World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Modi’s India Is Becoming a Farce

      by

      They say history repeats itself, first as a tragedy and then as a farce. At the dawn of India as a republic, several Western and Indian scholars, including Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, had reservations about its survival as a democracy. Widespread poverty, illiteracy and deep-rooted social divisions based on caste and religion were considered as serious threats to meaningful implementation of universal enfranchisement.

      For all his follies, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, understood the importance of building democratic institutions and, with a few exceptions, worked tirelessly to nurture them. The 1975-1977 emergency under Indira Gandhi was the first open assault on the system. It was a tragedy. Now, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indian democracy is in danger of devolving into a farce.

      A Modi-fied India Has Weakened on the World Stage

      READ MORE

      By suspending the constitution, along with fundamental rights, incarcerating political opponents and censoring the media, Mrs. Gandhi canceled all local elections and ruled by decree. While Indira Gandhi’s authoritarianism was largely secular, her son Sanjay Gandhi’s forced sterilization drive of Muslims in the name of population control shocked the national conscience. In less than two years, a strong opposition coalesced around an agenda to save the constitution and regain fundamental rights.

      The Judiciary

      What prompted Indira Gandhi to call for fresh elections in 1977 remains a mystery. However, she paid the political price through her drubbing at the hands of a united opposition. In due time, the judiciary took corrective measures by apologizing for its failures during the dark era. In contrast, recent utterances and actions by India’s judiciary, the opposition and the ruling party are truly baffling.

      Consider a recent speech by N.V. Ramana, the chief justice of India, lamenting the demise of investigative journalism in the country. The judiciary is expected to be above the political fray, but it is hard to believe that it is oblivious to ground realities. It strains credulity that the chief justice is not aware of the prevailing toxic media environment aided by anonymous fundraising, questionable changes in the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the indiscriminate use of legislation like the sedition law and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against journalists. Barring exceptional circumstances where suo moto action is warranted, the judiciary can act only through cases presented to it.

      However, several cases related to anonymous electoral bonds, RTI changes and sedition/UAPA claims are pending in the Supreme Court. Given the track record of the past three chief justices, such a statement would have been a case of chutzpah. Since Chief Justice Ramana’s heart seems to be in the right place and he has been more active than his predecessors in some cases related to fundamental rights, perhaps we can call it ironic.

      The Opposition

      Then there is the specter of a rudderless opposition. We can discuss the Indian National Congress when it finds a full-time president. Out of the other two parties vying for national attention, Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress brings back memories of Congress-era socialism that Modi had promised to move India away from. Assorted schemes for social justice and women’s empowerment have helped her guard her home turf against Modi’s juggernaut, but West Bengal is not exactly a shining example of industrial dynamism.

      Banerjee could be a socially liberal counterweight to Modi’s rabid Hindutva-laced pseudo-nationalism, but her instincts are every bit as authoritarian. Rather than offering a new kind of politics, her currency is her willingness to go head-to-head with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) scorched earth tactics and street brawls. While some of this bare-knuckle politics can be a necessary evil, her track record in tolerating dissent, promoting freedom of expression and encouraging entrepreneurship does not inspire confidence.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is a strange creature. While it has built a decent track record of administering New Delhi for seven years, it does not have a guiding philosophy by design. In addition to focusing on education and healthcare in the capital, the AAP has also done reasonably well in managing its balance sheet with good trade and tax policies. However, its central plank of offering freebies, although popular among some sections, harken back to India’s Nehruvian past.

      Socially, by not taking a strong stand vis-à-vis the 2019-20 Shaheen Bagh protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and embarking on a temple run, the AAP seems to be gunning for a Hindutva-lite posture. An anti-corruption crusade and developing policies through consensus on the go might work in assorted state elections, but the lack of a socio-economic vision will hurt the AAP in general elections where voters are suckers for stories. Unless it comes up with its version of India’s legacy, national destiny and its place in the world that includes coherent defense and foreign policies, it will not be a serious competitor to the BJP nationally.

      The Central Government

      The lion’s share of the credit for turning India’s growth story into a farce goes to Modi, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and their obsession with Hindutva. Just like every previous administration, Modi has a few successful initiatives to boast of. His infrastructure building spree has forced erstwhile social justice politicians to focus on this long-neglected need. Government schemes for building toilets, offering cooking gas and safe drinking water have borne some fruits. The startup economy saw a record number of unicorns in 2021, although most of them are helping India formalize unorganized sectors and catch up with the developed world.

