The discussion of the need for a new tool for whistleblowers will have to wait until the next municipal election

It looks like the discussion of the need for a new tool for whistleblowers will have to wait until the next municipal election in October 2025.

Town of Cochrane Coun. Marni Fedeyko’s eight-month push to have new whistleblower rules considered in more detail was voted down at the regular council meeting Monday.

Administration presented a summary report on Fedeyko’s proposal dating back to January. Fedeyko brought forward a Notice of Motion at the Jan. 8 council meeting and an update was provided at the May 6 Committee of the Whole meeting. It was discussed again in June.

The recommendation that was ultimately accepted Monday was that council “receive the report for information only and direct Administration to take no further steps on a whistleblower program at this time.”

Council voted in favour of that recommendation, so discussion ends there. For now.

Coun. Morgan Nagel and Fedeyko voted against the motion.

Before the vote, Fedeyko cited a number of examples where a new whistleblower policy might be useful, especially where it might help create an environment where residents and employees may bring complaints forward “in a safe, confidential and anonymous way.”

She said she was “saddened” that every time this proposal has been brought forward, the debate circled around cost. She said the cost of the software she was envisioning was anywhere from six to eight thousand dollars.

“I’m shocked that we think that as a growing community, that this not something we think should be implemented,” she said, before urging any candidates thinking of running in the 2025 election to make new whistleblower program a part of their platforms.

Coun. Susan Flowers was against spending any more time on the idea.

“I’d like to see it resolved so we can get on with work we have to do. We only have one year left to go (until the next election),” she said.

Coun. Alex Reid called the idea redundant, since there are a number of ways people can bring complaints forward already, even though they may not be currently labelled as “whistleblower legislation.”

“I’m against the motion as well. The theme of whistleblowing is covered off,” he said.

He said that council had more pressing issues to spend their time on in this, the last year they will be together.

Mayor Jeff Genung said the software program under consideration only provided triage for complaints – it said nothing about how complaints would be investigated, and as such, it would be redundant. After complaints are received, they need to be investigated.

“If, in addition to that, we’re talking about hiring a third party investigator every single time this platform is engaged, now we’re talking thousands of dollars,” he said. “That’s the doubling down I can’t wrap my head around,” he said.

Source

The post Whistleblower program now a dead issue at Cochrane council appeared first on Policy Print.

In an interview with news channel CNN, Woz was asked about Apple’s so-called “walled garden” approach to protecting users, and in response he said he was glad for the protection that he gets, and that Apple does a better job in this respect than other companies.

“And tracking you – tracking you is questionable. But my gosh, look at what we’re accusing TikTok of, and then go look at Facebook and Google and that’s how they make their businesses,” he added. “I mean, Facebook was a great idea. But then they make all their money just by tracking you and advertising, and Apple doesn’t really do that so much.”

Earlier this month, the US Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which aims to force TikTok’s Chinese owner ByteDance to either sell off its US-based biz or face being banned from operating in the country.

“I don’t understand it, I don’t see why,” commented Woz. “What are we saying? We’re saying ‘Oh, you might be tracked by the Chinese.’ Well, they learned it from us.”

Similar points are made in an article in Nikkei Asia, which states that US social media apps have formed a key part of Washington’s global influence operations for many years, and have provided “unparalleled intelligence collection opportunities” and “helped to project certain American political and cultural values into foreign societies.”

Woz continued by saying that “If you have a principle [that] a person should not be tracked without them knowing it, you apply it the same to every company, or every country. You don’t say, ‘Here’s one case where we’re going to outlaw an app, but we’re not gonna do it in these other cases.’ So I don’t like the hypocrisy, and that’s obviously coming from a political realm.”

The engineering brains behind Apple’s early products such as the Apple I and II personal computers, Woz also became an early member of digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

He revealed in the interview that he largely avoids “the social web,” but gets a lot of fun out of watching TikTok “even if it’s just for rescuing dog videos and stuff.”

The Apple co-founder was also reported to have been hospitalized in Mexico City last November with a suspected stroke following a speech at the World Business Forum, but has apparently made a full recovery.

Source: The Register

The post Woz calls out US lawmakers for TikTok ban: ‘I don’t like the hypocrisy’ appeared first on Policy Print.

The Colorado Republican, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, has attracted controversy. She has alienated fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill and back home. And her reelection prospects are dimming.

President Joe Biden is targeting Boebert. He’ll travel to her district Wednesday to highlight CS Wind, a renewable energy manufacturing company in Pueblo.

Still, Boebert says she’s making a concerted effort to advance policy important to her district.

“Obviously, a lot of people see me as a fighter — I had to fight to get here,” she said in an interview. “But I do believe I have arrived to a position where I am taken seriously in this country as an effective legislator. And I’m very proud of that.”

Such talk might raise eyebrows, especially from someone whose brand has mostly revolved around media appearances, strong fealty to former President Donald Trump and calling those engaged in Covid-19 vaccination outreach “Needle Nazis.”

