio futuro. Tal vez no de inmediato, pero sí después de una nueva ronda de rebeliones populistas, que podría aguardar más allá de alguna crisis o catástrofe o simplemente al otro lado del cambio demográfico.En tal futuro, figuras como Biden, Starmer y Macron ya no podrían gestionar coaliciones de gobierno y la iniciativa en la izquierda pasaría a partidos más radicales como Podemos en España o los Verdes en Alemania, a los progresistas al estilo de Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, a cualquier tipo de política que surja del encuentro entre la izquierda europea y las crecientes poblaciones árabes y musulmanas del continente. Esto daría a la derecha populista la oportunidad de prometer estabilidad y reclamar el centro, pero también crearía incentivos para que la derecha se radicalice aún más, lo que produciría mayores oscilaciones ideológicas cada vez que perdiera una coalición en el poder.Esta es, en cierto modo, la lección más clara de la victoria aplastante de Milei: si no se puede alcanzar la estabilidad tras una ronda de convulsiones populistas, no hay límites inherentes a lo desenfrenado que puede llegar a ser el siguiente ciclo de rebelión.Ross Douthat es columnista de opinión del Times desde 2009. Es autor, más recientemente, de The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery. @DouthatNYT • Facebook More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Dutch Election Results Deliver a Turn to the Far Right

      by

      In an election result that sent shock waves across Europe, Geert Wilders, a longtime far-right provocateur, is closer than ever to becoming prime minister.The Netherlands, long regarded as one of Europe’s most socially liberal countries, woke up to a drastically changed political landscape on Thursday after a far-right party swept national elections in a result that has reverberated throughout Europe.Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which advocates banning the Quran, closing Islamic schools and entirely halting the acceptance of asylum seekers, won 37 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, making it by far the biggest party, in a clear rebuke of the country’s political establishment.The results, tabulated overnight after Wednesday’s voting, give Mr. Wilders enough support to try to form a governing coalition. Centrist and center-right parties long wary of the firebrand have left the door ajar to a possible partnership, giving Mr. Wilders a chance to become the Netherlands’ first far-right prime minister.While people across the political spectrum expressed surprise at the election outcome, and the Dutch reputation of liberalism persists, experts say that Mr. Wilders succeeded by tapping into a discontent with government that dates back at least two decades.“It’s not suddenly out of nowhere,” said Janka Stoker, a professor of leadership and organizational change at the University of Groningen.Mr. Wilders’s party has previously drawn more support in opinion polls than in the voting booth. This time the trend was reversed. Peter Dejong/Associated PressMr. Wilders has been a persistent political presence in the Netherlands through those years, and now it seemed his time had come.A career politician, Mr. Wilders has served as a member of the Dutch House of Representatives since 1998. In 2004, he split from the party headed by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, forming the Party for Freedom two years later.Exceptionally, Mr. Wilders’s party is not based on a membership structure, making him the sole decision maker and synonymous with his party.He is close ideologically to Marine Le Pen of France, the far-right National Rally leader, and received hearty congratulations from Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister who has become another icon of the far right.At times Mr. Wilders has also been compared to former President Donald J. Trump, for his penchant to say things in the most direct and divisive of ways. Many of Mr. Wilders’s supporters say they feel buoyed and relieved that he is willing to give voice to what they cannot say, or feel they are not supposed to say.Yet Mr. Wilders’s provocations have required him to move through life with a security detail, and he has said that days can go by during which he does not see the daylight.Because of the need for security over the apparent threats against him, not much is known about Mr. Wilders’s isolated private life. He has been married since 1992 to a Hungarian diplomat, Krisztina. His rare public appearances guarantee that every time he ventures out he attracts a media circus.Mr. Wilders told the Dutch magazine Panorama in March that as part of his security, the windows to his study are blacked out, making it impossible to see outside. He also told the magazine that he had not been able to drive in his own car since 2004, saying it was a “symbol of freedom that I crave, but that I don’t have anymore.”A protester greeting Mr. Wilders at a 2017 campaign stop with a sign reading “Don’t Give