      In the process, Modi is learning what the erstwhile Nehruvian politicians realized a few decades ago, namely that it’s easy to distribute someone else’s money until it runs out. In spite of “Make in India” and the rebranded “Atmanirbhar Bharat” campaigns, the share of manufacturing in India’s GDP has gone down from 16% to 13% under Modi’s leadership and employment in the sector has halved. Exodus from manufacturing toward inefficient agriculture has increased poverty among Indians. The service sector might see an uptick after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, but with the pace of automation and Modi’s hodgepodge of trade barriers, even an unlikely rebound in manufacturing will not lead to robust economic recovery.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The effects are visible in the government’s borrowings and the historic unemployment crisis. The once-in-a-century pandemic is not Modi’s fault and the debt-to-GDP ratio going from around 70% to 90% is understandable. The prime minister was dealt a bad pandemic hand and chose surgical fiscal interventions instead of putting cash in people’s hands, which would have further exacerbated inflation.

      However, had the pre-COVID Indian economy not been in the doldrums because of Modi’s bad stewardship, interest rates on the borrowing would not have shot up by 30-60 basis points before the 2022 budget, pushed up further by 20+ points as soon as another massive borrowing program was announced in the budget. With the US Federal Reserve staring at a series of interest rate hikes in 2022, borrowing might get even dearer for India.

      The resulting policy muddle and unemployment crisis are so stark, that even Arvind Subramanian, Modi’s former chief economic adviser, and Varun Gandhi, a parliamentarian from his own party, are finally speaking up. They are openly discussing India missing the boat of attracting manufacturers fleeing authoritarian China and seeing the demographic dividend — one of the few advantages India has over China that it cannot quickly fix — turn into a demographic disaster. While the rich will find ways to evade taxes and the poor don’t pay any, it is the middle class — enamored by the Hindutva ideology — that will shoulder the soaring debt.

      BJP-Ruled State Governments

      The story gets more farcical in BJP-ruled states. To placate unemployed youth, Haryana has passed a draconian job reservation law that reinstitutes Congress-era license raj and bureaucracy. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP’s infrastructure poster-boy Yogi Adityanath has his own brand of lawlessness, exhibit A being the unconstitutionality in dealing with anti-CAA protestors.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Allahabad’s high court has already struck down critical provisions of Uttar Pradesh’s new “love jihad” law. That has not stopped Karnataka from wasting the state legislature’s time in debating an even more draconian and unconstitutional anti-religious conversion bill. Industry honchos drawing up plans to attract global talent to Bangalore seem unaware that in a worldwide competition for the best brains and entrepreneurs, few are interested in living in a country that cannot guarantee the rule of law, an efficient judiciary and personal freedoms.

      India might have edged out China in venture investments in 2021 due to Beijing’s crackdown on startups and Delhi still lagging behind in formalizing its economy. However, the celebration will be short-lived if India keeps marching in China’s direction in terms of the state’s heavy-handedness and assault on personal liberties. It is becoming increasingly clear that Modi, the so-called nationalist, purchased a cyber weapon — the Pegasus spyware — from a foreign country and used it against his innocent fellow citizens without any warrant or probable cause. Meanwhile, BJP-ruled states are busy competing amongst themselves in further undermining rule of law and due process.

      Looking Ahead or Back?

      As India kicks off the celebrations for the 75th anniversary of independence, Modi is lucky that his predecessors built robust space, missile and nuclear programs, respectable academic institutions that are churning out professionals leading the budding startup scene, a generic medicine and vaccine sector that saved India money in the pandemic, a professional military not infested by religious fundamentalism as well as defense production companies ripe for public-private partnerships. In a hostile neighborhood made even more so by Modi’s hubris, one shudders to think what he would have done without all these national assets.

      And yet, with no money left to redistribute and no quick fixes to the unemployment crisis, Modi has now embarked on mixing Hindutva with education. As if the Covaxin approval without phase 3 clinical trial data and Ramdev Baba’s Coronil controversy were not enough, a parliamentary panel has proposed teaching the Vedas in public schools. IIM Ahmedabad has started offering a Bhagavad Gita-based management course. IIT Kharagpur has courses in Vaastu and ancient Indian knowledge systems in the pipeline.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      While the American private sector looks for ways to augment the government’s R&D funding juggernaut for secular scientific discoveries and knowledge creation, Modi is busy looking backward and further decimating India’s social capital. Despite the fanfare surrounding the new National Education Policy, funding for education has gone down from 4.4% to 3.4% of GDP and R&D funding is stagnant at 0.6%-0.7% of GDP.

      Fifty years after the emergency, India is still paying the economic price for Indira Gandhi’s misplaced jingoism and disastrous nationalization of huge swaths of industry. Narendra Modi’s authoritarian rule has India already staring at a demographic disaster for another generation, with potentially longer-lasting consequences. Gods and goddesses have mercy on India.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are rightwingers so opposed to a Black woman supreme court nominee? | Thomas Zimmer