Infamously, she and a date were kicked out of a Denver theater in September for vaping and groping. Boebert has since apologized.

Boebert campaigned on water issues in her 2020 bid for the House and moved to act on her promises, but her early flirtation with QAnon conspiracy theorists — which she has since disavowed — and actions like calling Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) part of a “Jihad Squad” repeatedly overshadowed her work.

Now some fellow lawmakers and advocates are giving her at least some credit for digging in on policy.

“She’s a serious legislator,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who sits with her on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Even some Democrats are offering grudging respect and have noticed a shift, though with caveats.

“I’m not ready to pronounce her a serious legislator,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said. “But I will say that I appreciate the fact that there’s been a noticeable reduction in the performative antics.”

A review of Boebert’s policy efforts shows she’s getting traction on several fronts.

She has secured amendments to freeze a Biden administration overhaul of oil and gas regulations on federal lands and remove endangered species protections for gray wolves.

Boebert has also secured funding for important district projects like water treatment facilities and irrigation projects. Those would-be successes have yet to be enshrined into federal law.

Some Democrats have noticed her willingness to work with them on certain issues.

“We might disagree on some things,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), who is working with Boebert on a bill — H.R. 8601 and S. 636 — to extend conservation protections in her district.

“But she hasn’t been obnoxious to work with in any way. … Obviously, she’s got a different take on energy than I do. But that’s whether you got spots or stripes,” he added.

The 36-year-old grandmother and former oil pipeline inspector faces a brutal reelection bid, after winning last cycle by just 546 votes.

Democrat Adam Frisch, her 2022 opponent, wasted little time announcing he would seek a rematch.

Before taking on the Democrats, Boebert has to vanquish a competitor from within her own party, Grand Junction-based attorney Jeff Hurd.

Even though he agrees with some of Boebert’s policy positions — on addressing gray wolves, and permitting and regulatory reforms — he said the district deserves a “serious and credible and hardworking” candidate.

Boebert has waved off concerns about her tight race to represent Colorado’s 3rd District, even if she noted the busy congressional calendar has kept her in Washington longer than she’d prefer.

“I like to think I spoiled my constituents being in the district so much last Congress,” she said. “I certainly go home on the weekends and try to visit them as much as possible, but you know … the appearances aren’t going to be as frequent as they were in the first Congress just ’cause there is so much to do on the East Coast.”

Her campaign put a finer point on it.

“Congresswoman Boebert has passed more pieces of legislation out of House committees this year than anyone in Colorado’s House delegation,” campaign manager Drew Sexton said in an email.

“When this election takes place, Colorado’s 3rd District voters will clearly understand she has led the way to securing tens of millions of dollars for water, infrastructure and economic development projects for their communities.”

‘Trying to moderate myself’

Boebert showed up to Congress flaunting her gun and running her mouth, but some Democrats now say she’s figuring out how to holster both those weapons.

Huffman acknowledged that he’s “locked horns” with Boebert on Natural Resources, notably over her gun advocacy and wanting to be armed on Capitol Hill. During an interview this summer, Huffman said he has noticed a change in attitude.

“Hey Lauren!” Huffman yelled over to her. “I just got asked if you have reached out to any Democrats about any bipartisan legislation. Is there anything you would like me to work with you on?”

Boebert had a ready-made list.

“I would like you to help me with my ‘CONVEY Act’ and my Dolores River bill,” she told him, referring to measures that would transfer 31 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to a local county for economic development and the bipartisan conservation effort, respectively.

“These are all natural resources, and I’m currently working on revamping my forestry legislation. And I’m trying to moderate myself with that a little bit so we can get some agreement on it.”

She also has a water bill that would protect the sucker fish.

“It’s Endangered Species Act, you love that,” she told him. “Those are all my top priorities, and I would love to work with you on those.”

As she walked away, Huffman said, “So yeah, you can certainly notice the effort.”

Still, he said, she continues to introduce bills that are “wildly controversial and just terrible policy, and probably terrible politics, too.”

He pointed to her “Trust the Science Act,” H.R. 764, which would require the Interior Department to remove protected status for the gray wolf.

“We had a recent election of both her and the wolf in Colorado,” he said, referring to the state’s 2020 vote on Proposition 114 to reintroduce the gray wolf, which passed by a margin of just 57,000 votes out of more than 3.1 million cast statewide. “The wolf’s more popular. So I question some of the battles she picks.”

‘A serious legislator’

In the recent debate over the fiscal 2024 Interior-Environment spending bill, Boebert succeeded in adding eight amendments to the bill.

Her wins focused on a host of issues popular in her rural district.

Among those was a proposal to shift $5 million from EPA to hazardous fuels reduction in national forest lands, as well as language to halt the BLM’s proposed Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process rule.

Boebert also had some red meat for her conservative base. She floated a proposal to slash the salary of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Liz Klein to $1, calling her a “radical, partisan extremist.” It failed overwhelmingly.

“She’s doing what’s right for her constituents,” said fellow Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin, who co-sponsored the gray wolf legislation with Boebert. “She’s doing what’s right for the environment. She’s doing what’s right for wildlife management. She’s principled.”

