World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Bernie Sanders introduces resolution blocking $735m weapons sale to Israel

      by

      Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a resolution blocking a $735m US weapons sale to Israel on Thursday, mirroring a symbolic action by the House of Representatives in response to conflict between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas leaders.“I believe that the United States must help lead the way to a peaceful and prosperous future for both Israelis and Palestinians,” the progressive senator said on Twitter.He added: “We need to take a hard look at whether the sale of these weapons is actually helping do that, or whether it is simply fueling conflict.”Sanders’ language mirrored that of a separate resolution he introduced on Wednesday, which emphasized the importance of Israeli and Palestinian lives. “Whereas every Palestinian life matters; and whereas every Israeli life matters:now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Senate … urges an immediate ceasefire,” Sanders’ resolution said.The resolution was in response to a separate measure from the Republican senator Rick Scott affirming US support for Israel.The current conflict in the Middle East has opened splits in the Democratic party between its progressive wing and its centrists, including the White House. Joe Biden’s administration has approved the potential sale of $735m in weapons to Israel this year, and sent it to Congress on 5 May for formal review.The Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate foreign relations and House foreign affairs committees all backed the sale during an informal review before 5 May. And lawmakers predicted efforts to stop the sale would fail, given traditionally strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate for arms sales to Israel.Senator Bob Menendez, the Democratic chairman of Senate foreign relations, said he would oppose the Sanders resolution. He also said he was not certain that Sanders had filed it within a required 15-day period.“I can’t imagine that passing,” Senator Jim Risch, the committee’s top Republican, told reporters.The clashes have prompted calls from some lawmakers for a more concerted US effort to stop the violence, including Israeli airstrikes that have killed dozens of civilians, most of them Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip.Sanders’ resolution follows a measure introduced by the US Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mark Pocan and Rashida Tlaib, which has at least six other co-sponsors, including some of the most left-leaning Democrats in the House. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the US and Israel: time for change | Editorial

      by

      One of the grimmest aspects of the conflict that has unfolded over recent days is its sheer familiarity, especially to those living through it. Even the youngest have faced this violence too many times before: the Norwegian Refugee Council reported that 11 of the children killed by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza over the past week were participating in its psychosocial programme to help them deal with trauma. In all, 228 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have died, at least 63 of them children, while 12 people in Israel, including two children, were killed by rockets fired by Palestinian militant groups. Both parties disregard the lives of civilians. But it is overwhelmingly Palestinian children who have died, lost parents or siblings, and whose homes, schools and health services have been hit. Late on Thursday, Israel announced a ceasefire after 11 days of violence, with Hamas confirming that the truce would begin overnight. It had become evident that both sides were looking for an exit, and Joe Biden had strengthened his language the day before, telling Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in a phone call that he “expected a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire”. This too is familiar: the US beginning by talking only of Israel’s right to defend itself, and blocking efforts to exert pressure at the UN, but talking tougher once a resolution looked more plausible (whether to use limited leverage wisely or, less generously, to look like it has influence).The administration is said to believe it is better to lobby in private than pronounce in public; while such formulations are often convenient, it does appear to have been pressing harder behind the scenes. The approach reflects the president’s style of business and the bitter experience of the Obama administration, for which Mr Netanyahu showed such contempt – eventually prompting the US to refuse to veto a landmark UN vote demanding a halt to settlements in the occupied territories. But Donald Trump’s unalloyed enthusiasm for Mr Netanyahu, and the gifts he handed over, weakened the Palestinians and emboldened the Israeli prime minister.Mr Trump’s successor has returned to the status quo ante in US relations with Israel. But something has changed: his party and parts of the public are shifting. An influx of progressive Democrats to Congress, and the energy of the Black Lives Matter movement, have brought renewed support for the Palestinian cause. Many in the American Jewish community, particularly in younger generations, are increasingly critical of Israel. This time, the conflict appears to have captured public attention.Mr Biden has plenty to preoccupy him at home and internationally. Essentially, he wants all this to go away. But this latest violence has shown that it will keep returning until the real problems are addressed. The injustice of occupation has been compounded as settlements change the facts on the ground to make a viable Palestinian state look ever less possible, while Israel denies its Palestinian citizens the same rights as Jews. The US may prefer not to think about all this for now. But in the long run, Israel may find that it cannot count on such a compliant partner. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Divisive 2016 US election linked to higher risk of heart trouble