      by

      Why are US rightwingers so opposed to a Black woman supreme court nominee?Thomas ZimmerThe right’s alarmed reaction to Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court reveals the conservative siege mentality When Joe Biden publicly pledged to nominate a Black woman to the US supreme court, conservative politicians, activists, and intellectuals certainly didn’t try to hide their disdain. The announcement was “offensive,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz argued, proof that the President didn’t care about 94% of Americans (everyone who is not a Black woman); and even though it’s unclear who the candidate will be, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker already knows he won’t support this affirmative action “beneficiary.” Tucker Carlson railed against Biden’s “casual racism,” and the conservative legal establishment also vowed to fight against this “lesser Black woman,” as Ilya Shapiro, the vice president of the Cato Institute, put it. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, finally, bemoaned “exclusionary criteria of race and sex” – which apparently is a problem only if and when they result in the selection of someone who is *not* a white man. Let’s remember: 115 people have been appointed to the court in its 232-year existence – seven have not been white men. Seven.Biden to nominate first Black woman to sit on supreme court by end of FebruaryRead moreThis rather alarmed response tells us a lot about how the right views the political conflict, precisely because it is seemingly at odds with the fact that the conservative majority on the court is not in jeopardy. Any assessment of these reactions must start by recognizing their racist and sexist nature. They are revealing precisely because they were so reflexive, so visceral. Misogynoir – anti-Black misogyny – forms the basis of this conservative scorn.But there is something else on display here too. A Black woman replacing Justice Breyer won’t change the court’s arithmetic. And yet, conservatives still feel threatened by Biden’s announcement because they understand it symbolizes the recognition that having white men dominate the powerful institutions of American life is a problem – and that rectifying this imbalance is an urgent task. They reject the notion that the country’s institutions should reflect the composition of the people; they know representation matters, and that a Black woman ascending to a position like this is also an acknowledgment of past injustice.Conservatives see Biden’s announcement as an indication of how powerful the forces of liberalism, “wokeism,” and multiculturalism – those radically “Un-American” ideas that are threatening “real” (read: white Christian patriarchal) America – have already become. In this way, Biden’s pledge is perceived as yet more evidence that the Right is on the retreat. It is impossible to understand conservative politics in general without grappling with this pervasive siege mentality.The fact that a reactionary majority will dominate the supreme court for a generation doesn’t do much to alleviate these fears. The Right doesn’t look at the Court in isolation, but considers the judiciary as part of an all-encompassing conflict over the fate of America. And conservatives understand clearly that this conflict isn’t confined to the political realm, but plays out in all areas of American life: it defines politics, society, culture – and in some of these spheres, conservatives are indeed losing.The Right is reacting to something real: due to political, cultural, and demographic changes, the country has indeed become less white, less conservative, less Christian. The balance of political power doesn’t (yet) reflect that, as the US system has many undemocratic distortions and is deliberately set up in a way that disconnects these changing demographic and cultural realities from political power. But conservatives realize that their vision for American society has come under pressure.Nothing symbolized this threat to white dominance like Barack Obama’s presidency – an outrageous subversion of what reactionaries understand as America’s natural order, made worse by the fact that the first Black president managed to get re-elected with less than 40% of the white vote. Republicans are attempting to undermine democracy because they are under no illusion about the lack of majority support for their preferred version of “real” America.The fact remains that conservatives have secured a stable majority on the supreme court, thereby guaranteeing that the court will support the reactionary political project. But it is not just political power they seek, but cultural domination and affirmation. In the cultural sphere, the shift in power away from white conservatives has been more pronounced, leading to the recurring rightwing moral panics of recent years.The freak-outs over #MeToo, “cancel culture” and “wokeism” are reactions to the fact that traditionally marginalized groups have indeed gained enough political and cultural influence to make their claims heard and demand a modicum of respect. It has traditionally been the prerogative of a white male elite to determine what is and what is not acceptable in US society. That prerogative has come under fire, and it’s not something the judiciary can fully restore.It’s important to note that it’s really more the potential of losing privilege that is animating these reactionary panics. In practice, the traditional power structures have held up mostly fine. But still, the privileged status of white men has never been under more scrutiny. Put simply, being a member of the white male elite is slightly less comfortable today than it used to be.Against this broader background, conservatives understand Biden’s announcement as evidence that the dreaded forces responsible for the general assault on white male rule keep ascending within America’s institutions. Whether or not it has any immediate effect on the supreme court’s decisions, for a movement centered around the idea that America is a white Christian patriarchal nation, a place where white Christian men have a Right to dominate, a Black woman rising remains a threat.President Biden’s public pledge to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court represents an affirmation of multiracial pluralism. That’s why it matters. It’s an acknowledgment that the traditional dominance of white men was never the result of meritocratic structures, but of a discriminatory system, and that it’s time to dismantle that system. It will help redefine what the American political, social, and cultural elite looks like – reshaping ideas in the collective imaginary of the nation of who gets to be at the top. As multiracial, pluralistic democracy is under assault, that matters a lot.
      Thomas Zimmer is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, focused on the history of democracy and its discontents in the United States, and a Guardian US contributing opinion writer
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtRaceLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and his enablers unwittingly offer Democrats the best hope in the midterms | Robert Reich

