United States International Relations

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Guatemala Election: What to Know

      by

      The election in the Central American nation is marked by the exclusion of top candidates and calls to crack down on violent crime.Guatemala, Central America’s largest nation, will vote on Sunday in presidential elections that are casting scrutiny on the erosion of the rule of law in a country that has become a major source of migration to the United States.Guatemala’s nascent democracy — which emerged after the end of a civil war nearly four decades ago that left hundreds of thousands dead or missing, one of the bloodiest in recent Latin American history — has frayed in recent years under an increasingly authoritarian government.The judiciary has been weaponized and has forced into exile dozens of prosecutors and judges focused on battling corruption. Press freedom has also come under attack, and this month, the publisher of a leading newspaper that exposed many episodes of graft was sentenced to six years in prison after being convicted of financial crimes.The electoral authority in Guatemala, a country of 18 million, has added to concerns about assaults on democratic norms after it barred several top presidential candidates who were viewed as a threat to the political and economic establishment.The disqualification of several candidates from the presidential race, including Carlos Pineda, has raised questions about the legitimacy of Sunday’s voteDaniele Volpe for The New York TimesThe tensions over Guatemala’s teetering democracy has left some voters disillusioned and wondering if they should even bother casting a ballot.“I don’t think there should even be an election,” said Óscar Guillén, 70, explaining that he planned to leave his ballot blank to express his disenchantment.Voters will still choose from a crowded field of more than 20 candidates, not one of whom is predicted to obtain a majority on Sunday, which would force a runoff on Aug. 20 between the top two finishers.Runoffs have become common in Guatemala since peace accords in 1996 ended an internal conflict that lasted 36 years and was marked by brutal counterinsurgency tactics that resulted in genocide against Indigenous people.Guatemala’s current president, Alejandro Giammattei, is barred by law from seeking re-election. But even though a sharp increase in violent crime and a punishingly high cost of living have made Mr. Giammattei, a conservative, deeply unpopular, the leading candidates in the race generally also lean conservative, suggesting continuity with the country’s political establishment.Voting is not mandatory in Guatemala, and the abstention rate, which was nearly 40 percent in the last presidential election, in 2019, will be closely watched as a gauge of voter discontent.Here’s what you need to know about the vote on Sunday.Sandra Torres has been the top candidate across several polls, though her support would fall far short of winning a majority of the vote. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesWho is running?Of the three leading candidates, no one is predicted to secure anything close to the majority needed to win outright on Sunday. Across several polls, Sandra Torres, a former first lady, appeared to be the top candidate, but with levels of support hovering around 20 percent. (The presidential candidate from Mr. Giammattei’s party is polling in the low single digits.)Ms. Torres, 67, was married to Álvaro Colom, who was the president of Guatemala from 2008 to 2012 and who died this year at 71. They divorced in 2011, when Ms. Torres first tried to run for president and tried to circumvent a law prohibiting a president’s relatives from running for office.She was still barred from running that year, but was the runner-up in the two most recent presidential elections. After the 2019 election, she was accused of campaign finance violations and spent time under house arrest.Ms. Torres prevailed in that case late last year when a judge ruled that were was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial, allowing her to run again. On the campaign trail, she has been able to draw support from her party, National Unity of Hope, which is well established and widely known in Guatemala.Ms. Torres, like her two main rivals, has expressed admiration for the crackdown on gangs by the government in neighboring El Salvador, which has helped drive down violence, but has also raised concerns about human rights abuses.She has also promised to increase cash transfers and food assistance to poor families, building on her time as first lady when she was the face of those kinds of popular initiatives.Another top challenger, Zury Ríos, 55, is also a familiar figure in Guatemalan politics. She is the daughter of Efraín Ríos Montt, a dictator in the early 1980s who was convicted in 2013 of genocide for trying to exterminate the Ixil, a Mayan people.While the evidence against her father was meticulously documented and detailed at his trial, Ms. Ríos has claimed repeatedly that no genocide ever took place. Her ultraconservative party is led by figures with links to her father.Still, while Ms. Ríos promotes her conservative credentials and evangelical Christian beliefs, she has a more nuanced record as a former member of Congress when she forged alliances in an effort to win legislative approval for bills aimed at improving conditions for women and L.G.T.B.Q. people.Another main presidential contender is Edmond Mulet, 72, a lawyer and a seasoned former diplomat who has served as Guatemala’s ambassador to the United States and the European Union, as well as the head of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti.While Mr. Mulet has highlighted his diplomatic experience, he is also known for his work as a lawyer in the 1980s, when he was arrested in connection to his work arranging adoptions of Guatemalan children by Canadian families.Though he was quickly set free and Mr. Mulet has denied any wrongdoing, he has still spent time on the campaign trail having to explain his involvement in the episode.In his campaign, Mr. Mulet is representing a newly formed party without any seats in Congress, but that has forged a competitive coalition of candidates at the national and local level in Sunday’s election. His proposals include a universal pension, increasing police salaries and building a new high-security prison.About 20 percent of the legislators in Guatemala’s Congress face some kind of corruption accusation.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesWhat are the main issues?Corruption: Guatemala won plaudits during the past decade for efforts to curb impunity and graft. But that initiative, led by a U.N.-backed panel of international investigators, was systematically dismantled in recent years as entrenched political and economic interests started hounding anticorruption judges and prosecutors from the country.The exclusion of top candidates in the election reflects, civil liberty groups say, how elite figures are steadily reasserting their power.Family members mourned over the coffin of Miguel Rojché Zapalu, one of 17 Guatemalan men killed in a fire at a migration center near the U.S. border, during his funeral in April in Chicacao, a predominantly Indigenous community.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesMigration: Guatemalans rank among the fastest-growing groups of migrants in the United States. The number of those arriving annually has increased by about 33 percent from 2010 to 2021, from 830,000 to more than 1.1 million.Various factors drive Guatemalans to emigrate, notably a lack of economic opportunity, with about 59 percent of the population living below the poverty line.The United States made fighting corruption and shoring up democracy in Guatemala and other Central American countries a priority early in President Biden’s tenure, arguing that it would keep people from leaving their homelands.But those efforts have done little to prevent a backsliding of democracy in the region or make a major dent in the flow of migrants.A defendant being escorted to a hearing at a court in Guatemala City.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesCrime: A top theme throughout the campaign season in Guatemala has been calls to emulate the crackdown on gangs in El Salvador, pointing to the rising frustration with high levels of violent crime.The number of homicides in Guatemala — fueled in part by powerful gangs — climbed nearly 6 percent in 2022 from the previous year, and there has also been a sharp increase in the number of murder victims who showed signs of torture. Many Guatemalans cite fears of extortion and crime as reasons to emigrate. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Modi’s Visits Abroad Help to Build His Image in India