      by

      How stressful can an election campaign really be? Potentially life-threatening, researchers say, at least in the case of the 2016 US presidential election. The divisive campaign may have raised the risk of abnormal heart rhythms and worsened high blood pressure in people with underlying cardiovascular disease, two studies suggest.One study focused on nearly 2,500 people (mostly white, with an average age of about 71) with implanted cardiac devices in North Carolina, a swing state in the 2016 election that was subjected to fiercely negative political commercials and campaign events.Researchers examined the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias (too fast or too slow heartbeats or irregular heart rhythms) in a six-week period spanning before and after the election, and compared it with two six-week control periods June/July 2016 and October/November 2015.There was a 77% rise in the risk of cardiac arrhythmias during the election phase versus the control periods, even after accounting for factors including age and underlying medical conditions, according to the study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.In particular there was an 82% rise in the incidence of atrial arrhythmias, an abnormal heart rhythm that begins in the heart’s upper chambers and can lead to blood clots, stroke and other complications. There was a 60% jump in the rate of ventricular arrhythmias, an abnormal heart rhythm involving the heart’s lower chambers that can lead to cardiac arrest.The study’s lead author, Dr Lindsey Rosman, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, said previous research had indicated that acute cardiovascular events tend to rise in the aftermath of events such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks. “But the direct link between a stressful political election and an increase in cardiac events hasn’t been established – until now.”The researchers also assessed whether the risk of arrhythmia differed by political party affiliation. Surprisingly, people who voted for the losing candidate, Hillary Clinton, did not experience a higher rate of arrhythmias compared with those who voted for the winner, Donald Trump.A separate study investigated changes in blood pressure among different ethnic groups. Readings from about 2,000 non-Hispanic white people, non-Hispanic people of colour, and Mexican Americans in the pre-election period (May to October 2016) were compared against 1,700 randomly selected participants from the three groups a year into the new presidency (November 2017 to April 2018.)The researchers found significant increases in blood pressure among black and Mexican American participants with hypertension, but no significant rises in people who did not already have hypertension (regardless of their ethnic background.The lead author, Dr Andrew Hwang, an assistant professor of clinical science at High Point University, North Carolina, said it was possible that the passage of time may have played a role in worsening blood pressure measures. “However, given that the 2016 US election was a major national event, we may be able to suspect that the election may have contributed, in part, to changes in blood pressure.” More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      Expect an Uneven Rebound in MENA and Central Asia

      by

      Projections, no matter how well-grounded in analytics, are a messy business. Three years ago, COVID-19 was unheard of and then-US President Donald Trump’s politics caused uncertainty in international relations, with democracy in retreat across the world. Despite the best-informed prognostications, predictions failed to capture cross-border variables such as immigration and civil conflict that have yet to play out in rearranging local and regional economic prospects.

      The COVID-19 Crisis Has Catalyzed Vision 2030

      READ MORE

      No region is more complex in terms of confusing signals than the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Central Asia. This is the subject of the latest report by the International Monetary Fund titled, “Regional Economic Outlook: Arising from the Pandemic: Building Forward Better.”

      What is clear from a review of the data is that 2020 was an outlier in terms of trend lines earlier in the decade, skewed by the COVID-19 pandemic, erosion of oil prices, diminished domestic economic activity, reduced remittances and other factors that have yet to be brought into an orderly predictive model. Even the IMF had to recalibrate its 2020 report upward for several countries based on rising oil exports, while decreasing marks were given countries slow to vaccinate against COVID-19 and that rely on service-oriented sectors.

      Mixed Outlook

      The numbers indicate a mixed picture, ranging from Oman growing at 7.2% and the West Bank at 6.9%, to Lebanon receiving no projection and Sudan at the bottom of the range with a 1.13% real GDP growth rate. Yet, so much can impact those numbers, from Oman’s heavy debt burden to continuing turmoil in intra-Palestinian and Palestinian-Israeli affairs.