      by

      Trump and his enablers unwittingly offer Democrats their best hope in the midtermsRobert ReichThe former president and his allies may doom the Republicans by reminding the public of their attempted coup The midterm elections are just over nine months away. What will Democrats run on? What will Republicans run on?Trump reportedly directed Giuliani to press officials to seize voting machinesRead moreOne hint came at a Houston-area Trump rally Saturday night. “If I run and if I win,” the former guy said, referring to 2024, “we will treat those people from January 6th fairly.” He then added, “and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons, because they are being treated so unfairly.”Trump went on to demand “the biggest protest we have ever had” if federal prosecutors in Washington or in New York and Atlanta, where cases against him are moving forward, “do anything wrong or illegal”. He then called the federal prosecutors “vicious, horrible people” who are “not after me, they’re after you”.Trump’s hint of pardons for those who attacked the Capitol could affect the criminal prosecution of hundreds now facing conspiracy, obstruction and assault charges, which carry sentences that could put them away for years. If they think Trump will pardon them, they might be less willing to negotiate with prosecutors and accept plea deals.His comments could also be interpreted as a call for violence if various legal cases against him lead to indictments.But if Trump keeps at it – and of course he will – he’ll help the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections by reminding the public of the attempted coup he and his Republican co-conspirators tried to pull off between the 2020 election and January 6. That would make the midterm election less of a referendum on Biden than on the Republican party. (Don’t get me wrong. I think Biden is doing a good job, given the hand he was dealt. But Republicans are doing an even better job battering him – as his sinking poll numbers show.)Last week, Newt Gingrich, who served as House speaker from 1995 to 1999, suggested that members of the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol should face jail time if the Republican party returns to power. “The wolves are gonna find out that they’re now sheep, and they’re the ones who – in fact, I think – face a real risk of jail for the kind of laws they’re breaking,” Gingrich said on Fox News.Gingrich’s remark prompted Representative Liz Cheney, Wyoming Republican and vice-chair of the select committee, to respond: “A former speaker of the House is threatening jail time for members of Congress who are investigating the violent January 6 attack on our Capitol and our constitution. This is what it looks like when the rule of law unravels.”Trump and Gingrich are complicating the midterm elections prospects for all Republicans running or seeking reelection nine months from now.Many Republican leaders believe they don’t need to offer the public any agenda for the midterms because of widespread frustration with Biden and the Democrats. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, recently asked what the Republican party’s agenda would be if it recaptured Congress, quipped “I’ll let you know when we take it back.”But if Republicans fail to offer an agenda, the Republican party’s midterm message is even more likely to be defined by Trump and Trumpers like Gingrich: the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen along with promises to pardon the January 6 defendants, jail members of the select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol, and other bonkers claims and promises.This would spell trouble for the GOP, because most Americans don’t believe the big lie and remain appalled by the attack on the Capitol.House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (who phoned Trump during the attack on the Capitol but refuses to cooperate with the House’s January 6 committee investigation) will have a central role in defining the Republican message for the midterms. And whom has McCarthy been consulting with? None other than Newt Gingrich. The two have been friends for years and McCarthy’s chief of staff in his leadership office, Dan Meyer, served in the same role for Gingrich when he was the speaker.McCarthy knows Gingrich is a master huckster. After all, in 1994 Gingrich delivered a House majority for the Republicans for the first time in 40 years by promising a “contract with America” that amounted to little more than trickle-down economics and state’s rights.But like most hucksters, Gingrich suffered a spectacular fall. In 1997 House members overwhelmingly voted to reprimand him for flouting federal tax laws and misleading congressional investigators about it – making him the first speaker panned for unethical behavior. The disgraced leader, who admitted to the ethical lapse as part of a deal to quash inquiries into other suspect activities, also had to pay a historic $300,000 penalty. Then, following a surprise loss of Republican House seats in the 1998 midterm election, Gingrich stepped down as speaker. He resigned from Congress in January 1999 and hasn’t held elected office since.I’ve talked with Gingrich several times since then. I always come away with the impression of a military general in an age where bombast and explosive ideas are more potent than bombs. Since he lost the House, Gingrich has spent most of his time and energy trying to persuade other Republicans that he alone possesses the strategy and the ideas entitling him to be the new general of the Republican right.Gingrich has no scruples, which is why he has allied himself with Trump and Trump’s big lie – appearing regularly on Fox News to say the 2020 election was rigged and mouth off other Trumpish absurdities (such as last week’s claim that members of the House select committee should be jailed).Gingrich likes to think of himself as a revolutionary force, but he behaves more like a naughty boy. When he was Speaker, his House office was adorned with figurines of dinosaurs, as you might find in the bedrooms of little boys who dream of becoming huge and powerful. Gingrich can be mean, but his meanness is that of a nasty kid rather than a tyrant. And like all nasty kids, inside is an insecure little fellow who desperately wants attention.Still, as of now, the best hope for Democrats in the midterms lies with Trump, Gingrich and others who loudly and repeatedly remind the public how utterly contemptible the Republican party has become.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsDonald TrumpNewt GingrichRepublicansDemocratsUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Dissecting the Ukraine Crisis (Language and the News – Updated Daily)

      by

      As we announced in January, by highlighting the everyday abuses of the language of public personalities and the media, Fair Observer’s new running feature prolongs the four-year-old tradition of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary (now reduced to a weekly format). We will frequently add new items to the month’s entries. Each item will cite an occurrence in the news and add a short reflection focusing on its intended and unintended meaning.