      by

      For an audience in India, the prime minister is linking his diplomatic reception abroad, and himself, to the country’s growing importance on the world stage.His grip on the levers of national power secure, his hold on India’s domestic imagination cemented, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has increasingly turned to advancing himself on a new horizon: the global stage.With a packed diplomatic calendar that includes India’s hosting of the Group of 20 summit later this year, Mr. Modi is building an image going into his re-election campaign as a leader who can win respect and investment for his vast nation. The state visit accorded to Mr. Modi in Washington, which ends on Friday, is perhaps the biggest prize yet in that quest.“It’s not just about a fairer bargain abroad,” said Ashok Malik, a former government adviser who is the India chair at the Asia Group, a consulting firm. “It’s also that ‘my investments in key foreign policy relations are actually helping to build the Indian economy and therefore create opportunities for Indians at home and strengthen India overall.’”At home, Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist party has continued to sideline institutions that were once important checks on the government. It has persisted in its vilification of the country’s 200 million Muslims, even as Mr. Modi used an exceedingly rare news conference in Washington to claim that there was no discrimination against anyone in India.But abroad, world leaders eager to court an ascendant India have offered little pushback. And often, they have given Mr. Modi invaluable fodder for an information campaign that shapes perceptions of him among many Indian voters who are ecstatic to see their country’s importance affirmed.Eid-al Fitr prayers in Chennai, India, in April. Mr. Modi used a news conference in Washington to claim that there was no discrimination against anyone in India, including the country’s huge Muslim minority.Idrees Mohammed/EPA, via ShutterstockWhen Mr. Modi traveled to Australia last month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese referred to him as “the boss” in front of an arena in Sydney packed with about 20,000 people. Mr. Modi then returned to New Delhi to a large crowd gathered for his welcome at 6 in the morning, telling supporters that the grand welcome for him abroad was about India, not him.On Friday, as Mr. Modi was wrapping up his meetings in the United States before arriving in Egypt for another grand greeting, his political party and the large sections of the broadcast media friendly to him reveled in the reception he had gotten from President Biden and other American leaders.The red carpet in Washington played perfectly into one of Mr. Modi’s talents: He can build a media campaign out of virtually anything, projecting himself as the only leader who can expand India’s economy and usher a nation coming into its own to new heights.While opposition leaders back home were holding their largest gathering yet, hoping to find a formula for uniting to challenge the prime minister in elections early next year, Mr. Modi was reaching for the world.Social media was flooded with montage videos, set to regal background music, of Mr. Modi making a grand entrance into the House of Representatives for his address to a joint session of Congress. The speech, after which several lawmakers sought Mr. Modi’s autograph, made him one of only a very small number of world leaders to have addressed that body twice.Another video online kept count of the number of times Mr. Modi received applause or standing ovations during his speech. A third cut to dramatic images of Mr. Modi contrasting him with the dynastic leaders who came before him, advancing a constant narrative that he represents a subversion of the old elite that long ruled India.“History tells us that powerful people come from powerful places. History was wrong,” a deep voice intones in the video. “Powerful people make places powerful.”Congress offers a standing ovation for Mr. Modi’s speech on Capitol Hill on Thursday.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesMr. Modi’s next major opportunity to appear as a global statesman will come in September when India welcomes the Group of 20 leaders, a summit meeting he has framed to his support base as his bringing the world to India.His government has turned promotion for the meeting into a roadshow, hosting hundreds of G20 events, so many that foreign diplomats in New Delhi quietly complain about travel fatigue. Cities and towns across India are decked out with billboards bearing the G20 logo — which cleverly incorporates the lotus, a symbol both of India and his Bharatiya Janata Party — and pictures of Mr. Modi.In promoting the G20 presidency, Mr. Modi has taken to frequently describing India, the world’s most populous nation, as the “mother of democracy.” Abroad, however, he has pursued a transactional brand of diplomacy built not on practicing democratic values, but on what best serves Indian economic and security interests, and what elevates India in the world.The image of “a rising India, a new India being seen more seriously abroad” helps Mr. Modi politically, Mr. Malik said. But Mr. Modi is also investing heavily in U.S. relations with an eye toward how they could help an Indian economy that is struggling to create enough jobs for its huge young population and that must put up a fight against an aggressive China next door.“Addressing China is not just about soldiers and weapons at the border, it’s also about building economic alternatives to what China offers,” Mr. Malik said.Supporters of Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party cheer during a rally in Bengaluru, India, last month.Manjunath Kiran/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe list of agreements between the United States and India, announced at the end of a bilateral meeting at the White House, was long, covering defense, space and a wide range of technological cooperation.Defense cooperation, in particular — including deals on Indian manufacturing of General Electric jet engines and purchasing Predator military drones — received a major boost after what had been a history of reluctance and bureaucratic hurdles on both sides. Dr. Tara Kartha, a former senior official in India’s security council who dealt with U.S. on defense, said the agreement on aircraft engines was “an affirmation of trust” that would help the military partnership beyond the smaller steps of the past two decades.“Each country is trying to get past its bureaucratic constrains,” she said. “Until the bureaucracy can catch up, there will be frustrations.”Among ordinary Indians on the streets of New Delhi, opinions of Mr. Modi’s diplomatic efforts were divided.Vijay Yadav, a 26-year-old taxi driver, said Mr. Modi’s outreach abroad could not cover for how India’s economy was struggling to create enough jobs.“I saw on Instagram a news feed which was constantly touting Mr. Modi’s trip to America as if no other Indian leader had been there before,” he said. “Firstly, he must get down to solving the problems of his own countrymen before he goes abroad to project himself as a hero.”Nidhi Garg, 41, who has inherited a vegetable and fruit shop from her father, said her heart swelled each time she saw Mr. Modi representing India abroad.“Today, wherever you see, the name of our nation is being taken,” she said. “The first thing that comes to anyone’s mind when they mention the word India, they immediately connect it to Prime Minister Modi.”Suhasini Raj More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Guatemala: algunos candidatos perdieron antes de la votación