Another Republican who sits with Boebert on Natural Resources offered high praise.

“I think she’s actually very smart,” said Luna, the Florida Republican. “And she’s been very effective. Oil and gas is a major component of her district so she’s advocating [for her constituents].”

Luna pointed to Boebert scoring six amendments in the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs spending bill.

“That was incredible. She’s a serious legislator. I know the media tries to paint her as not, but she is,” Luna said.

‘Not just all throwing grenades’

Within her district, Boebert has also won praise for her active support of the “Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act,” H.R. 1534.

The bipartisan effort, backed by both of the state’s Democratic senators, would include 52,000 acres of BLM lands and 15,000 acres of Forest Service lands across three counties in the southwest corner of the state.

Those lands would be managed “to conserve, protect, and enhance the native fish, whitewater boating, recreational, scenic, cultural, archaeological, natural, geological, historical, ecological, watershed, wildlife, educational, and scientific resources.”

The proposal is the result of more than two decades of negotiations among local residents and stakeholders to protect the region while avoiding a more restrictive Wild and Scenic River designation.

“The counties have been working on that for a lot of years, so by the time she got elected it was a little late to be a driving force, but she’s definitely been a contributing force,” said Shak Powers, who works for the nonprofit Region 9 Economic Development District of Southwest Colorado, which serves local communities and the Southern Ute and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian tribes.

Powers, who previously worked as Montezuma County’s administrator, which is not an elected position, praised Boebert’s attention to the district, both in terms of constituent services and her legislative efforts.

“She has been very attentive,” Powers said, pointing to Boebert’s work on the Dolores River as well as on drought mitigation projects.

Boebert has been an advocate for both state and federal funds — supporting local grant applications and pursuing a U.S. Forest Service pilot program — for removing invasive species like Russian olives and tamarisk, or salt cedars.

He also credits Boebert for her attention to increasing broadband access in the region, pointing to ongoing efforts by her office to pursue unallocated Federal Communications Commission funds designated for that purpose.

“I think she’s got a lot of political opposition that would just as soon highlight her being far-right and not give her credit for any of the things she does well,” Powers said.

He added: “It’s not just all throwing grenades across the aisle in Congress; she’s doing what she can for the 3rd District.”

Earlier this year, Boebert also began embracing earmarks — funding for specific projects in a district, which was revived by Congress in 2021.

She submitted 10 requestsfor more than $34 million in funds for her sprawling district. She did not request any funding in fiscal 2023.

The projects would bolster reservoirs, address drinking water quality, and build new roads and a bridge. The congressional stalemate on spending, however, could endanger those efforts.

A matter of style?

A sprinkle of bipartisanship may not be enough to secure Boebert’s return for the 119th Congress.

Despite her seat’s Republican advantage — the Cook Political Report gives the GOP a 7-point edge in the district, which spans the entire Western Slope and most of the state’s southern border — observers also see the seat as one of the most competitive of the 2024 cycle. Cook rates the race a toss-up.

That’s in part due to Boebert’s narrow victory in 2022 to Frisch. The former Aspen City Council member has been talking up his prospects in 2024, telling the Guardian last month that people are “sick and tired” of the “circus.” His campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

As for the primary challenge, Hurd in October rolled out a major endorsement from former Gov. Bill Owens, the last Republican to lead the state, as well as nabbing the backing of key officials from Delta and Mesa counties.

In an interview, Hurd acknowledged that Boebert has targeted some important issues for the district — including delisting the gray wolf to allow ranchers to protect their livestock — but asserted that she has failed to pursue economic policies that would benefit the rural district.

“We’ve been suffering because of our incumbent’s inability to advance that kind of legislation in a meaningful, bipartisan way,” Hurd said. “I think it’s critical that we have somebody that is principled, but also pragmatic and who recognizes the need to work across the aisle to advance economic issues.”

Hurd noted that even on issues that should be a win for the district, Boebert’s bid for attention stands to derail progress.

He pointed to Boebert’s name for the gray wolf legislation, the “Trust the Science Act,” suggesting that the title could be off-putting to would-be co-sponsors.

“I agree with the policy goal, I think it’s critical that we delist the gray wolf,” Hurd said. “But we need to make sure that if we actually want to get this passed into law, that we can do it in a way that will encourage getting as much support as we can, including from folks on the other side of the political aisle.”

Hurd, who has represented electric cooperatives in his work with the law firm Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe, added: “I think I would stylistically approach this in a different way.”

Boebert herself expressed little concern that her theatrics could undermine her efforts, even after she introduced articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden, claiming he failed to uphold immigration laws. The effort fizzled on the House floor and angered many Republicans.

Her campaign was unfazed by political attacks of any kind.

“As expected, Congresswoman Boebert’s opponents are flat-out misrepresenting her strong legislative accomplishments,” Sexton said.

Moreover, Boebert said that gender may play a role in how she’s perceived. “I think women do have to prove themselves a little more to be taken seriously,” she said.