Hate And Fear a Vote.” He lives with tight security, rarely appearing in public.Peter Dejong/Associated PressMr. Wilders’s political talk has been so divisive that his own brother Paul has publicly spoken out against him.Over the years, Mr. Wilders’s comments about Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands have gotten widespread media attention. They have also landed him in court.In 2014, Mr. Wilders asked his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, which resulted in a crowd chanting, “Fewer! Fewer!”A Dutch court convicted Mr. Wilders of insulting a group with the anti-Moroccan chant, but he avoided punishment.At a campaign event in 2017, Mr. Wilders referred to Moroccan immigrants as “scum.”During the current campaign he ran on a “Dutch First” platform, though in the final days of the race he moderated some of his anti-Islam vitriol, saying there were “more important priorities.”He also said that his proposals “would be within the law and Constitution,” in an effort to court other parties to govern with him.But while his language may have softened, his party platform did not. “The Netherlands is not an Islamic country: no Islamic schools, Qurans and mosques,” it says.“The borders are wide open and everyone who comes in wants a living space,” it adds, while advocating a “zero tolerance” policy to rein in what it calls “street terrorists” and promising funding for 10,000 extra police officers.“The police need to be in charge in the street again,” according to the platform. “Criminals have to be arrested immediately and put in prison for a long time.”An election poster for Mr. Wilders outside the Dutch Parliament building in The Hague. His standing appeared to rise in the final days of the campaign.Yves Herman/ReutersMr. Wilders — as well as other politicians, including Pieter Omtzigt, a centrist who had hoped to upend the election — had linked an increase in migrants to a shortage of housing, which was among the biggest issues for Dutch voters.But it was Mr. Wilders who ultimately spoke to a discontent that experts said could be traced back at least to the rise of Pim Fortuyn, a right-wing populist who was assassinated a week before elections in which he had led the opinion polls. Mr. Fortuyn, who hoped to become the Netherlands’ first gay prime minister, ran on a strong anti-immigrant platform more than 20 years ago.Voter dissatisfaction was also evident in more recent elections: Regional votes this year and in 2019, which decide the makeup of the Dutch Senate, saw big victories by populist newcomers.Last year, 60 percent of Dutch people said they were unhappy with how politics was done in the country, according to the Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Elections are often a reaction to what happened previously, Ms. Stoker said, referring to Mr. Rutte’s record-breaking 13-year tenure as prime minister. The Rutte government collapsed in July over disputes on immigration policy, precipitating Wednesday’s election.While Mr. Rutte has been a stalwart of Dutch politics, several scandals plagued his leadership which added to an erosion in trust in the government, according to Dutch political experts. Mr. Rutte will stay on as caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed.Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, who has served a record 13 years in the role, will stay on until a new government is formed.Justin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockIn the final days of the campaign, Mr. Wilders started inching up in the polls partly helped by what many people regarded as strong performances in televised debates, a stronger media focus on him and a slight softening of some of his extreme positions on Islam.But the margin of victory was unexpected. Mr. Wilders’s party has often performed better in opinion polls than in elections. This time, the trend reversed.“These were the most volatile elections ever — never before have so many seats changed hands,” said Tom van der Meer, a professor in political science at the University of Amsterdam.Mr. Rutte had long said that he would not govern with Mr. Wilders. But Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius, Mr. Rutte’s successor as the lead candidate for the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, had left open the door to forming a coalition with Mr. Wilders.That softening appears to have bolstered Mr. Wilders’s performance — long a protest candidate with little hope of real power, this time he could present himself to Dutch voters as a strategic choice: a viable governing partner, even a potential prime minister.Still, it will be complicated for Mr. Wilders to move from the opposition into a stable coalition in a country where politics rests on the art of compromise.In 2010, he had an informal liaison with the mainstream conservative party’s coalition, but he bolted when it wanted to cut back pension benefits. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Has Latin America Found Its Trump in Javier Milei?