      We invite readers to join us and submit their suggestions of words and expressions that deserve exploring, with or without original commentary. To submit a citation from the news and/or provide your own short commentary, send us an email.

      February 1: Multiple Audiences

      CNN reports that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is feeling some discomfort in the face of US President Joe Biden’s eagerness to create panic around the idea of a Russian threat. Zelensky himself describes Russia’s actions as “dangerous but ambiguous.”

      “Earlier in the day, another source from the US side said there is a recognition in the White House that Zelensky has ‘multiple audiences’ and is trying to balance them. ‘On the one hand, he wants assistance, but he has to assure his people he has the situation under control. That’s a tricky balance.’”

      Though the source cited only two of the audiences, there are certainly a few others that were not mentioned. It could be said that nearly every relatively powerless country has at least two audiences: its people and whatever hegemonic power has decided to support it. The United States is by far the most prolific hegemonic “audience” of countries across the globe, though some fear China may surreptitiously catch up. The idea of being an audience, of course, implies an attitude of listening attentively, usually through the hegemon’s diplomats but just as significantly, through its spies.

      Why Monitoring Language Is Important

      Language allows people to express thoughts, theories, ideas, experiences and opinions. But even while doing so, it also serves to obscure what is essential for understanding the complex nature of reality. When people use language to hide essential meaning, it is not only because they cynically seek to prevaricate or spread misinformation. It is because they strive to tell the part or the angle of the story that correlates with their needs and interests.

      In the age of social media, many of our institutions and pundits proclaim their intent to root out “misinformation.” But often, in so doing, they are literally seeking to miss information.

      Is there a solution? It will never be perfect, but critical thinking begins by being attentive to two things: the full context of any issue we are trying to understand and the operation of language itself. In our schools, we are taught to read and write, but, unless we bring rhetoric back into the standard curriculum, we are never taught how the power of language to both convey and distort the truth functions. There is a largely unconscious but observable historical reason for that negligence. Teaching establishments and cultural authorities fear the power of linguistic critique may be used against their authority.

      Fair Observer’s Language and the News feature seeks to sensitize our readers to the importance of digging deeper when assimilating the wisdom of our authorities, pundits and the media that transmit their knowledge and wisdom.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Why Barham Salih Deserves a Second Term in Iraq

      by

      In Iraqi Kurdistan, there is a growing debate over a potential second term for Barham Salih, the president of the Republic of Iraq. This matter has led to polarization in Kurdish politics and society, and it could destabilize relations between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). If left unresolved, it could threaten political stability in the semi-autonomous federal region.

      Since 2005, as part of a power-sharing agreement, the Iraqi presidency has been set aside for a Kurd. Within the Kurdish community itself, the post has been informally reserved for a candidate of the PUK. Meanwhile, the speaker of parliament is held by a Sunni and the job of prime minister by a Shia.

      Can Self-Help Diplomacy Lower Political Heat in the Middle East?

      READ MORE

      The two main Kurdish parties have also agreed that in return for the Iraqi presidency being earmarked for the PUK, the KDP takes nearly all significant positions within the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). This includes the positions of president, premiership and the deputy of parliament as well as several ministries within the Iraqi federal government.

      Losing Support

      Recently, the KDP has made political gains and the PUK has lost significant support since the 2018 elections. Currently, the KDP has 31 members in the Iraqi national council, while the PUK has only 16. This has led the KDP to eye the position of the Iraqi presidency. If the party insists that President Salih should not be elected again, it could lead to a significant change of the political map of Iraqi Kurdistan.

      Both the PUK and KDP have lost the trust and confidence of the public. This was particularly reflected three years ago in the last parliamentary election when only around 40% of registered voters participated. The PUK and KDP have lost over 700,000 voters in the Kurdish region itself. Their legitimacy is declining day after day and smaller parties are emerging. This is because citizens do not believe the people and parties in power are competent enough to represent them and or deliver the basic services they need.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The KDP is strongly against the reelection of Salih because, in 2018, he ran for the presidency without the blessing of Masoud Barzani, the leader of the KDP; he went on to beat Barzani’s candidate, Fuad Hussein. Today, if the PUK and Barham Salih win the presidency again, it would have significant implications on intra-party, Kurdish, federal and regional politics.

      The KDP has nominated Hoshyar Zebari as their candidate to challenge the PUK’s Salih, according to Rudaw. Zebari served as the Iraqi finance minister from 2014 to 2016 before he was removed from his position following a secret parliamentary vote of no-confidence over alleged corruption and misuse of public funds. At the time, Zebari denied the allegations against him and said they politically led, and he was later cleared of charges.