Ultimately, she said she’s unconcerned about the year ahead and will continue to fight.

“Democrats are going to try everything they can to buy this seat,” she said. “I am not worried about that.”

Source : E&E News

The post Boebert Leans Into Environment Policy in Bid to Win Over Critics appeared first on Policy Print.

WASHINGTON — Most of the candidates in this year’s 2024 Republican race for the presidential nomination mirror hard-line immigration policies set by the front-runner, former President Donald Trump.

What were once considered far-right policies are now common talking points among the GOP candidates. That includes support for building a wall along the Southern U.S.-Mexico border and ending birthright citizenship for American-born children of undocumented immigrants — a protection that is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Candidates also have argued for the reinstatement of Title 42, a pandemic-era immigration policy that immediately expelled migrants and barred them from claiming asylum. The policy was ended by the Biden administration earlier this year, but GOP candidates have argued that it should be revived because of the high number of migrants claiming asylum.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has seen an increase in encounters with migrants at the U.S. Southern border, according to its data. In fiscal year 2022, there were nearly 2.4 million encounters with migrants, and in fiscal year 2023, which ended on Oct. 1, there were nearly 2.5 million encounters with migrants at the Southern border.

GOP candidates calling for increased border security have also pointed to the opioid crisis and illicit fentanyl that is smuggled into the U.S. More than  150 people die each day from overdoses related to fentanyl, a topic in the most recent GOP presidential debate.

Most fentanyl — about 90% — is seized by border officials at ports of entry, and more than 70% of people smuggling those drugs are U.S. citizens, according to James Mandryck, a CBP official.

Here’s where the Republican presidential candidates stand on U.S. immigration policy:

Former President Donald J. Trump

Trump’s current policies build from his first term, such as expanding the “Muslim travel ban,” which was an executive order he signed in 2017 that banned travel to seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

Courts granted immigration attorneys who sued a nationwide temporary injunction on the ban, but in 2018 the Supreme Court upheld the third version of the executive order, which included barring travelers from Venezuela and North Korea. President Joe Biden rescinded the travel ban.

At an October campaign rally in Iowa, Trump said he would expand that Muslim ban to also include an “ideological screening” of immigrants coming into the U.S. and will ban anyone who is a “communist, Marxist or fascist” who is sympathetic to “radical Islamic terrorists” and people who do not “like our religion.”

The U.S. does not have a state religion and was founded on the principles of religious freedom.

At a late November campaign rally in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Trump stated he would undertake mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. There are roughly 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. Trump has also said he wants to place those immigrants in camps as they await deportation.

Trump has pledged to reinstate the “remain in Mexico” policy from his administration and send U.S. military to the Southern border.

The “remain in Mexico” policy forced asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while their applications were being processed, which many immigration advocates criticized because it put those asylum seekers in harm. The Biden administration tried to get rid of the policy, but federal courts kept it in place until the Supreme Court ruled that the White House had the authority to end it.

Trump would also end a policy used by U.S. enforcement agencies that allows migrants awaiting their asylum hearings in court to live in the U.S., rather than be held at a detention facility.

Trump in addition has said during the campaign that he would end birthright citizenship through an executive order. Trump made the same promise while he was in office, but never acted on it.

Trump’s immigration policies during his first term were met with outcry from Democrats and advocates. They also opposed his attempts to end an Obama administration program that protects undocumented children brought into the country, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Federal courts halted the ending of DACA.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

DeSantis has said he supports policies similar to Trump’s, such as wanting to end birthright citizenship, reestablish the remain in Mexico policy and send U.S. military to the border.

During a trip to the border in the summer, DeSantis also backed mass deportations, allowing for the use of deadly force against suspected drug traffickers at the border and the indefinite detention of migrant youth — a violation of the Flores agreement that says undocumented youth cannot be detained for more than 20 days.

In that speech in Eagle Pass, Texas, DeSantis compared the border to a home invasion.

“If someone was breaking into your house, you would repel them with the use of force, right?” he said. “But yet if they have drugs, these backpacks, and they’re going in, and they’re cutting through an enforced structure, we’re just supposed to let ’em in? You know, I say use force to repel them. If you do that one time, they will never do that again.”

DeSantis also wants to continue building the border wall and use funds to do so by taxing money that migrants send home to Mexico.

In the third GOP presidential debate, DeSantis reiterated he would handle the U.S.–Mexico border by sending the military there and would authorize the use of deadly force for anyone crossing the border without authorization.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley

Haley said she would handle the border by ending trade relations with China, because the chemicals used to make fentanyl are shipped from China and made in Mexico by cartels. She would add 20,000 more border patrol and ICE agents and pull federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with the federal government over immigration enforcement.

States that have sanctuary cities and counties include California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont and Washington.

Also like Trump, Haley said she would end a U.S. policy that allows migrants awaiting their asylum hearings in court to live in the U.S. rather than be held at a detention facility. Immigration courts currently have a more than 2-million-case backlog. 