      by

      Los comicios del domingo estarán marcados tanto por los presentes como por los ausentes en las papeletas, pues las autoridades descalificaron a algunos de los principales contendientes.La primavera pasada, una magistrada guatemalteca entró en una reunión en la embajada estadounidense y sacó una gran cantidad de efectivo. Según dijo, el dinero era un soborno de uno de los aliados más cercanos del presidente.La magistrada, Blanca Alfaro, forma parte del Tribunal Supremo Electoral, la autoridad que supervisa las elecciones del país. Alfaro dijo que le entregaron el soborno para influir en las elecciones de Guatemala, según un funcionario estadounidense que fue informado sobre el encuentro y una persona que estuvo presente y solicitó mantener su anonimato por no estar autorizada para discutir los detalles de la reunión privada.Los diplomáticos estadounidenses se sorprendieron por la desfachatez del episodio, pero no por los señalamientos. En el volátil clima político que reina en Guatemala en las vísperas de las elecciones presidenciales del domingo ha habido una constante: un bombardeo de ataques continuo contra las instituciones democráticas por parte de quienes están en el poder.En un país que ha pasado de ser un escenario donde se erradicaba la corrupción a otro en el que decenas de altos funcionarios anticorrupción se han visto obligados a exiliarse, la primera vuelta de la votación estará marcada tanto por quienes aparecen en la papeleta como por los ausentes.El organismo electoral del país ha descalificado a todos los candidatos serios que podrían desafiar el statu quo, encarnado por el presidente Alejandro Giammattei, un conservador al que los críticos acusan de llevar el país hacia la autocracia y que no puede contender por un nuevo mandato.Los demás candidatos son personas vinculadas a algún segmento de la élite política o económica. Junto a sus nombres en la papeleta de votación habrá varias casillas en blanco, que representan a cuatro candidatos que fueron excluidos del proceso por la autoridad electoral.La magistrada Alfaro les dijo a los funcionarios estadounidenses que había recibido el soborno de Miguel Martínez, un confidente cercano de Giammattei y funcionario clave de su partido, según afirman tanto la persona que asistió a la reunión como el funcionario estadounidense.Alfaro también dijo que la suma de dinero ascendía a 50.000 quetzales guatemaltecos (el equivalente a más de 6000 dólares), según la persona que estuvo presente en el encuentro. El Times no ha corroborado la afirmación de la magistrada Alfaro sobre el soborno. En una entrevista, Alfaro negó que fuera a la embajada e hiciera esa acusación.“No me he reunido con Miguel Martínez”, le dijo a The New York Times. Y añadió: “Dudo que a la embajada se puedan ingresar 50.000 quetzales porque uno tiene que pasar por muchas medidas de seguridad”.Por su parte, Martínez negó haber sobornado a la magistrada Alfaro y afirmó que nunca se ha reunido con ella. Dijo que estaba al tanto de un esfuerzo por parte de personas que no pudieron participar en las elecciones para involucrarlo “en alguna situación legal” con la Embajada de Estados Unidos.“Ahora nos estamos dando cuenta que en la situación legal que me están tratando a mí de involucrar para afectar al tema del proceso electoral que se está llevando a cabo de una manera limpia y democrática, es esto”, dijo Martínez.Luego, en una declaración grabada en video que circuló ampliamente en las redes sociales, Martínez dijo a unos periodistas que el Times pronto publicaría un relato de la visita de Alfaro a la embajada. “Esto es algo malicioso que ellos quieren hacer para desestabilizar las elecciones”, dijo Martínez en el video.Cuando se le preguntó sobre las acusaciones de Alfaro y la respuesta de la embajada, una portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Christina Tilghman, dijo: “No confirmamos la existencia de supuestas reuniones ni discutimos el contenido de las discusiones diplomáticas”.Tilghman dijo que siempre que el gobierno estadounidense recibe denuncias de corrupción que “cumplen los requisitos probatorios establecidos por la normativa y la legislación de Estados Unidos”, sanciona o castiga de otro modo a los implicados.La actuación de la autoridad electoral ha hecho que grupos de defensa de los derechos civiles cuestionen si la contienda presidencial del domingo en realidad puede considerarse libre y justa.“Legalidad no es lo mismo que legitimidad”, dijo Juan Francisco Sandoval, exfiscal anticorrupción que ahora vive en Estados Unidos y forma parte de las decenas de fiscales y jueces que se han exiliado en los últimos años.Sandoval afirma que la votación se verá empañada tanto por los fallos arbitrarios sobre quién puede postularse, como por el aumento de la financiación ilícita de campañas con fondos públicos.Aunque representan tendencias ideológicas distintas, al menos tres de los candidatos excluidos inquietaron a las élites políticas de Guatemala.Uno de ellos, Carlos Pineda, se posicionó como un empresario independiente que utilizó TikTok para surgir como favorito en las encuestas.“Quince partidos accionaron en mi contra. Lo hicieron porque íbamos punteando en las encuestas y se determinaba que en primera vuelta íbamos a hacer historia y ganar las elecciones”, dijo Pineda refiriéndose al hecho de que si nadie obtiene más del 50por ciento de los votos, se celebrará una segunda vuelta entre los dos candidatos más votados. “Para mí estas elecciones son ilegítimas”.Carlos Pineda en una protesta contra su exclusión de la campaña presidencialDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesOtra candidata excluida, Thelma Cabrera, es una líder de izquierda proveniente de una familia maya mam que intenta organizar a los pueblos indígenas de Guatemala, que representan aproximadamente la mitad de la población, en una fuerza política unificada. El tercero, Roberto Arzú, es un dirigente de derecha de una familia de políticos que se ha posicionado como una fuerza opositora a las élites del país.Blanca Alfaro, al centro, e Irma Elizabeth Palencia Orellana, de amarillo, magistradas del Tribunal Supremo Electoral, la autoridad encargada de las elecciones del domingoDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesGiammattei, a quien la ley le prohíbe presentarse a la reelección, ha guardado silencio sobre la exclusión de varios de los principales aspirantes. En gran medida, la campaña se ha convertido en una contienda entre tres candidatos principales que se considera que pueden ofrecer cierta continuidad con el statu quo.Sandra Torres fue primera dama de 2008 a 2011, cuando estaba casada con el presidente Álvaro Colom. Se divorciaron cuando Torres intentó postularse por primera vez como candidata a la presidencia en 2011, en un intento de sortear una ley que prohíbe que los familiares del presidente puedan presentarse como candidatos.Torres fue detenida en 2019 en relación con violaciones de financiación de campaña, pero el caso fue cerrado por un juez en 2022 apenas unas semanas antes de que comenzara oficialmente la campaña, lo que le permitió postularse. Su plataforma destaca las promesas de ampliar los programas sociales, incluidas las transferencias de efectivo para los pobres.Sandra Torres en un evento electoral en Ciudad de GuatemalaDaniele Volpe para The New York TimesOtra de las principales candidatas, Zury Ríos, es hija de Efraín Ríos Montt, quien fue dictador de Guatemala a principios de la década de 1980 y ordenó tácticas extremas contra la insurgencia guerrillera y posteriormente fue condenado por genocidio en una sentencia pionera de 2013 por intentar exterminar a los ixiles, un pueblo maya indígena de Guatemala.Zury Ríos no se ha arrepentido de las acciones de su padre, y este año incluso llegó a negar que un genocidio sucedió. Cristiana evangélica, ha ganado popularidad entre los conservadores tras aliarse con figuras que pretenden frenar las iniciativas anticorrupción. Tras su paso por el Congreso, donde hizo hincapié en temas relacionados con las mujeres, ha centrado su campaña presidencial en la adopción de políticas de seguridad de línea dura para combatir la delincuencia.Edmond Mulet, otro de los principales aspirantes, fue diplomático y generalmente se inclina por puntos de vista conservadores. Mulet, cuyas propuestas incluyen la ampliación del acceso a internet y el suministro de medicamentos gratuitos, ha criticado la persecución de periodistas y fiscales, pero ha forjado vínculos con poderosas figuras políticas tradicionales, evitando el destino de los candidatos excluidos.Los sondeos de las últimas semanas apuntan a que ninguno de los tres podrá obtener una mayoría suficiente el domingo, lo que forzaría a una segunda vuelta el 30 de agosto.La descalificación de varios candidatos de la campaña presidencial ha puesto en duda la legitimidad de la votación del domingo.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesLa contienda, según los expertos, revela lo efectiva que han sido los poderosos en erradicar cualquier fuente seria de disenso.“El uso del sistema judicial como un arma está haciendo que se marchen algunas de las mentes más brillantes del país e intimida a quienes se quedan”, dijo Regina Bateson, académica de la Universidad de Ottawa especializada en Guatemala. En su opinión, esa situación ha originado unas “elecciones que socavan la democracia”.Simon Romero es corresponsal nacional y cubre el suroeste de Estados Unidos. Ha sido jefe de las corresponsalías del Times en Brasil, los Andes y corresponsal internacional de energía. @viaSimonRomeroNatalie Kitroeff es la jefa de la corresponsalía del Times para México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. @Nataliekitro More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Guatemala Votes for President, but Candidates Are Excluded