      by

      The election of Javier Milei, a wild-haired showboating weirdo with five cloned mastiffs and a habit of psychic communion with their departed pet of origin, as president of Argentina has inspired a lot of discussion about the true nature of right-wing populism in our age of general discontent.Milei has many of the signifiers of a Trumpian politics: the gonzo energy, the criticism of corrupt elites and the rants against the left, the support from social and religious conservatives. At the same time, on economic policy he is much more of a doctrinaire libertarian than a Trump-style mercantilist or populist, a more extreme version of Barry Goldwater and Paul Ryan rather than a defender of entitlement spending and tariffs. Whereas the party that he defeated, the Peronist formation that has governed Argentina for most of the 21st century, is actually more economically nationalist and populist, having ascended in the aftermath of the 2001 financial crisis that ended Argentina’s most notable experiment with neoliberal economics.You can interpret the Trump-Milei divergence in several ways. One reading is that the style of right-wing populism is the essence of the thing, that its policy substance is negotiable so long as it puts forward figures who promise national rebirth and embody some kind of clownish, usually masculine rebellion against the norms of cultural progressivism.Another reading is that, yes, the policy is somewhat negotiable but there are actually deep ideological affinities between right-wing economic nationalism and what might be called paleolibertarianism, despite their disagreement on specific issues. In American terms, this means that Trumpism was anticipated in different ways by Ross Perot and Ron Paul; in global terms, it means that we should expect the parties of the populist right to move back and forth between dirigiste and libertarian tendencies, depending on the economic context and political winds.Here is a third interpretation: While popular discontents have undermined the neoliberal consensus of the 1990s and 2000s all across the developed world, the age of populism is creating very different alignments in the Latin American periphery than in the Euro-American core.In Western Europe and the United States, you now consistently see a center-left party of the professional classes facing off against a populist and working-class coalition on the right. The center-left parties have become more progressive on economic policy relative to the era of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but they have moved much more sharply left on cultural issues while retaining their mandarin and meritocratic leadership, their neoliberal flavor. And they have mostly been able to contain, defeat or co-opt more radical left-wing challengers — Joe Biden by overcoming Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primaries, Keir Starmer by marginalizing Corbynism in Britain’s Labour Party, Emmanuel Macron by forcing French leftists to cast a lesser-of-two-evils ballot in his favor in his runoffs against Marine Le Pen.The populist right, meanwhile, has often found success by moderating its libertarian impulses in order to woo downscale voters away from the progressive coalition, yielding a right-of-center politics that usually favors certain kinds of protectionism and redistribution. That could mean a Trumpian defense of entitlement programs, the halfhearted attempts by Boris Johnson’s Tories to invest in the neglected north of England or the spending on family benefits that you see from Viktor Orban in Hungary and the recently unseated populist coalition in Poland.You can imagine the gulf between these two coalitions keeping the West in a state of simmering near crisis — especially with Trump’s crisis-courting personality in the mix. But you can also imagine a future in which this order stabilizes and normalizes somewhat and people stop talking about an earthquake every time a populist wins power or democracy being saved every time an establishment party wins an election.The situation is quite different in Latin America. There the neoliberal consensus was always weaker, the center more fragile, and so the age of populist rebellion has created a clearer polarization between further left and further right — with the left culturally progressive but usually more avowedly socialist than Biden, Starmer or Macron and the right culturally traditional but usually more libertarian than Trump, Orban or Le Pen.The new alignment in Argentina, with its libertarian revolutionary overcoming a populist-nationalist left, is one example of this pattern; the contest between Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil last year was another. But the recent swings in Chilean politics are especially instructive. In the early 2010s Chile seemed to have a relatively stable political environment, with a center-left party governing through a market-friendly Constitution and a center-right opposition at pains to distance itself from the Pinochet dictatorship. Then popular rebellions cast this order down, creating a wild yaw leftward and an attempt to impose a new left-wing Constitution that yielded backlash in its turn — leaving the country divided between an unpopular left-wing government headed by a former student activist and a temporarily ascendant right-wing opposition led by a Pinochet apologist.In each case, relative to the