During the third GOP presidential debate, Haley took a swipe at the Biden administration’s move to reinstate Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for nearly 500,000 Venezuelans, allowing them to live and work in the United States.

“It’s just going to have more of them come,” she said of Venezuelans, and instead advocated for placing sanctions on Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro.

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy 

Ramaswamy, who is one of the few candidates with no government experience, does not have an immigration platform on his campaign site, but has called for sending the U.S. military to the border.

On various interviews with Fox News, he’s alluded to sending U.S. troops into Mexico if the country does not get drug cartels under control. “We will come in and get the job done ourselves,” he said in a Fox News interview in September.

He has also called for the ending of birthright citizenship, even though he was born in Ohio to parents who were both noncitizens. His mother later became a citizen, but his father is not. He has also called for the mass deportation of U.S. citizens who were born from undocumented parents.

Ramaswamy has called for gutting H-1B visa programs for temporary workers, even though, he, a former pharmaceutical executive, and his own company have used them, as reported by Politico. H-1B visas allow U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in tech and other specialized jobs.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

Christie does not have any information on his immigration stance on his official website, but in debates and interviews he has stressed the way to handle the fentanyl crisis is to secure the Southern border and to treat addiction as a disease, such as the need for treatment centers.

In the most recent GOP presidential debate, he said he wants to increase technology at ports of entry and increase the number of border officials. Christie said if he is elected president, he would sign an executive order to send National Guard members to ports of entry.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

While the former governor did not qualify for the most recent GOP presidential debate, he has one mention on his campaign’s website of immigration. He says he backs state-based visas.

“A one-size-fits-all approach does not adequately serve America’s varied industries and regional economies,” according to his campaign website.

The policy would allow states to design their own non-immigrant visa criteria, such as fees, employment requirements and renewal processes for visas.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum

During an interview with Forbes, Burgum said he supports sending the National Guard to the U.S. Southern border, which is something he’s done as governor. During his time in office, he also signed into law the Office of Legal Immigration to address workforce challenges in North Dakota.

Burgum has also acknowledged challenges to seasonal agriculture workers and tech employees and the “red tape” in U.S. immigration law.

Pastor and entrepreneur ​​Ryan Binkley

Binkley is the CEO of a merger and acquisitions advisory firm and a senior pastor at the Create Church based in Dallas, Texas.

On his campaign website, Binkley stated he would reorganize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to prioritize border security. He supports physical barriers along the Southern border and also wants to end sanctuary cities as well as the current program that allows asylum seekers to remain in the U.S. while they await their immigration hearings.

Binkley outlined his plan for border security that — if approved by Congress — would authorize $10 billion until fiscal year 2028 for technology at ports of entry and provide $25 billion in barriers and technology until fiscal year 2031.

Binkley would also allow DACA recipients to be eligible for a conditional permanent residence status for up to 10 years. Under his plan, those DACA recipients could become lawful permanent residents if they obtain a college or graduate degree, serve in the U.S. military for three years or are employed and working for four years. He would also extend in-state tuition for DACA recipients.

Binkley would also extend a legal pathway to citizenship for some TPS holders who have been continually present in the U.S. for three years as of March 2021. It would extend to TPS holders from  El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, but the cutoff date would not include those from Venezuela, Afghanistan, Haiti and Ukraine.

He has also called for a “Dignity Plan,” for undocumented immigrants, who would be required to pass a background check, pay any taxes owed, pay fines that total to $5,000 over seven years, and remain in good standing.

Those who complete the program would have two pathways to remain legally in the U.S. The first path allows those who complete the “Dignity Plan” to apply every five years for a lawful status and the second path allows for a lawful permanent resident status to those who learn English, pass a civics test and participate in volunteer work.

Source : Colorado News Line

The post Trump Immigration Policies Set the Tone for Most of the GOP Presidential Field appeared first on Policy Print.

Türkiye cannot accept Israel’s policy of depopulating the Gaza Strip, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday, reiterating that Israel is a “terror state.”

“We cannot and will not tolerate the policy of the State of Israel, which has grown by constantly occupying, seizing land and massacring the oppressed, to render Gaza uninhabited,” Erdogan said at the Algeria-Türkiye Business Forum.

Erdogan paid a one-day visit to the capital Algiers to meet with his Algerian counterpart Abdelmadjid Tebboune and to attend the second meeting of the Türkiye-Algeria High-Level Cooperation Council, where the presidents also discussed Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza.

“The attacks, in which more than 13,000 of our Palestinian brothers were martyred, have once again revealed the true face, intention and purpose of Israel and its supporters.

“In this regard, it is very important that the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli rulers are not left without sanctions,” Erdogan said.

All “conscientious” countries, along with the Islamic World, have a responsibility to ensure that Israel does not attempt “similar atrocities” again, he said, stressing: “We need to know this once and for all. Israel is a terrorist state. There is no need to hesitate to say this. This is the truth we know. This is the case.”

Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the tribunal based in The Hague, Erdogan said.