      The good news is that real GDP is expected to grow by 4% in 2021, up from the projection last October of 3.2%. Much of the lift has come from two factors: a more optimistic trend line for the oil producers and the rate of vaccinations in countries that will promote business recovery.

      Embed from Getty Images

      As CNBC pointed out, Jihad Azour, director of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia department, noted that recovery will be “divergent between countries and uneven between different parts of the population.” Key variables include the extent of vaccine rollout, recovery of tourism and government policies to promote recovery and growth.

      In oil-producing countries, real GDP is projected to increase from 2.7% in 2021 to 3.8% in 2022, with a 5.8% rise in the region’s sector driven by Libya’s return to global markets. Conversely, non-oil producers saw their growth rate estimates reduced from 2.7% to 2.3%. In fact, Georgia, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, which are highly dependent on tourism, have been downgraded in light of continuing COVID-19 issues such as vaccination rollout and coverage.

      As the IMF report summary notes, “The outlook will vary significantly across countries, depending on the pandemic’s path, vaccine rollouts, underlying fragilities, exposure to tourism and contact-intensive sectors, and policy space and actions.” From Mauritania to Afghanistan, one can select data that supports or undercuts the projected growth rates. For example, in general, Central Asia countries as a group seem to be poised for stronger results than others. Meanwhile, Arab countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council face greater uncertainty, from resolving debt issues to unforeseen consequences of negotiations with Iran.

      So, how will these projects fare given a pending civil war in Afghanistan and the possible deterioration of oil prices and debt financing by countries such as Bahrain and Oman? Highlighting this latter concern, the report goes on to say that public “gross financing needs in most emerging markets in the region are expected to remain elevated in 2021-22, with downside risks in the event of tighter global financial conditions and/or if fiscal consolidation is delayed due to weaker-than-expected recovery.”

      An Opportunity

      Calling for greater regional and international cooperation to complement “strong domestic policies” focused on the need “to build forward better and accelerate the creation of more inclusive, resilient, sustainable, and green economies,” the IMF is calling on the countries to see a post-pandemic phase as an opportunity. This would involve implementing policies that promote recovery, sustain public health practices that focus on sustainable solutions, and balance “the need for debt sustainability and financial resilience.”

      There is great uncertainty assigning these projections without more conclusive data on the impact of the pandemic, the stress on public finance and credit available to the private sector, and overall economic recovery across borders that relies on factors such as the weather, oil demand, external political shocks and international monetary flows. The IMF report is a very helpful bellwether for setting parameters for ongoing analyses and discussions.

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

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      St Louis lawyer who pointed gun at BLM protesters announces Senate run

      by

      The St Louis man who brandished his gun at Black Lives Matter protesters last summer, Mark McCloskey, announced on Tuesday that he is running for Senate in Missouri.McCloskey told the Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday that he is running in the 2022 election. “If we don’t stand up now and take this country back, it’s going away,” McCloskey said on Tucker Carlson Tonight.McCloskey and his wife, Patricia, gained international notoriety after drawing their guns on peaceful protesters marching past their marble-faced palazzo home in June 2020. The incident was embraced by many Republicans and the couple, both personal injury attorneys in their 60s, spoke at the Republican national convention.McCloskey posted a campaign ad on Twitter that repeatedly warned of mob violence and said systemic racism does not exist. “I can promise you one thing, that when the mob comes to destroy our homes, our state and our country, I will defend them,” he said.In the ad, McCloskey references the incident that made him famous and repeated a lie about it that he has said many times before: “An angry mob marched to destroy my home and kill my family.”On 28 June 2020, Black Lives Matters protesters entered the McCloskeys’ private gated neighborhood on the way to a demonstration outside the home of Lyda Krewson, the St Louis mayor. The couple pointed their weapons at the crowd and argued with some protesters, but no shots were fired.The couple were later charged with a felony for unlawful use of a weapon in the incident.They pleaded not guilty and their case is set to go to trial in November. Missouri’s governor, Mike Parson, a Republican, has said he would pardon the couple if they were convicted.The incident also drew attention to the couple’s near constant conflict with others, usually over private property.The St Louis Dispatch revealed last year that the McCloskeys had a long history of suing other people. The variety of legal actions includes Mark McCloskey suing a dog breeder in 1996 for selling him a German shepherd without papers and in 2013 threatening a Jewish congregation with legal action after they placed beehives outside their mansion’s northern wall. McCloskey destroyed the beehives before threatening the congregation with a restraining order. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats unveil $30bn bill to cancel water debts and bail out utility firms