divides of France and the United States, you see a weaker center and a deeper polarization between competing populist extremes. And if the question for Latin America now is how stable democracy itself will be under such polarized conditions, the question for Europe and America is whether the Argentine or Chilean situation is a harbinger of their own futures. Perhaps not immediately but after a further round of populist rebellions, which could await beyond some crisis or disaster or simply on the far side of demographic change.In such a future, figures like Biden and Starmer and Macron would no longer be able to manage governing coalitions, and the initiative on the left would pass to more radical parties like Podemos in Spain or the Greens in Germany, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezan progressives in the U.S. Congress, to whatever kind of politics emerges from the encounter between the European left and the continent’s growing Arab and Muslim populations. This would give the populist right an opportunity to promise stability and claim the center — but it would also create incentives for the right to radicalize further, yielding bigger ideological swings every time an incumbent coalition lost.Which is, in a way, the clearest lesson of Milei’s thumping victory: If you can’t reach stability after one round of populist convulsion, there’s no inherent limit on how wild the next cycle of rebellion might get.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Dutch Election: Unpredictable Vote May Elevate a Centrist

      by

      Unusually, a protest vote may be coalescing around a centrist, Pieter Omtzigt, as the Dutch vote in national elections on Wednesday.After 13 years with Mark Rutte as their prime minister, the Dutch will cast their ballots on Wednesday in a national election that is expected to scatter votes across the spectrum. But there is one man who has emerged as the campaign’s chief protagonist.It is Pieter Omtzigt, a longtime parliamentarian and founder of a new party, who says he wants to overhaul the Dutch political system from the political center — appealing to voters increasingly disillusioned with the establishment yet wary of extremes.Mr. Omtzigt, 49, has offered voters a novel mix of left-leaning economic policies and right-leaning migration policies, packaged in a party he created this summer, called New Social Contract.“It’s a protest party in the political middle,” said Tom Louwerse, a political scientist at Leiden University who created a website that combines and summarizes polls.Yet it is one that does not pit the elite against the common man in the way populist parties often do, political analysts said. While anti-establishment votes in many European countries have often gone to right-wing parties, Mr. Omtzigt’s presence seems to have provided an alternative to Dutch voters who don’t feel quite at home in the far right.The Dutch election is shaping up as one of the most significant and competitive in years. It is being held two years ahead of schedule, after Mr. Rutte’s government collapsed in July when the parties in his coalition failed to reach an agreement on migration policy.Mr. Rutte, who is serving as caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed, was considered a mainstay of Dutch politics. But trust in the leader who was nicknamed “Teflon Mark” has suffered because of several scandals, including a lack of action by his government after earthquakes caused by decades-long gas production in the northern province of Groningen damaged thousands of homes.Mr. Rutte was also a strong voice for fiscal restraint inside the European Union, especially after the British exit, allowing the Netherlands to punch above its weight on E.U. budget matters.Those are big political shoes to fill, and the race remains unpredictable, analysts said, with three or four parties closely jockeying near the top of polls in the homestretch.In recent days, the far-right Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders, has inched up at the expense of Mr. Omtzigt’s party. The other contenders include a Green-Labor coalition on the left led by Frans Timmermans, a former European Union climate czar; and Mr. Rutte’s party, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy.No one party is expected to win an outright majority, making it likely that whoever comes out on top will have to govern in a coalition, which could take weeks or months to hammer out.Mr. Omtzigt has been somewhat coy as to whether he would serve as prime minister, but he has emerged as the campaign’s most popular figure, said Asher van der Schelde, a researcher for I&O Research, an independent Dutch polling organization.“He is considered by Dutch people as a man with integrity who can enact change,” Mr. van der Schelde said. “The campaign really revolves around him.”Even as he runs as a change agent, Mr. Omtzigt is also regarded as a safe pair of hands. A former member of the center-right Christian party, he spent the better part of the past two decades in the House of Representatives in The Hague. The familiarity may be reassuring for a relatively conservative country that is looking for change but also security after Mr. Rutte’s long tenure.Mr. Omtzigt, right, during a debate last Thursday with opponents including Geert Wilders, center, whose far-right Party for Freedom has been gaining in recent polls.Koen Van Weel/EPA, via ShutterstockIn recent years, Mr. Omtzigt has built a reputation for holding those in power accountable. He rose to prominence in 2021 after he played a pivotal role in uncovering a systemic failure by Mr. Rutte’s government to protect thousands of families from overzealous tax inspectors.As a result of that scandal, Mr. Rutte’s government resigned in 2021, only to be easily re-elected. The scandal added to a growing distrust of the Dutch government, experts say.