“Netanyahu is a goner. Even the Israeli people no longer support Netanyahu,” he said, adding Türkiye will not allow the issue of nuclear weapons and atomic bombs, whose existence is denied by Israeli ministers, to be forgotten.

“Israel, tell whether you have an atomic bomb or not. (It) Can’t say. But look, we say it. Israel, you have the atomic bomb

“We will take initiatives both before the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on this issue, which threatens the security of the entire region, including Türkiye,” Erdogan added.

Israel has launched relentless air and ground attacks in the Gaza Strip following a cross-border attack by the Palestinian group Hamas on Oct. 7.

Thousands of buildings, including hospitals, mosques and churches, have been damaged or destroyed in the Israeli offensive.

An Israeli blockade has also cut off Gaza from fuel, electricity and water supplies and reduced aid deliveries to a trickle.

– Bilateral ties with Algeria

Erdogan said recently accelerated contacts and visits are adding significant momentum to bilateral relations between Türkiye and Algeria.

The bilateral trade volume reached a record $5.3 billion in 2022, he said, adding: “Hopefully, we will reach the $6 billion level by the end of the year.”

Around 1,400 companies with Turkish partners operating in Algeria provide employment to approximately 5,000 Algerians, he noted.

“The market value of our companies’ investments has approached $6 billion. With these figures, Türkiye is the country that makes the most investments and provides the most employment in Algeria, excluding oil and natural gas,” Erdogan said.

Türkiye is also pleased with the Algerian investments in the country, he added, stressing that Ankara will continue to provide the necessary facilities for Algerians to increase their investments in Türkiye.

Source : AA

The post Türkiye Cannot Accept Israel’s Policy of Depopulating Gaza: President Erdogan appeared first on Policy Print.

Rishi Sunak said he plans to continue with his smoking ban after New Zealand reversed its own flagship policy.

New Zealand’s new coalition government has announced its intention to revoke legislation passed by the previous liberal administration designed to make it a smoke-free nation.

Last year the country became the first in the world to outlaw smoking for the next generation. The policy meant anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 would never be able to buy tobacco.

It provided a blueprint for Mr Sunak’s tough measures announced at the Tory party conference in Manchester last month.

The prime minister said England’s ban means: “A 14-year-old today will never legally be sold a cigarette and… they and their generation can grow up smoke-free.”

Asked whether Mr Sunak would consider following Wellington’s lead, a spokeswoman for the prime minister said: “No, our position remains unchanged.

“We are committed to that.

“This is an important long-term decision and step to deliver a smoke-free generation which remains critically important.”

It means the UK will likely have the toughest smoking laws in the world once New Zealand’s reversal comes into effect.

The U-turn in New Zealand comes after a new coalition deal ended six weeks of negotiations following the general election on October 14.

The election saw the country shift to the right, with a win for the Conservative National Party under Christopher Luxon ending six years of a Labour government.

Under New Zealand’s proportional voting system, parties typically need to form alliances in order to command a governing majority.

Some Tory MPs have criticised Mr Sunak’s smoking ban, alongside the tobacco industry.

Hailed by health campaigners, critics have described it as “illiberal”, “anti-Conservative” and compared it to “creeping prohibition”.

Former prime minister Liz Truss is among those set to vote against the move, when it goes to a free vote in the Commons.

However the legislation is likely to pass, with Labour signalling it will support the measure.

Smoking is the UK’s biggest preventable killer, causing around one in four cancer deaths and leading to 64,000 deaths per year in England, according to Dr Javed Khan’s 2022 review into making smoking obsolete.

It is hoped the policy will prevent tens of thousands of deaths and save the NHS billions of pounds.

Downing Street said it expects up to 1.7 million fewer people to be smoking by 2075 as a result.

Source : Sky News

The post Rishi Sunak’s Position on Smoking Ban ‘Unchanged’ as New Zealand Scraps Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

A participant recounts the beginnings of women’s quest for career equity five decades ago.

It is helpful in moving forward to look back to see where we have come from as we seek a diplomatic service reflective of the American population and values. This article will briefly summarize what near ground zero looked like 50 years ago for women and their struggle to end the discriminatory policies and practices that had restricted their status and roles in the foreign affairs agencies. It is based on my own experience as a woman Foreign Service officer at the State Department, as well as interviews conducted at the time by others and held in Radcliffe College’s Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America.

The 1960s and 1970s were a time of ferment in America. The country was torn by conflicts over civil rights, the Vietnam War, and political issues, including the so-called “liberation” of women. The leadership and personnel systems at the Department of State and other federal agencies reflected some protective but outworn assumptions about “proper” gender roles. That put women’s rights and responsibilities on the reform agenda, as described by Barbara Good in her January 1981 FSJ article, “Women in the Foreign Service: A Quiet Revolution.”