      by

      Guatemala’s first round of elections on Sunday is as much about who’s not on the ballot as who is, after courts barred leading candidates from running.A Guatemalan judge walked into a meeting at the American Embassy last spring and pulled out a large quantity of cash: The money, she said, was a bribe from one of the president’s closest allies.The judge, Blanca Alfaro, helps lead the authority that oversees the country’s elections. She claimed the money had been given to her to gain influence over the electoral agency, according to a U.S. official briefed on the encounter and a person who was present and requested anonymity to discuss the details of a private meeting.American diplomats were shocked by the brazenness of the episode, but not by the allegations. In the volatile political climate consuming Guatemala in the run-up to presidential elections on Sunday, there has been one constant: a steady drumbeat of attacks on democratic institutions by those in power.In a country that has shifted from a staging ground for rooting out corruption to one where dozens of anticorruption officials have been forced into exile, the first round of voting will be as much about who is not on the ballot as who is.The nation’s electoral agency has disqualified every serious candidate in the race who could challenge the status quo, which is embodied by President Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative who critics accuse of pushing the country toward autocracy and who is barred from running for another term.The remaining front-runners are people with links to some segment of the political or economic elite. Alongside their names on the ballot will be several blank boxes, representing four candidates excluded from the process by the electoral authority.Judge Alfaro told American officials that she had received the bribe from Miguel Martínez, a close confidant of Mr. Giammattei’s and a key official in his party, said the person who attended the meeting and the U.S. official.She said the money she had with her amounted to 50,000 Guatemalan quetzales (the equivalent of more than $6,000), according to the person who was present.The Times has not substantiated Judge Alfaro’s claim that she was bribed. In an interview, Ms. Alfaro denied that she went to the embassy and made the allegation.“I have no relationship with Miguel Martínez,” she told The New York Times. “I doubt that 50,000 quetzales can be brought into the embassy because you go through so many security measures.”Mr. Martínez denied giving Judge Alfaro a bribe, saying he had never met with her. He said he was aware of an effort by people who were unable to participate in the elections “to get me involved in some legal situation” with the American Embassy.“Now we are realizing that this is the legal situation they are trying to involve me in,” Mr. Martínez said, “to affect the electoral process that is being carried out in a clean and democratic way.”Later, Mr. Martínez told reporters that The Times would soon publish an account of Ms. Alfaro’s trip to the embassy in a statement captured on video and circulated widely on social media. “This is something malicious they want to do to destabilize the elections,” Mr. Martínez said in the video. When asked about the Ms. Alfaro’s allegations and the embassy’s response, a State Department spokeswoman, Christina Tilghman, said, “We do not confirm the existence of alleged meetings nor discuss the contents of diplomatic discussions.”Ms. Tilghman said that whenever the American government receives allegations of corruption that “meet evidentiary requirements under U.S. regulations and law,” it imposes sanctions or otherwise punishes those involved.The actions of the electoral authority have led civil rights groups to question whether Sunday’s presidential contest can truly be considered free and fair.“Legality is not the same as legitimacy,” said Juan Francisco Sandoval, a former anticorruption prosecutor who now lives in the United States and is among the dozens of prosecutors and judges who have gone into exile in recent years.The vote, he said, will be marred both by “arbitrary rulings” on who was allowed to run, and a surge in illicit campaign financing using public funds.Though from different ideological backgrounds, at least three of the excluded candidates were viewed as unsettling to Guatemala’s political establishment.One of them, Carlos Pineda, positioned himself as an outsider businessman and used TikTok to become a front-runner in the polls.“They went after us because we were climbing so much in the polls that we could make history by winning in the first round,” said Mr. Pineda, referring to the fact that if no one wins more than 50 percent of the vote, a runoff will be held between the top two candidates. “This election is illegitimate.”Carlos Pineda at a demonstration protesting his exclusion from the race. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesAnother barred candidate, Thelma Cabrera, is a leftist from a Maya Mam family trying to organize Guatemala’s Indigenous peoples, who account for roughly half the population, into a unified political force. A third, Roberto Arzú, is a right-wing scion of a political family who had positioned himself as an opponent of the country’s elites.Blanca Alfaro, center, and Irma Elizabeth Palencia Orellana, in yellow, magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the authority overseeing Sunday’s election. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesMr. Giammattei, prohibited by law from seeking re-election, has remained silent about the barring of several top contenders. The race has largely become a contest among three leading candidates who are viewed as providing some continuity with the status quo.Sandra Torres was the first lady from 2008 to 2011, when she was married to President Álvaro Colom. They divorced when Ms. Torres first sought to run for president in 2011 (Guatemalan law prohibits a president’s relatives from running for office).Ms. Torres was arrested in 2019 in connection with campaign finance violations, but the case was dismissed by a judge in 2022 just weeks before campaigning officially got underway, allowing her to run. Her platform highlights promises to expand social programs, including cash transfers for the poor.Sandra Torres at a rally in Guatemala City. Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesAnother leading candidate, Zury Ríos, is the daughter of Efraín Ríos Montt, a dictator of Guatemala in the early 1980s who ordered extreme tactics against a guerrilla insurgency and was convicted of genocide in 2013 for trying to exterminate the Ixil, a Mayan people indigenous to Guatemala. Ms. Ríos has been unrepentant about her father’s actions, going so far as to deny this year that the genocide happened. An evangelical Christian, she gained popularity among conservatives after allying with figures seeking to blunt anticorruption initiatives. When she served in Congress, she emphasized women’s issues, but on the presidential campaign trail she has stressed adopting hard-line security policies to combat crime.Another top contender, Edmond Mulet, is a former diplomat who generally hews to conservative views. Mr. Mulet, whose proposals include expanding internet access and providing free medicines, has criticized the persecution of journalists and prosecutors, but has also forged ties with powerful entrenched political figures, avoiding the fate of excluded candidates.Polls in recent weeks suggest that none of the three are expected to come close to winning a majority of the votes on Sunday, which would force a runoff on Aug. 30.The disqualification of several candidates from the presidential race has raised question about the legitimacy of Sunday’s vote.Daniele Volpe for The New York TimesThe contest, experts said, lays bare how effective Guatemala’s power brokers have been at extinguishing any real source of dissent.“The weaponization of the judicial system is driving some of the brightest minds in the country to leave and intimidating anyone that’s left,” said Regina Bateson, a scholar at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Guatemala. The result, she said, is an “election undermining democracy.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The United States and India Can Be Better Partners