      The KDP wants the PUK to nominate a new candidate. Currently, it appears that the PUK is leaning toward Latif Rasheed, a former Kurdish minister in Baghdad and a close relative of the Talabani family as an alternative person for the presidency should Salih not win the support he needs when parliament votes on February 5.

      The KDP claims that Salih has not succeeded in resolving the political differences and disagreement between the KRG and the federal government of Iraq. The budget for the Kurdistan Regional Government has also not been settled. It is hoped that Salih can find a solution to the economic and monetary issues between Erbil and Baghdad.

      Salih Is the Only Real Candidate

      There are currently five people who have nominated themselves for the job. Yet it is clear that the only powerful candidate is Barham Salih and the others are only competing against him to enrich their resumes and or undermine the position of the presidency.

      Across Iraq, Salih is known for his international and diplomatic experience and for being a politician with a vision. It was during his premiership that the KRG had boomed with a strong economy that saw the development of real estate. Hundreds of thousands of people rebuilt their homes, students went abroad to continue their studies and many others started small entrepreneurial projects thanks to his good governance and meritocracy.

      During his time as prime minister of the Kurdistan region between 2009 and 2012, Salih laid the foundations for several strategic projects, namely the American University of Iraq in Sulaimani, the airport, the new University of Sulaimani campus and the Hawari Shar, one of the greatest national parks in Iraq. Salih has also built many strategic projects like the underground water and sewage system of Sulaimani, along with dozens of other useful initiatives. Salih is widely known among the Kurdish people for his dedication to working in the public interest.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      At a regional level, many anticipate that Salih’s presidency will play an important role in maintaining Baghdad’s balance between the United States and Iran. On the one hand, Salih has a good working relationship with the Iranians and speaks Farsi. On the other, he has maintained a decade-long relationship with influential figures in Washington. The hope is that Salih will strive to minimize the damage done to Iraq as a result of the rivalry between the US and Iran. The election of Salih, in terms of person and approach, is a crucial step toward stability in the new government. The hope is that he will play a more positive and engaged role and fulfill the expectations the Iraqi people have of him.

      Barham Salih has also strongly advocated for the rights of the ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and is a great defender of the Iraqi Constitution, which has given the Kurds certain rights. Salih has a good reputation and has political experience. He is also well known for his integrity, righteousness, fairness and loyalty to the homeland.

      The president’s role is to serve as a symbol for the country. Their job is to represent Iraq’s sovereignty, safeguard the constitution and preserve its independence, unity and security. Many believe that Salih’s reputation, political demeanor and balanced stance enable him to implement these tasks of the presidency.

      Salih is a moderate politician and can lead Iraq as a mediator, rather than a nationalist, sectarian and or populist. If he is given a second chance as president, Salih could deescalate the existing tension and dispute between Erbil and Baghdad, and among Shia factions as well. After all, he was once the protégé of the late Jalal Talabani, the president who united Iraq and prevented further conflict. Hence, Salih meets the qualifications that the people and also his regional allies would prefer in an Iraqi to become a president. As it stands, Salih has the best chance of retaining his position, but not without encountering many challenges.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Cancel culture is real but it’s not the ‘woke mob’ you should worry about | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Cancel culture is real but it’s not the ‘woke mob’ you should worry aboutArwa MahdawiBooks deemed anti-church or containing LGBTQ issues are being banned across the US at a terrifying rate by the conservative right Hello, my name is Arwa Mahdawi and I would like to cancel myself, please. I have a book to sell, you see, and it would seem that the easiest way to drum up a lot of free publicity these days is to declare yourself the latest victim of cancel culture. Suddenly everyone is inviting you on the telly to wax on about how you’ve been cruelly silenced by the woke mob. “Nobody can say anything any more!” the usual pundits lament in their 972nd piece on whether cancel culture has gone too far. “Free speech is dead! It’s just like Nineteen Eighty-Four!”I don’t know if Big Brother is going to let me share this, but I have something terribly shocking to tell you about cancel culture. Here we go: you should definitely be worried, but it’s not the woke mob you need to be worried about. A depressing amount of energy is being expended on arguing whether calling someone out for using language a lot of people perceive as bigoted is “cancel culture”. But, while endless arguments rage about the intolerant left, free speech is under a terrifying assault from the right.Want to know what real cancel culture looks like? Well, just sit back and look at the unprecedented surge of book banning efforts happening across the United States. Last year, for example, a county prosecutor’s office considered charging library employees in a conservative Wyoming city for stocking books about sex education and containing LGBTQ themes. Around the same time, Moms for Liberty, a rightwing advocacy group, tried to get a number of books banned from Tennessee schools because they contained content that disturbed them. They deemed a book about Galileo to be “anti-church”, and were outraged that a book about Martin Luther King contained “photographs of political violence”.More recently, a school board in Tennessee banned Maus, Art Spiegelman’sPulitzer prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its classrooms. Their reasoning? It contained eight swear words and a picture of a naked cartoon mouse. Yep, you read that right. What upset these people most about a book detailing how Jewish people were gassed to death in concentration camps by Nazis were some curse words.Let’s be clear: there is nothing particularly novel about uptight school boards in conservative areas getting worked up over material they deem offensive. However, what is happening in the US at the moment is a lot scarier than a few over-involved parents clutching their pearls over naked mice. As the American Library Association noted last year, there has been a “dramatic uptick in book challenges and outright removal of books from libraries.” The free-speech organisation, PEN America, has voiced similar concerns. “It’s a pretty startling phenomenon here in the United States to see book bans back in style, to see efforts to press criminal charges against school librarians,” the organisation’s chief executive recently told the New York Times.It’s not just school boards trying to police what kids can read about: it’s politicians, too. Last year, Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, introduced proposed legislation that would let parents sue schools for teaching critical race theory to kids. To be cute, he called this the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (W.O.K.E) Act. Now, Florida is trying to pass a bill that critics have nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would let parents sue schools or teachers who bring up topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity. (Just a little reminder to everyone that DeSantis loves describing Florida as a beacon of freedom, in what he deems to be an increasingly authoritarian America.)In an interview with the Washington Post last week, Spiegelman warned that what is happening now should be seen as a “red alert”. Maus being banned was no anomaly, but “part of a continuum, and just a harbinger of things to come”. What can I say? If it’s the “woke mob” that scares you after all this, then you must be fast asleep.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsCensorshipOpinionFreedom of speechLibrariesUS politicsLGBT rightsReligioncommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump tore up records turned over to House Capitol attack committee