      by

      Legislation to cancel utility debts for millions of low-income households and bail out struggling utility companies is to be introduced in the US Senate on Thursday.Jeff Merkley, a Democratic senator from Oregon, will propose a $30bn low-interest loans program for electric, water and sewage and broadband providers as part of the Maintaining Access to Essential Services During the Covid Emergency Act of 2021.The loans would allow utilities to recoup money in order to stay afloat without resorting to fines and shutoffs. Utilities have long justified using disconnections as a way to force people to keep up with bills.“We cannot rebuild the strength and resilience of America from the ground up if millions of families lose electricity, water and broadband, we have to keep these essential services turned on if people are going to get back on their feet,” Merkley told the Guardian. “This is like PPP for utilities. If we can get the concept in place, we can later add more funds if needed.”It’s unclear how much is owed to utility companies nationwide, though it is probably significantly more than the $30bn earmarked in the bill.A survey by the California state water board earlier this year found at least 1.6m households were behind on water bill payments due to the pandemic, with debt totaling at least $1bn. At least 25 small and medium-sized water utilities – 1% of the total – were at imminent risk of going under. Earlier this month Governor Gavin Newsom announced $2bn in aid for utilities to help keep the taps and lights on for millions of low-income residents.In Merkley’s bill, the loans would be conditional on utilities canceling debts for low-income households. Two years after the end the pandemic, public and small utilities could see the loans forgiven for the amount of outstanding arrears, as long as they had not reverted to using punitive measures. Utilities that disconnect or fine customers would be obliged to immediately repay the loan in full.“The conditions are very much the heart of the bill. The goal is to enable utilities to do the right thing but not suffer catastrophic economic consequences as a result,” added Merkley.Even before the pandemic, the cost of water and sewage was a growing problem. A landmark investigation by the Guardian last year found millions of Americans were at risk of being disconnected or losing their homes due to increasingly unaffordable water bills. People of color have been disproportionately affected by rising bills and punitive measures.Detroit, a city which has disconnected tens of thousands of mostly Black residents as part of a widely condemned debt recuperation program, was the first to order a moratorium as the pandemic took hold. Thousands of public utilities and numerous states followed, and at one point about two-thirds of Americans were protected from shutoffs.But shutoffs recommenced as moratoriums expired, leaving millions of families facing debts accumulated over the past year and new monthly bills.Mary Grant, a campaign director from the non-profit Food and Water Watch, said: “The economic devastation of the pandemic is threatening to crush families with billions of dollars of water debt.”Affordability is just one part of America’s Water Crisis.Federal investment in water systems peaked in 1977, since when local utilities have been mostly forced to raise money through higher bills and commercial loans to pay for infrastructure upgrades and environmental cleanups.Last month, the Senate passed the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act 2021 which would invest $35bn over five years to improve access to clean, affordable drinking water and sanitation.Both bills have been welcomed by advocates and trade groups as important first steps: an estimated $35bn a year over the next 20 years is needed to ensure universal access to water and sanitation.Grant added: “We must guarantee safe, clean water for all.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      South Korea’s balancing act will test Biden’s plan to get tough with China