Where We Were

Mary Olmsted, the first president of the Women’s Action Organization, receiving the Woman of Courage award in 2010. The National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC) presented the award in honor of Ms. Olmsted’s leadership of WAO. At right, NWPC President Lulu Flores; at left, the author, Marguerite Cooper, then NWPC vice president.
Courtesy of Marguerite Cooper

It seems ludicrous now, but when I joined the Foreign Service in 1956, women made up only 4.6 percent of FSOs and 1 percent of the senior ranks; most women FS employees were secretaries. Women FS employees of all ranks and positions were expected to resign upon marriage. They were not hired if they had dependents, and their allowances were lower than their married male colleagues. There was only one career woman ambassador. Many women Civil Service employees were in dead-end jobs. Discrimination on the basis of sex (as well as race, color, religion, and national origin) had been outlawed in federal employment in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

For women FSOs, gender bias seriously harmed their hiring, assignments, performance evaluations, and promotions. At the time, the quota for women and Black people was one hired every other year, according to the transcript of Alison Palmer’s 1971 equal employment opportunity hearing. Their assignments were limited by the State Department due to the widely held beliefs that they would be looked down on in the Middle East and Asia and face machismo in Latin America, danger in Africa, and compromise behind the Iron Curtain. For more details, see my article, “Twenty Years After the ‘Women’s Revolution’: A Personal View,” in the February 1991 FSJ.

Women FSOs’ advancement was also severely limited by their assignment largely to the consular cone and some administrative functions, with few senior positions available. In the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), women were clustered in the cultural function, not information. At the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), women officers abroad, largely in nutrition and home economics functions, were the first to go when cuts were made. None were in policy or supervisory positions in Washington, D.C. Few, if any, women were chiefs of mission or in program direction in the three agencies, and their promotions were substantially slower than for men.

The Foreign Service Staff Corps (FSS) was largely made up of women secretaries and male communicators. Secretaries served everywhere, but the ban on marriage left few chances for professional advancement. They had to share their housing, work unpaid overtime, were often without diplomatic status, and were frequently excluded from official functions. They felt disrespected both as professionals and as people.

Adding to the discontent were the wives of FSOs, especially of younger and lower-ranking officers, who chafed at the barriers to their working overseas, the tradition of being subject to the demands and whims of the senior wives at post, and the fact they were evaluated as part of their husband’s efficiency reports.

Stirrings of Reform

The first shot across the bow in the fight for FS women’s equality was the grievance filed by FSO Alison Palmer in 1968 with the Civil Service Commission. Palmer charged discrimination when her assignments to three African posts were refused or abridged by the ambassadors. It took three years, but she won her case in 1971 on appeal.

In early 1970, State’s Deputy Under Secretary for Management William Macomber oversaw a program to craft a more flexible and responsive State Department, with parallel systems for sister agencies—USAID and USIA. Thirteen interagency task forces looked at a broad range of personnel and management issues, held large open hearings from April through June, and drafted recommendations for change.

The previously cited FSJ articles by Barbara Good and myself addressed the development of a group at this time intent on seeking redress of issues of concern to women employees and families. An Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Women (later the Women’s Action Organization, or WAO) sought relief at first through the reform task forces.

At a critical Aug. 26, 1970, meeting of the ad hoc group with Macomber and his staff, we found him to be sympathetic to the career aspirations of women. Although the deputy under secretary denied our request for separate women-focused task force subcommittees, he invited the group to make recommendations for “serious consideration.” As Macomber said at the time: “It was stupid to require women employees to resign at marriage: if the woman employee intended to continue her service, the department would attempt to find appropriate assignments for both employees. If that was not possible, one could take leave without pay for the duration of the other’s assignment.”

The ad hoc group got to work to provide data-driven evidence of discrimination with 28 recommendations for policy changes. None of them appeared in the task forces’ final report, “Diplomacy for the 70s.”

Over the next year or two, WAO maneuvered within the system on some of their desired changes in personnel policy: for instance, an end to the ban on marriage and dependents for women; an end to discrimination in FSO assignments; and adjustments for the staff corps in their allowances, housing, and opportunities for upward mobility.

The Personal Dimension

State Department Deputy Under Secretary for Management William Macomber meeting with Women’s Action Organization members in 1972. Facing the camera are Macomber (next to podium); his assistant, Gladys Rogers (to his left); Barbara Good, from State; Elaine Fry, from USIA; Idris Russell, State WAO vice president; and Viessa Jackson, USAID WAO vice president.
FSJ, February 1991

The personal dimension in this progress was critical. Moving from statements of support from Macomber and his Special Assistant for Women’s Affairs Gladys Rogers, the group followed up to draft implementing policy statements. Because staff was busy with the task force–required changes, WAO drafted changes to the implementing regulations for review, editing, and publication. As Rogers said, the ad hoc committee provided “a coherent, timely, integrated approach.”

Macomber himself said that the WAO approach on these early issues was practical, and he appreciated our willingness to express thanks for work accomplished. WAO’s broad membership of men and women, Foreign Service and Civil Service, grew to 1,000 in all three agencies, led in the beginning by an FS-1, Mary Olmsted.