      by

      Trump tore up records turned over to House Capitol attack committeeNational Archives says it received ripped-up documents from White House before turning them over to Congress Some of the White House records turned over to the House committee investigating the January 6 attack were ripped up by Donald Trump.Quiet part loud: Trump says Pence ‘could have overturned the election’Read moreThe documents include diaries, schedules, handwritten notes, speeches and remarks. The supreme court rejected Trump’s attempt to stop the National Archives turning them over to Congress.In a statement, the Archives said: “Some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives and Records Administration included paper records that had been torn up by former president Trump.“These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House. The Presidential Records Act requires that all records created by presidents be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations.”The Archives did not say how it knew Trump had torn the records but his habit of tearing up documents has been widely reported.In 2018, Politico spoke to Solomon Lartey, a records management analyst who spent time “armed with rolls of clear Scotch tape … sft[ing] through large piles of paper and put[ting] them back together … ‘like a jigsaw puzzle’.”Lartey and another staffer who taped records were fired by the White House that year, they said summarily.Lartey said: “They told [Trump] to stop doing it. He didn’t want to stop.”After a process that reached the supreme court, the Archives gave more than 700 documents concerning the Capitol attack to the House committee last month.More than 700 people have been charged over the riot, in which Trump supporters tried to stop certification of his election defeat. Eleven members of a far-right militia are charged with seditious conspiracy. More than 100 police officers were injured. Seven people died.The committee has recommended criminal charges for two Trump associates, former White House strategist Steve Bannon and chief of staff Mark Meadows. Bannon refused co-operation and pleaded not guilty to contempt of Congress. Meadows co-operated, then withdrew. He has not been charged.Speaking to the Washington Post, Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said destroying White House documents “could be a crime under several statutes that make it a crime to destroy government property if that was the intent of the defendant.“A president does not own the records generated by his own administration. The definition of presidential records is broad. Trump’s own notes to himself could qualify and destroying them could be the criminal destruction of government property.”Trump did not comment. Nor did the House committee.It was also reported on Tuesday that text messages were turned over to the committee by Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s last press secretary.ABC News reported that McEnany appeared before investigators on 13 January.Kamala Harris drove within yards of pipe bomb on January 6 – reportRead moreIt also said the texts were the source for conversations with the Fox News host Sean Hannity, which were quoted by the committee in a request for information from Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter and adviser.“1 – no more stolen election talk,” Hannity texted McEnany after the Capitol attack.Referring to possible attempts to remove Trump from power, he added: “2- Yes, impeachment and the 25th amendment are real and many people will quit.”McEnany replied: “Love that. Thank you. That is the playbook. I will help reinforce.”Trump was impeached but acquitted. The 25th amendment, which provides for the removal of a president incapable of fulfilling his or her duties, was not invoked. Trump continues to claim the election was stolen.McEnany is now a Fox News host. She and her employer did not comment. One former Trump White House insider told the Guardian: “She’s an honest woman.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackTrump administrationUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      Understanding Russia’s Logic Vis-à-Vis Ukraine

      by

      When it comes to Russia’s troop deployment near the Ukrainian border, many Western governments are left wondering whether the escalation is merely intended to underpin Moscow’s demands for an end to NATO’s eastward expansion and the withdrawal of NATO and US troops and military infrastructure from eastern member states.