      by

      Idealism and pragmatism have long made rival claims on American foreign policy, forcing hard choices and sometimes leading to disappointment. There was a moment in the 1990s when the collapse of the Soviet Union looked to clear the way for a universal political and economic order, but that chimera soon gave way to the more complex world we inhabit today, in which the ideals of liberal democracy — often in otherwise well-functioning democracies — sometimes seem to be in conflict with the popularity of strongmen leaders, the desire for security or the forces of xenophobia or grievance.For American presidents and policymakers, this poses a challenge; it is no longer enough to champion the ideals of liberal democracy and count on the rest of the world to follow. Lecturing any country, be it global powers like Russia or China or regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can embolden autocratic tendencies; engagement can, at least sometimes, lead to further dialogue and space for diplomacy. Advancing American ideals requires being pragmatic and even accommodating when our democratic partners fall short of the mark — and humility about where the United States falls short, too.Take India, and the quandary it poses for Washington, which is on display as Prime Minister Narendra Modi makes a state visit this week.India is a democracy in which the world’s biggest electorate openly and freely exercises the fundamental right to choose its leader. Its population is the largest in the world, and its economy is now the fifth largest in the world; its vast diaspora wields huge influence, especially in American business. With its history of close relations with Moscow, long and sometimes contested border with China and strategic location in a highly volatile neighborhood, India is destined to be a critical player in geopolitics for decades to come. Mr. Modi, the prime minister since 2014, commands sky-high popularity ratings and a secure majority in his Parliament, and is in the enviable position of leading a country with a relatively young, growing population.While India has a long history of wariness toward America — most of its military equipment comes from the Soviet Union and Russia, and it would prefer to steer clear of direct involvement in the U.S.-China rivalry — senior American officials believe that India’s views of the United States have fundamentally improved in recent years.This is partly through the work of the dynamic Indian diaspora, partly through greater strategic partnership, and partly because of the growing interest by American companies in India as an alternative to China for expansion in Asia. India has joined the United States, Japan and Australia in the “Quad,” an informal grouping that seeks to counter China’s increasingly assertive behavior in the Indo-Pacific region. And hundreds of American business and industry leaders will gather to meet with Mr. Modi this week. The visit is expected to include major deals to build American jet engines in India and to sell American drones.So it is not hard to fathom why India’s leader is getting rock-star treatment in Washington, from a state dinner at the White House to an address on Capitol Hill. President Biden is right to acknowledge the potential of America’s partnership with India using all the symbolism and diplomatic tools at his disposal.But Mr. Biden cannot ignore the other, equally significant, changes in India during the last nine years: Under Mr. Modi and his right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, India has witnessed a serious erosion of the civil and political rights and democratic freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Mr. Modi and his allies have been accused of policies that target and discriminate against religious minorities, especially India’s 200 million Muslims, and of using the power of the state to punish rivals and silence critics. Raids on political opponents and dissenting voices have become frequent; the mainstream news media has been diminished; the independence of courts and other democratic institutions has been eroded — all to a chorus of avowals from the B.J.P. that it is acting strictly within the law.In March, a court in Mr. Modi’s home state sentenced the opposition leader, Rahul Gandhi, to a two-year prison term for defaming the prime minister; though Mr. Gandhi has not been jailed, the sentence led to his expulsion from Parliament, and will most likely prevent him from running again. Before that, in January, the Modi government used emergency laws to limit access to a BBC documentary that reexamined damning allegations that Mr. Modi played a role in murderous sectarian violence in Gujarat State 20 years ago, when he was chief minister there. As this editorial board warned, “When populist leaders invoke emergency laws to block dissent, democracy is in peril.”This remains true, and it behooves Mr. Biden and every other elected official and business leader who meet with the Indian delegation this week to make sure that a discussion of shared democratic values is on the agenda.That may be a tall order. Mr. Modi has demonstrated a prickly intolerance for criticism and may still harbor resentment from the nearly 10 years he was effectively barred from traveling to the United States for allegations of “severe violations of religious freedom” over the Gujarat violence. (He has repeatedly denied involvement, and the visa ban was lifted by the Obama administration when Mr. Modi became prime minister.) A public scolding from the White House, especially when the United States is wrestling with its own threats to democracy, would serve little purpose except to anger the Indian public.Nevertheless, Mr. Biden and other American officials should be willing to have a forthright, if sometimes uncomfortable, discussion with their Indian counterparts. America’s own struggles are humbling proof that even the most established democracies are not immune to problems. As Human Rights Watch notes in a letter to Mr. Biden: “U.S. officials can point to how the U.S. political system has itself struggled with toxic rhetoric, while working to maintain an open and free media. These topics can be discussed openly and diplomatically in both directions.”The quandary is not limited to India. How the United States manages its relationships with “elected autocracies,” from Poland’s Law and Justice government to Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right coalition in Israel to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government in Turkey, is one of the most important strategic questions of American foreign policy. The leaders of these countries and others will be watching closely to see how the Biden administration deals with this indispensable but increasingly autocratic Asian democracy.The administration also faces the problem that the United States’ democratic credentials have been tarnished by Donald Trump and the possibility that he may be back in the White House before long. Mr. Trump’s politics have been openly hailed as inspiration by many an elected autocrat — including Mr. Modi, whose magnetism Mr. Trump likened to Elvis Presley’s at a rally in Houston on an official visit in 2019.President Biden knows, from his many years in public service, that there will always be points of friction even in the closest partnerships between nations, let alone in relationships with leaders who have a very different view of the world. And senior U.S. government officials say that the administration is keenly aware of the flaws of the Modi government. Yet they believe that India’s vital role on the global stage supersedes concerns about one leader. Far better, they say, to raise concerns in private; and they insist they have raised them in many difficult conversations, and said they would raise them in this week’s meetings with Mr. Modi.It is essential that they are raised. India has shaped a great and complex democracy out of a rich panoply of people, languages and religious traditions, and it is reaching for a more prominent role in global affairs.But it is also critical to make clear that intolerance and repression run counter to everything that Americans admire in India, and threaten the partnership with the United States that its prime minister is actively seeking to strengthen and deepen. America wants and needs to embrace India; but Mr. Modi should be left with no illusion about how dangerous his autocratic leanings are, to the people of India and for the health of democracy in the world.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

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Real Estate Deal in Oman Underscores Ethics Concerns