“There’s a lack of checks and balances in the Dutch political system,” Mr. Omtzigt said in a phone interview. Among the changes he is proposing is the creation of a constitutional court that would perform a role similar to the Supreme Court in the United States, adjudicating whether laws jibe the Constitution.“His style, compared to hard-core populists, is a bit more intellectual,” said Gerrit Voerman, a professor at the University of Groningen who is an expert in the Dutch and European party system.“You could say that the sentiment of distrust in the government has reached the political center,” Professor Voerman said. “Criticism of the government isn’t specifically left wing or right wing.”But even as he has promised “a new way of doing politics,” Mr. Omtzigt is himself very much part of the establishment. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, and he earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Exeter in England.The way the government is run doesn’t work for many people, Mr. Omtzigt said. He also said that many politicians were out of touch with what citizens were worried about.Migration is one of the major issues in this election. Dutch citizens across the political spectrum are in favor of curtailing migration to some degree, pollsters say, including in some cases the number of labor migrants and foreign students.But immigration is not the first issue on Dutch voters’ minds — it’s the country’s housing crisis, which Mr. Omtzigt has linked to an influx of migrants who are competing with Dutch citizens for living spaces.Demonstrators calling for affordable housing during a march in Amsterdam last February.Robin Utrecht/EPA, via Shutterstock“Everyone’s talking about the rights of migrants,” Mr. Omtzigt told a Dutch political podcast this month. “Nobody is talking about the rights to a secure livelihood for those 390,000 households that don’t have a home in the Netherlands.”New Social Contract says it wants a “conscious, active and selective migration policy,” and proposes a maximum migration balance of 50,000 people per year. (In 2022, that number — the difference between people emigrating and immigrating — was roughly 224,000, according to Statistics Netherlands.)“It seems that some politicians are out of sync with citizens’ concerns,” Mr. Omtzigt said.The lack of clarity about whether Mr. Omtzigt wants to become prime minister or serve as his party’s leader in the House of Representatives has hurt his popularity over the final days of the campaign, pollsters say. But on Sunday, he told Dutch television that he would be open to leading the country under certain circumstances.Mr. Rutte’s successor as the lead candidate of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius, has criticized Mr. Omtzigt for his lack of decisiveness.“Leadership is making decisions,” she wrote on X, formerly Twitter, in a thinly veiled criticism of Mr. Omtzigt. “If you don’t want to be prime minister, fine, but just say so.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Protest Vote May Elevate a Centrist in Dutch Election

      by

      Unusually, a protest vote may be coalescing around a centrist, Pieter Omtzigt, as the Dutch vote in national elections on Wednesday.After 13 years with Mark Rutte as their prime minister, the Dutch will cast their ballots on Wednesday in a national election that is expected to scatter votes across the spectrum. But there is one man who has emerged as the campaign’s chief protagonist.It is Pieter Omtzigt, a longtime parliamentarian and founder of a new party, who says he wants to overhaul the Dutch political system from the political center — appealing to voters increasingly disillusioned with the establishment yet wary of extremes.Mr. Omtzigt, 49, has offered voters a novel mix of left-leaning economic policies and right-leaning migration policies, packaged in a party he created this summer, called New Social Contract.“It’s a protest party in the political middle,” said Tom Louwerse, a political scientist at Leiden University who created a website that combines and summarizes polls.Yet it is one that does not pit the elite against the common man in the way populist parties often do, political analysts said. While anti-establishment votes in many European countries have often gone to right-wing parties, Mr. Omtzigt’s presence seems to have provided an alternative to Dutch voters who don’t feel quite at home in the far right.The Dutch election is shaping up as one of the most significant and competitive in years. It is being held two years ahead of schedule, after Mr. Rutte’s government collapsed in July when the parties in his coalition failed to reach an agreement on migration policy.Mr. Rutte, who is serving as caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed, was considered a mainstay of Dutch politics. But trust in the leader who was nicknamed “Teflon Mark” has suffered because of several scandals, including a lack of