      by

      When the South Korean president goes to Washington DC on Friday, his discussions with Joe Biden about China will test the limits of the US president’s rhetoric to “work with [its] allies to hold China accountable”. It will also exhibit the dilemma faced by middle-sized powers such as South Korea.The White House spokesperson, Jen Psaki, said last month that Moon Jae-in’s visit “will highlight the ironclad alliance between the United States and [South Korea], and the broad and deep ties between our governments, people and economies”.But observers of the relationship think that, despite the talk of a strong alliance, it is unlikely South Korea will even go as far as its neighbouring Japan in showing a united front with Washington on the approach to China.Shortly after the Japanese prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, visited Biden in the US capital last month, a joint statement issued by the two leaders underscored “the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan strait” and encouraged “the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues”.It was the first time since 1969 that Washington and Tokyo had referred to Taiwan in a written statement, a move that some saw as a manifestation of the US’s unity with one of its most significant allies in the region.Analysts said such a public position on an extremely sensitive subject was unlikely to be found in Moon’s discussion with Biden this week, even though a recent Pew poll showed that 75% of South Koreans feel “somewhat” or “very unfavourable” towards China.Japan and South Korea confront a common dilemma when it comes to China. They are both key US allies, but both trade heavily with China, said Haruko Satoh of the Osaka School of International Public Policy in Japan, who studies Korea and Japan in the evolving China-US relations.“[But] if the US-China competition is a given, Japan is more of a balancing power in these new dynamics because of its size of population and economy. By contrast, Korea is a much more vulnerable player, especially considering how dependent South Korea is on China’s vast market,” she said.For South Korea and Japan, China and then the US are the top two export markets. But Seoul’s economy is even more heavily dependent on Beijing, accounting for nearly 26% of South Korea’s exports last year, followed by the US at 14.5%. Japan exported 22% of its goods to China last year, with 18.5% to the US.“When it comes to China, South Korea takes a two-pronged approach that pleases both Beijing and Washington,” said Ramon Pacheco Pardo, the KF-VUB Korea chair at the Brussels School of Governance.“But the bottom line of Moon’s approach is that he is not going to criticise China so publicly as other US allies have done,” said Pacheco Pardo. “In some ways it shows Biden the limits to how much his allies are willing to be openly critical of China on things such as human rights.”Ahead of Moon’s visit, his government announced that South Korea would “partially” join the US-led quadrilateral security dialogue (Quad) by cooperating with the forum on coronavirus vaccines, climate change and new technologies. It is noticeable that the security aspect of this involvement is missing.Beijing has repeatedly accused Quad of a US-led clique that reflects Washington’s “cold war mentality”. It has also urged Seoul to clarify its position on it. A ruling party official told Korean press that the US had been asking Seoul to join, “but we think we can cooperate with the Quad countries on a case-by-case basis in fields where we have a contribution to make”.This half-in, half-out approach has so far proved less direct and confrontational to China – and to some extent more effective, according to Pacheco Pardo. It also reflects old lessons from the past that still cast a shadow over South Korea’s China policy.Five years ago, when Seoul agreed to host the US anti-missile system Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (Thaad), China came up with a host of measures in what analysts believed was economic retaliation. Beijing saw the ultimate target of Thaad as China itself.One of South Korea’s biggest companies, Lotte, had several of its stores in China shut down overnight for agreeing a land swap deal with the South Korean government for the deployment of Thaad. Online and offline boycotts ensued by Chinese consumers. Chinese tourists – who once flooded the streets of Seoul and Jeju Island – disappeared.Tellingly, Washington provided little support to Seoul on this matter. “South Korean policymakers felt abandoned at the time. They will now think that if previous US administrations didn’t support South Korea under such circumstances, why would the current Biden administration do so when it happens again?” said Pacheco Pardo.John Nilsson-Wright, a Korea Foundation Korea fellow at the London-based thinktank Chatham House, said: “That is precisely why it’s harder for Seoul to push a security line against China if Beijing holds the bigger sway in market access.”Shortly after the Thaad saga, South Korea’s then foreign minister, Kang Kyung-wha, laid out three “noes” in parliament. Two of them were no additional deployment of Thaad, and no forming a military alliance with the US and Japan.Of course, the issue of North Korea and China’s role in it also sways Moon’s thinking. But there is another reason that could explain his approach to the US and China, according to Nilsson-Wright.“Like many countries, South Korea has also been asking itself: what if a ‘Trump 2.0’ turns up in the next few years? This would then put South Korea in an even more awkward position having been caught in the middle.” More