      by

      On a remote site at the edge of the Gulf of Oman, thousands of migrant laborers from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan are at work in 103-degree heat, toiling in shifts from dawn until nightfall to build a new city, a multibillion-dollar project backed by Oman’s oil-rich government that has an unusual partner: former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. Trump’s name is plastered on signs at the entrance of the project and in the lobby of the InterContinental Hotel in Muscat, the nearby capital of Oman, where a team of sales agents is invoking Mr. Trump’s name to help sell luxury villas at prices of up to $13 million, mostly targeting superrich buyers from around the world, including from Russia, Iran and India.Mr. Trump has been selling his name to global real estate developers for more than a decade. But the Oman deal has taken his financial stake in one of the world’s most strategically important and volatile regions to a new level, underscoring how his business and his politics intersect as he runs for president again amid intensifying legal and ethical troubles.Interviews and an examination by The New York Times of hundreds of pages of financial documents associated with the Oman project show that this partnership is unlike any other international deal Mr. Trump and his family have signed.The venture puts Mr. Trump in business with the government of Oman, an ally of the United States with which Mr. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, cultivated ties while in office and which plays a vital diplomatic role in a volatile region. The Omani government is providing the land for the development, is investing heavily in the infrastructure to support it and will get a cut of the profits in the long run.Mr. Trump was brought into the deal by a Saudi real estate firm, Dar Al Arkan, which is closely intertwined with the Saudi government. While in office, Mr. Trump developed a tight relationship with Saudi leaders. Since leaving office, he has worked with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund to host the LIV golf tour and Mr. Kushner received a $2 billion infusion from the Saudi fund for his investment venture.Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, has already brought in at least $5 million from the Oman deal. Under its terms, Trump Organization will not put up any money for the development, but will help design a Trump-branded hotel, golf course and golf club and will be paid to manage them for up to 30 years, among other revenue.The project could also draw scrutiny in the West for its treatment of its migrant workers, who during the first phase of construction are living in compounds of cramped trailers in a desertlike setting and are being paid as little as $340 a month, according to one of the engineers supervising the work.Former President Donald J. Trump’s name is plastered on giant signs at the entrance of the project and in the lobby of the InterContinental Hotel in Muscat, the capital.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesA saleswoman at the Oman showroom of the $4 billion Aida project, which will include a Trump hotel, villas and golf course.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesLuxury villas at the golf course are priced at up to $13 million.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesMr. Trump’s business ties in the Middle East have already been under intense scrutiny. Federal prosecutors who brought criminal charges against him in the case stemming from his mishandling of classified documents issued subpoenas for information about his foreign deals and the agreements with the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour.During his presidency, Mr. Trump’s family business profited directly from money spent at his Washington hotel by foreign governments including Saudi Arabia, just one example of what ethics experts cited as real or perceived conflicts of interest during his administration. His stake in the project in Oman as he runs for president again only focuses more attention on whether and how his own financial interests could influence foreign policy were he to return to the White House.“This is as blatant as it comes,” said Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit group that has investigated Mr. Trump’s foreign deals. “How and when is he going to sell out U.S. interests? That is the question this creates. It is the kind of corruption our founding fathers most worried about.”Not ‘the Hamptons of the Middle East’In February, Eric Trump, the former president’s son who is overseeing the project for Trump Organization while also playing a role in his father’s re-election campaign, traveled to Oman to visit the cliff-side site where the golf course will soon be built. He met with executives from Dar Al Arkan, the Saudi firm, as well as top government officials from Oman who control the land.“It’s like the Hamptons of the Middle East,” Eric Trump said in an interview, declining to address other questions about the project.Oman is ruled by a sultan, who plays a sensitive role in the Middle East, as Oman maintains close ties with Saudi Arabia and its allies, but also with Iran.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesPortraits of the current and former sultan of Oman in the lobby of a hotel in Muscat.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesTaxi drivers wait for passengers in Muscat. Oman is pursuing rapid development under a national strategy to bolster growth and diversify away from oil and gas.Andrea DiCenzo for The New York TimesOman, in fact, is nothing like the Hamptons. It is a Muslim nation and absolute monarchy, ruled by a sultan, who plays a sensitive role in the Middle East: Oman maintains close ties with Saudi Arabia and its allies, but also with Iran, with which it has considerable trade.As a result, Oman has often served as an interlocutor for the West with Iran, including in the lead-up to the 2015 agreement the Obama administration and other Western governments negotiated with Iran to slow its move to build nuclear weapons, a deal Mr. Trump later abandoned. In recent months, Oman has hosted indirect talks to try to ease tensions between Iran and the United States.Oman is also a buyer of weapons from the United States, including Lockheed Martin’s F-16 fighter jets and a Raytheon-manufactured missile system that it agreed to purchase last year. Mr. Trump, while at the White House, had sent Mr. Kushner to Oman in 2019 to meet with Sultan Qaboos bin Said, then the nation’s monarch, to discuss the Arab-Israeli dispute. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Administration Engages in Long-Shot Attempt for Saudi-Israel Deal