action by his government after earthquakes caused by decades-long gas production in the northern province of Groningen damaged thousands of homes.Mr. Rutte was also a strong voice for fiscal restraint inside the European Union, especially after the British exit, allowing the Netherlands to punch above its weight on E.U. budget matters.Those are big political shoes to fill, and the race remains unpredictable, analysts said, with three or four parties closely jockeying near the top of polls in the homestretch.In recent days, the far-right Party for Freedom, led by Geert Wilders, has inched up at the expense of Mr. Omtzigt’s party. The other contenders include a Green-Labor coalition on the left led by Frans Timmermans, a former European Union climate czar; and Mr. Rutte’s party, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy.No one party is expected to win an outright majority, making it likely that whoever comes out on top will have to govern in a coalition, which could take weeks or months to hammer out.Mr. Omtzigt has been somewhat coy as to whether he would serve as prime minister, but he has emerged as the campaign’s most popular figure, said Asher van der Schelde, a researcher for I&O Research, an independent Dutch polling organization.“He is considered by Dutch people as a man with integrity who can enact change,” Mr. van der Schelde said. “The campaign really revolves around him.”Even as he runs as a change agent, Mr. Omtzigt is also regarded as a safe pair of hands. A former member of the center-right Christian party, he spent the better part of the past two decades in the House of Representatives in The Hague. The familiarity may be reassuring for a relatively conservative country that is looking for change but also security after Mr. Rutte’s long tenure.Mr. Omtzigt, right, during a debate last Thursday with opponents including Geert Wilders, center, whose far-right Party for Freedom has been gaining in recent polls.Koen Van Weel/EPA, via ShutterstockIn recent years, Mr. Omtzigt has built a reputation for holding those in power accountable. He rose to prominence in 2021 after he played a pivotal role in uncovering a systemic failure by Mr. Rutte’s government to protect thousands of families from overzealous tax inspectors.As a result of that scandal, Mr. Rutte’s government resigned in 2021, only to be easily re-elected. The scandal added to a growing distrust of the Dutch government, experts say.“There’s a lack of checks and balances in the Dutch political system,” Mr. Omtzigt said in a phone interview. Among the changes he is proposing is the creation of a constitutional court that would perform a role similar to the Supreme Court in the United States, adjudicating whether laws jibe the Constitution.“His style, compared to hard-core populists, is a bit more intellectual,” said Gerrit Voerman, a professor at the University of Groningen who is an expert in the Dutch and European party system.“You could say that the sentiment of distrust in the government has reached the political center,” Professor Voerman said. “Criticism of the government isn’t specifically left wing or right wing.”But even as he has promised “a new way of doing politics,” Mr. Omtzigt is himself very much part of the establishment. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, and he earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Exeter in England.The way the government is run doesn’t work for many people, Mr. Omtzigt said. He also said that many politicians were out of touch with what citizens were worried about.Migration is one of the major issues in this election. Dutch citizens across the political spectrum are in favor of curtailing migration to some degree, pollsters say, including in some cases the number of labor migrants and foreign students.But immigration is not the first issue on Dutch voters’ minds — it’s the country’s housing crisis, which Mr. Omtzigt has linked to an influx of migrants who are competing with Dutch citizens for living spaces.Demonstrators calling for affordable housing during a march in Amsterdam last February.Robin Utrecht/EPA, via Shutterstock“Everyone’s talking about the rights of migrants,” Mr. Omtzigt told a Dutch political podcast this month. “Nobody is talking about the rights to a secure livelihood for those 390,000 households that don’t have a home in the Netherlands.”New Social Contract says it wants a “conscious, active and selective migration policy,” and proposes a maximum migration balance of 50,000 people per year. (In 2022, that number — the difference between people emigrating and immigrating — was roughly 224,000, according to Statistics Netherlands.)“It seems that some politicians are out of sync with citizens’ concerns,” Mr. Omtzigt said.The lack of clarity about whether Mr. Omtzigt wants to become prime minister or serve as his party’s leader in the House of Representatives has hurt his popularity over the final days of the campaign, pollsters say. But on Sunday, he told Dutch television that he would be open to leading the country under certain circumstances.Mr. Rutte’s successor as the lead candidate of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius, has criticized Mr. Omtzigt for his lack of decisiveness.“Leadership is making decisions,” she wrote on X, formerly Twitter, in a thinly veiled criticism of Mr. Omtzigt. “If you don’t want to be prime minister, fine, but just say so.” More