      In Ukraine, More Than European Peace Is at Stake

      READ MORE

      However, it cannot be excluded that the failure of the talks with the US and NATO on security guarantees has been calculated by Moscow from the outset in order to justify an intervention in Ukraine that was being planned regardless. The Russian leadership is deliberately playing on strategic ambivalence to complicate Western decision-making. It criticizes reports about a possible Russian invasion as a Western conspiracy theory, but at the same time, it brings a military response into play should the talks with the US and NATO fail.

      In this way, Moscow is trying to further polarize the Russia debate in Europe and make a unified European and transatlantic response more difficult.

      Russia’s Military Logic

      Against this backdrop, it is worth taking a look at the Kremlin’s previous pattern of using the Russian military as a foreign policy tool. From this, conclusions can be drawn regarding the Kremlin’s cost-benefit calculations. First, the military show of force represents a firmly established instrument of Russian coercive diplomacy. For example, President Vladimir Putin achieved the first summit meeting with US President Joe Biden in May 2021 after moving Russian troops to the border with Ukraine.

      Second, Putin had kept Russia’s previous military interventions limited, either with regard to the duration or in terms of the number of forces deployed. In this way, he avoided causing resentment among the Russian population due to high casualty figures or massive economic costs.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Third, there has been only one case of military intervention leading to the annexation of territory — the conquest of Crimea in 2014, a mixture of military surprise, acceptable political and economic sanctions, and domestic mobilization potential that allowed Putin to raise his previously plummeting approval ratings to new heights.

      It cannot automatically be assumed that the previous logic for the military use of power will continue to apply unaltered. However, there are not yet sufficient indications that it has fundamentally changed. Based on this logic, three scenarios can be identified as more likely among the options being discussed in the media.

      How Will the Situation Develop?

      First, it is in line with previous logic to view the deployment on the border with Ukraine as part of a coercive diplomacy strategy to influence the US and NATO to make substantial concessions. The military exercise with Belarus scheduled for February is intended to increase pressure in the short term, given the stalled negotiations. If the talks fail, there is a risk of escalation. With its demands for a complete revision of the existing Euro-Atlantic security architecture, Russia’s leadership risks running into a trap of its own making and losing the possibility of a face-saving solution.

      Moscow regards the negotiations being offered by the US and NATO on arms control and confidence and security-building measures as merely complementary to its demands, not as a substitute for them.

      Second, Moscow could further underpin its coercive diplomacy by permanently deploying Russian troops in Belarus. As a result, Russia would be in a better position to close the so-called Suwalki gap — a strategically important land corridor between Poland and Lithuania — and thus cut the Baltic states’ connection to the rest of NATO. Moreover, with a permanent military presence in Belarus, Russia could make its threat of a major invasion of Ukraine more credible.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Since the stationing of Russian troops requested by Belarusian ruler Alexander Lukashenko would not constitute a hostile incursion, Moscow would not be subject to political and economic sanctions, but it would have to expect increased military reassurance measures from NATO for the eastern member states.

      A third scenario is an open incursion by Russian troops into the separatist-controlled part of the Donbas region. The number of Russian soldiers massed on the border gives credibility to this version of events. The military costs for Moscow would be low, since pro-Russian forces and covertly deployed Russian soldiers already control the area. Russia would face sanctions from Western countries, but these would be limited compared to a full-scale invasion. To be sure, no surge of approval for Putin comparable to the one that followed the Crimean annexation is to be expected.

      Chain of Legitimacy

      However, a chain of legitimacy for the invasion could easily be constructed. In recent months, some 600,000 residents of Donbas have obtained Russian passports. The deployment of armed forces abroad is permitted under Russian legislation in order to protect Russian citizens against an armed attack. Some pretexts that could be used by Moscow for these actions include statements made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy about wanting to retake the separatist areas and false flag terrorist attacks by supposedly Ukrainian or Western forces.

      According to the logic so far, Russia is not expected to annex Donbas but to recognize it as an independent entity. An initiative to this effect is already being prepared by the Communist Party of Russia, which is loyal to the Kremlin. By taking this step, Moscow would lose the opportunity to gain a political veto position in Ukraine by granting Donbas autonomous status. However, it is no longer putting much hope in it.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      With an open military intervention in Donbas, Russia would also put Zelenskiy in a precarious domestic and foreign policy position, in which he would lose room for maneuver and credibility between the demands for a military response and the warnings not to let the situation escalate. This would also further polarize the Western states.

      All other military scenarios — from the establishment of a land bridge to Crimea to the occupation of the Ukrainian Black Sea coast or other parts of the country — cannot be ruled out. However, they would then be associated with significantly higher military and economic costs as well as domestic political risks. This would be a clear sign that the Kremlin’s calculations have fundamentally changed.

      *[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions related to foreign and security policy.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More