      by

      The president and his aides are pressing an aggressive diplomatic effort as Riyadh makes significant demands in exchange for normalization, including a nuclear deal and a robust U.S. security pact.Shortly after his plane took off earlier this month from Riyadh, where he had held a lengthy meeting with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken called a different Middle East leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.Over 40 minutes, Mr. Blinken gave the Israeli leader a briefing about the significant demands the young crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was making for his nation to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. Mr. Netanyahu had an update on his own demands.The phone call — described by two American officials — was a turn in the Biden administration’s long-shot bid to broker a landmark diplomatic deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, two historical adversaries who in recent years have been engaged in a discreet courtship in part over their shared distrust of archrival Iran.The White House, which for more than two years has largely been content to sit out the poker game of Middle East diplomacy, has decided to make a bet and push some of its chips in. The United States is now in the midst of complex negotiations among three leaders who have their own reasons for a deal but are making demands that might prove to be too costly. And they simply do not much like or trust each other.Several senior American officials said the chances of a deal could be less than 50 percent, and Mr. Blinken said he had “no illusions” the path to a deal would be quick. Still, a normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel would be one of the most dramatic events in a continued realignment of the Middle East, and could reap benefits for leaders of both countries, as well as President Biden, who faces re-election next year.It would also make explicit what has been true for a long time: that the government of one of the Arab world’s most influential countries has effectively made its support for a Palestinian independent state a lower priority.For Mr. Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel would be a significant political victory for the embattled leader, whose hard-right coalition government faces fierce domestic opposition.For his part, Prince Mohammed is seeking a strengthened security relationship with the United States, access to more American weapons and U.S. consent for the kingdom to enrich uranium as part of a civilian nuclear program — something that Washington has long resisted.For Mr. Biden, drawing closer to Saudi Arabia carries political risks — he once pledged to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” — but a diplomatic pact in the Middle East could be a boon ahead of the 2024 election. American officials also see strategic importance in bolstering ties with Saudi Arabia: as a way to keep Riyadh from gravitating further toward China, two nations that have engaged in an increasingly warm embrace.Working against the prospects of a deal is the fact that all sides would have to reverse course on at least one long-held position: for Israel, that the country would never allow nuclear enrichment in the Saudi kingdom; for Saudi Arabia, that peace with Israel can only come after an established state for the Palestinian people; for Mr. Biden, cementing a closer alliance with Saudi Arabia would force him to make a public case for why he changed his position on Prince Mohammed.Several American officials described the current push by the Biden administration, and the chances for success, on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. They said they believe a confluence of factors have created a window of time — perhaps before next year when the American election cycle intensifies — to pull together a possible accord. One of the factors is that a Democratic president might have a better chance than a Republican president of selling the deal to party members and bringing some in the political opposition along.Quiet efforts to repair U.S.-Saudi relationsSecretary of State Antony J. Blinken meeting with Prince Mohammed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, this month. Mr. Blinken said he had “no illusions” the path to a deal would be quick.Pool photo by Amer HilabiIn recent weeks the Biden administration has accelerated the cadence of top officials traveling to Riyadh and Tel Aviv to meet with Prince Mohammed and Mr. Netanyahu. This week, just days after Mr. Blinken’s visit, Brett McGurk, the top White House official handling Middle East policy, led a delegation on an unpublicized trip to continue the negotiations, according to two American officials. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, traveled to Saudi Arabia in May.“Biden has decided to go for it, and everyone in the administration now understands that the president wants this,” said Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, who adds that a committed American president has long been essential for diplomatic breakthroughs between Israel and Arab nations. “When you’re talking about Middle East peace, it takes three to tango.”A new defense pact or nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia would face another hurdle: getting approval from a sharply divided Congress in which some prominent members of Mr. Biden’s party would likely vote against it. But odd political alliances have also formed, with one prominent Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, quietly assisting the White House’s negotiations.The Saudi embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A representative for the National Security Council said that the Biden administration’s Middle East policy “includes efforts to expand and strengthen the Abraham Accords,” as well as efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Netanyahu has made no secret of his hope to seal a deal with the Saudis.The prospect of a formal rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia has percolated for years, but both sides have seen too many obstacles to make the idea a reality. When President Trump in September 2020 presided over the signing of the Abraham Accords — diplomatic agreements between Israel and two Gulf Arab nations — the Saudis were not ready to join the pact.Though Mr. Biden took a frosty attitude toward Prince Mohammed, known as MBS, in part over the killing of the journalist and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi, he reluctantly visited the kingdom last July. Relations between the two countries hit a nadir in October, when the Saudis announced they were cutting oil production, a move that blindsided American officials.Saudi special forces performing during a military parade in Mecca last year. The Saudis are seeking fewer restrictions on U.S. arms sales to the kingdom.Amr Nabil/Associated PressThe two governments made quiet efforts to repair relations over the winter. Then in May, when Mr. Sullivan, the national security adviser, visited Riyadh, Prince Mohammed indicated a greater willingness to normalize relations with Israel. He agreed with Mr. Sullivan that this year might be the time to do it — but for the right price, said two people familiar with what transpired on the trip. This message, which Mr. Sullivan conveyed to Mr. Biden, seems to have swayed the president to make a push on a deal.This led to the visits to Riyadh this month of Mr. Blinken and Mr. McGurk.For Saudi Arabia, normalization with Israel is less about Israel and more about what it can get out of the United States, its historical security guarantor. Given how unpopular Israel remains among Saudi citizens, normalizing relations with the country would cost Prince Mohammed political capital with his own people, Saudi officials say. To justify that, they say, he would need to secure significant concessions from the United States, with an eye toward deterring Iran.But Prince Mohammed’s initial demands were steep: U.S. guarantees to defend Saudi Arabia from military attack, a Saudi-American partnership to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear program and fewer restrictions on U.S. arms sales to the kingdom.Richard Goldberg, a White House official during the Trump administration and now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which advocates for greater security for Israel, met with senior Saudi officials last month. In an interview, he said officials talk about uranium mining and enrichment for export revenue, but he believes that glosses over the real purpose: to have the means to build up a nuclear arsenal if Iran does the same.“The open question — the big question mark — is this: Is the uranium enrichment a red line, as MBS says, or is it an opening position?” said Mr. Goldberg, who is opposed to Iranian enrichment and has “strong discomfort” over the prospect of Saudi enrichment. “Whether it’s a bargaining position or truly a red line is not really known.”A big Israeli hurdle: Saudi nuclear enrichmentPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could still face strong opposition from Israel’s national security establishment if he agrees to a Saudi enrichment program.Ronen Zvulun/ReutersMr. Netanyahu is in the most serious political crisis of his years as prime minister: he is on trial for corruption and the legal reform he tried to pass was met with mass protests in the country. If new elections were held tomorrow, polls suggest Mr. Netanyahu would lose.A landmark diplomatic arrangement could help reverse his political fortunes, some close to him believe. But consenting to a Saudi nuclear enrichment program would also be a reversal of longstanding policy in Israel, which worries that a Saudi nuclear program could lead to a nuclear arms race across the Middle East.Mr. Netanyahu could still face strong opposition from Israel’s national security establishment if he agrees to a Saudi enrichment program. A small group of Israeli aides has been entrusted to handle negotiations over a possible Saudi deal, including Ron Dermer, the minister of strategic affairs and a former ambassador to Washington, and Tzachi Hanegbi, the national security adviser. The group has visited Washington several times in recent months.With a hard-line government in Israel, there are no prospects for any deal that makes provisions for a Palestinian state. But for a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel to take place, the Saudis and the Biden administration have insisted that any deal includes some concrete gestures for the Palestinians, officials say.What those might be remains unclear.Muslim families at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. The Saudis and the Biden administration have insisted that any deal includes some concrete gestures for the Palestinians.Afif Amireh for The New York Times“Bibi wants this so badly he can taste it,” said Mr. Indyk. But, he said, unless there were real accommodations made by Israel toward the Palestinians, the deal would be ephemeral and U.S. concessions to the Saudis would be wasted. “The Saudis are supposed to deliver the Muslim world, but if the U.S. lets MBS leave the Palestinians behind, the whole thing becomes unstable.”In public, Saudi officials have repeatedly said that they will not establish relations with Israel without a deal that includes the creation of a Palestinian state — a line they have maintained since the kingdom led the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which offered Israel diplomatic relations with Arab countries in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Prince Mohammed reiterated that message at an Arab League summit last month.“The Palestinian cause was, and still is, the pivotal issue for Arabs and Muslims,” Prince Mohammed said. “It comes at the top of the kingdom’s foreign policy priorities.”Among the largest barriers to Saudi Arabia expanding its ties with Israel is public opinion. Even as the Gulf’s authoritarian rulers and business elites lean toward deepening their relationships with Israel, most Gulf citizens are opposed to full normalization. In an April poll by the Washington Institute, 78 percent of Saudis said the Abraham Accords would have a negative impact on the region.A divided Congress on Saudi relationsSenator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, left, has placed a hold on the sale of certain weapons to Saudi Arabia. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, right, has been more favorable to the Saudis.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesAny new defense pact or nuclear deal with the Saudis would require congressional approval, a tall order given the ambivalent or outright hostile attitude of some prominent Democratic lawmakers toward the kingdom.Along with Republican colleagues, lawmakers have denounced Prince Mohammed for the murder of Mr. Khashoggi — in which he has vehemently denied playing any role — and the mass killing of civilians in the war in Yemen. A top Democrat in the Senate, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, has placed a hold on the sale of certain weapons to Saudi Arabia.Lawmakers have also expressed their concerns over any move by Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium in its territory, citing proliferation concerns. For years, the State Department has been trying to negotiate what it calls a 123 agreement with the Saudis, which would lay out tough nonproliferation criteria to allow for American cooperation on civilian nuclear energy, though Saudi officials have balked at the restrictions in part because of Iran’s program. The United States has such an agreement with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia’s neighbor, that bans in-country uranium enrichment.But Democratic and Republican lawmakers are generally supportive of promoting normalization between Israel and Arab nations, and they know that such accords can be a political gain to win over pro-Israel voters during election seasons.Aides working for the two top senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Menendez and Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, are drafting a bill that calls for the U.S. government to try to deepen the Abraham Accords and expand what they call “regional integration.”Among the Republicans, an unlikely figure has stepped forward offering to help: Mr. Graham. In an interview, he said he has been working with top Biden administration officials to help to broker Saudi-Israeli peace.“Ending the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a game changer for the world and further isolate Iran,” he said.Mr. Graham says he has spoken to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, and other top G.OP. lawmakers, and said there would potentially be “a lot of support on the Republican side.” He met with Prince Mohammed in Riyadh earlier this year, and has frequent discussions with senior Israeli officials.Although he was one of the most strident critics of Prince Mohammed after Mr. Khashoggi’s killing and once called the crown prince “a wrecking ball to the region jeopardizing our national security interests on multiple fronts,” Mr. Graham has now changed his tune.While “the Khashoggi thing is no small matter,” he said he made a decision to re-engage with Saudi Arabia because it is in the interests of the United States — isolating Iran and possibly blunting China’s influence over Saudi Arabia.Mr. Graham also said it would also bring credit to former President Trump and Jared Kushner, the former president’s son-in-law, who brokered the diplomatic pacts between Israel and several Arab countries during the final months of his presidency.He also has parochial business interests: More arms deals with Saudi Arabia could bring economic benefits to his home state. In May, the senator praised Saudi Arabia’s decision to purchase more than $35 billion worth of Boeing Dreamliner jets, which are manufactured in South Carolina.During a celebratory event at Boeing’s South Carolina plant, he was ecstatic.“Let it be said that the journey to the future of the Middle East ran through Charleston, South Carolina!” he said.Eric Schmitt More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Your Monday Briefing: The G7 Wraps

      by

      Also, Russia claims that it captured Bakhmut.President Volodymyr Zelensky during a speech at the G7. Richard A. Brooks/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesG7 wraps with support for UkraineThe G7 summit concluded yesterday in Japan with leaders of the world’s major economies welcoming President Volodymyr Zelensky as an honored guest and reaffirming their support of Ukraine. But Russia claimed victory in Bakhmut, even though Ukraine says that it still holds a few blocks of the ruined city.Even though Moscow is trumpeting a “Mission Accomplished” moment, Ukraine still sees an opening to seize the initiative from the city’s outskirts if Russian forces are no longer pressing forward inside the city’s center.Russia’s capture of Bakhmut would be a powerful symbolic success. But controlling it would not necessarily help Russia toward its larger stated goal of conquering the eastern Donbas region. In fact, some analysts say that Russia’s ability to hold off a broader counteroffensive could be compromised if it continued to send reinforcements to defend Bakhmut.Comparison: Zelensky acknowledged there was little left of Bakhmut. He said he saw echoes of Ukraine’s pain in images of the 1945 devastation in Hiroshima, where the summit was held.Other updates from the G7:F-16s: President Biden reversed course, agreeing to let Ukrainians be trained on the American-made jets. He told allies that he is prepared to approve other countries’ transferring the jets to Ukraine.China: The G7 countries said they would focus on “de-risking, not decoupling” from Beijing. Japan: Critics say the U.S. ambassador to Tokyo, Rahm Emanuel, is pushing too hard for gay rights.Pita Limjaroenrat, 42, greeted supporters during a parade last week.Lauren DeCicca for The New York TimesA political fight looms in ThailandPita Limjaroenrat recently stunned Thailand’s political establishment by leading his progressive Move Forward Party to a momentous victory in last week’s elections. He seems poised to become the next prime minister — unless the military blocks him.Pita needs 376 votes from the 500-member House of Representatives to overcome the military-appointed Senate. So far, he only has 314.Several senators have said they would not support a candidate like Pita, who threatens the status quo. Now, Thais are waiting to see if their choice will be allowed to lead or if he will be blocked, an outcome that could plunge the country into political chaos.Pita’s policies: He has promised to undo the military’s grip on Thai politics and revise a law that criminalizes criticism of the monarchy. He is pressing for a return to democracy after nine years of military rule that was preceded by a coup. He also wants to take a strong foreign policy stance.A complaint: The Election Commission said Pita failed to disclose that he owned shares of a now-defunct media company that he inherited from his father. Pita said he reported the shares.An Afghan migrant who collapsed in the Darién Gap.Federico Rios for The New York TimesThe Afghans at the U.S. borderFor thousands of Afghans, the U.S. withdrawal from Kabul was just the beginning of a long search for safety. Many fled to South America — joining the vast human tide of desperation pressing toward the U.S. — to try to enter a nation that they feel left them behind.Some had partnered with the West for years. They were lawyers, human rights advocates or members of the Afghan government. During their journeys to the U.S., nearly all of them are robbed or extorted, while some are kidnapped or jailed. “I helped these Americans,” a former Afghan Air Force intelligence officer said from a detention center in Texas, sometimes near tears. “I am not understanding why they are not helping me.”A dangerous journey: Since the beginning of 2022, some 3,600 Afghans have crossed the treacherous Darién Gap, which connects North and South America, according to data from Panama.Reporting: My colleagues traveled with a group of 54 Afghans through the Darién Gap.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificJoint Typhoon Warning CenterTyphoon Mawar could hit Guam as soon as Wednesday.Police in Australia are investigating why an officer used a Taser on a 95-year-old woman with dementia last week.Late last year, a couple in New York sheltered a South Korean tour group who got stuck in a blizzard in Buffalo. They recently reunited in Seoul.Around the WorldWarring groups in Sudan agreed to a seven-day cease-fire to begin today, the first truce to be signed by both sides.Greece’s governing party leads in the election. But initial results show that it does not have a majority, setting the stage for another vote within weeks.A stampede at a soccer stadium in El Salvador killed at least 12 people.U.S. NewsKevin McCarthy sounded more sanguine yesterday than before about the prospects for a deal.Patrick Semansky/Associated PressPresident Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy are planning to meet today to try to avert a looming debt default.Two Republicans are expected to enter the U.S. presidential race this week: Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.A Morning ReadMany are drawn to Zibo for the crowds, a relief after Covid lockdowns.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesZibo, a once-obscure city in China’s Shandong Province, is suddenly overrun with tourists. They arrived after hearing about its distinctive barbecue style on social media.Lives lived: Martin Amis’s bleakly comic novels changed British fiction. He died at 73.SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAA sketch from Sechaba Maape at the Architecture Biennale. Sechaba MaapeAfrican architecture on the cutting edgeThe Architecture Biennale that opened Saturday in Venice explores how cultures from Africa can shape the buildings of the future.For the first time, the exhibition will have a curator of African descent, Lesley Lokko, and more than half of the Biennale’s 89 participants are from Africa or the African diaspora.The work of Sechaba Maape, which is inspired by South Africa’s first nations and their connection to nature, is being shown in that country’s national pavilion. Globally, architecture has begun to trend toward biomimicry, in which the built environment emulates the natural one. African design, says Maape, has always done this through pattern and form. The response in Venice and on social media has been overwhelming, he said.“Architecture should be the thing that instead of separating us from our home, the Earth, should help us feel more mediated, more connected,” Maape told Lynsey Chutel, our Briefings writer in Johannesburg.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChris Simpson for The New York Times. Food stylist: Maggie Ruggiero. Prop stylist: Sophia Pappas.A Rob Roy, which swaps out the rye for Scotch, is a muskier take on a classic manhattan.What to WatchIn “White Building,” a richly observed coming-of-age story from Cambodia, the tale of an apartment complex mirrors the country’s fraught recent history.What to Listen toHear new tracks by Bad Bunny, Sparks, Anohni and others in our weekly playlist.Where to GoSpend 36 hours in Buenos Aires.The News QuizTest your memory of last week’s headlines.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Furry aquatic mammal (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Lynsey Chutel wrote today’s Spotlight on Africa. See you tomorrow. — AmeliaP.S. Our sister newsletter, The Australia Letter, wants to hear from its readers.“The Daily” is about the darker side of James Webb, for whom a famous telescope is named.I’m always available at briefing@nytimes.com. More