Much has been written about the discontent of employees’ wives. Briefly, it was taken up in 1971 as an issue in the Secretary’s Open Forum, then called the Open Forum Panel (OFP), following the backlash to a 1970 policy statement restricting the demands senior wives could make on others. That statement had been drafted at the Foreign Service Institute’s wives seminar chaired by Dorothy Stansbury.

Richard Williamson led an OFP committee that focused on the legal status of wives in negotiations with Macomber and other senior officers for a policy statement that included appreciation for spouses’ contributions through their representational and charitable activities. But dependent spouses were declared to be “independent persons,” not government employees, and thus unable to be ordered to take on duties or included in their employee spouses’ efficiency reports.

Other issues of concern to spouses abroad were the ability to work and family support. Tandem couples predominantly included a secretarial spouse who would be able to continue her career under the new guidelines. But others sought work abroad, some at missions on a part-time, intermittent, or temporary basis.

While I was president of WAO (1976-1978), a group of spouses sought WAO’s help with a host of family concerns they wanted to take to Director General Carol Laise. These early efforts led to creation of the Family Liaison Office (now the Global Community Liaison Office) and the spouses’ skills bank, led by Hope Meyers and Cynthia Chard, respectively. For more information, see Married to the Foreign Service: An Oral History of the American Diplomatic Spouse by Jewel Fenzi with Carl L. Nelson (1994).

A Turning Point

The fight for women in the Foreign Service took a serious turn in 1976 when Alison Palmer filed a class action lawsuit charging sex discrimination of FSOs and Foreign Service applicants.

In her March 2016 FSJ article, “Foreign Service Women Today: The Palmer Case and Beyond,” former FSO Andrea Strano credited the lawsuit with causing State to either cease the unfair practices or make progress on such problems as out-of-cone and initial cone assignments for women FSOs, the lack of stretch and deputy chief of mission assignments for women, the disproportionate promotion of men, discriminatory hiring practices and processes, and the reclassification of awards. But this remarkable progress took 34 years to accomplish, on appeal, bit by bit, as described in Palmer’s 475-page autobiography, Diplomat and Priest: One Woman’s Challenge to State and Church (2015).

At the time, WAO agonized over whether to join the suit. We believed that the agencies discriminated, and despite the advances made in 1971-1972, there was much left to be done to achieve an equitable system. A good deal of the problem with discrimination in initial grade and cone assignments, efficiency reports, and future potential was the result of subconscious attitudes. The lawsuit could document such discriminatory actions, based simply on statistical analysis, much of which WAO had collected.

A year later, in 1977, the WAO board and I, personally, filed a class-action lawsuit. It was, as Barbara Good has written, a controversial decision: WAO lost some members. The reasons for joining were several. Following Macomber’s reassignment, WAO had less access to senior ranks. Worried about “not lowering FS standards,” Director General Laise was much more skeptical of our mission, and her staffs were less responsive.

The State Department’s affirmative action program was focused on bringing in professional women from the outside to fill senior positions. A program to fast-track promotions or assignments of outstanding mid-level women career officers was perceived as “reverse discrimination” and never got off the ground. It appeared to us that management was counting on a “trickle-up” result so as more women FSOs were recruited at the bottom, over time more would make it to the senior grades. We were afraid that continued bias in efficiency reports, promotions, assignments, and the fewer senior positions in the consular and administrative cones would result in a continuation of women’s proportionally lower rank and status.

The class action lawsuit was certified, and a D.C. court consolidated the two cases but rejected WAO’s standing as a plaintiff. With the addition of up to seven other plaintiffs, we provided the basis for covering a broader range of personnel issues than would have been true for the Palmer case alone. The Palmer-Cooper lawsuit made a huge difference for women FSOs and probably also provided spillover effects benefiting both the Foreign Service staff corps and the Civil Service. WAO continued its educational programs to raise employees’ awareness of opportunities for upward mobility and improvement in job skills. In congressional hearings we testified for a more diverse, inclusive, equitable, and accessible Foreign Service, one that is more family friendly.

We have come a long way in 50 years but always with more work to be done to reach a diplomatic service that reflects the best in America’s population and values. What we know is that the initial breakthroughs for women in foreign affairs required the complementary efforts of management programs, pressure by employee groups, and court action. The department’s current modernization efforts will keep that search for equality going.

Source: Afsa News

The post Through the Rearview Mirror: the 1970s Reform of Women’s Role in Diplomacy appeared first on Policy Print.

The new government will safeguard the welfare society, ensure adequate services for all, and promote the balanced development of the national economy, said the government’s press release on Friday.

It will make adjustments to taxation, lowering personal income tax and increasing value-added tax on items such as pharmaceuticals, sports services, film screenings, etc, it said.

Regarding immigration, the government plans to significantly lower the refugee quota and raise the threshold for permanent residence permits, including requirements related to continuous residency and language proficiency.

The coalition government consists of the conservative National Coalition Party, the right-wing Finns Party, the Finnish Christian Democrats, and the Swedish People’s Party.

According to the cabinet position allocation plan, the new government will consist of a Prime Minister and 18 ministers, the same as the current one. 

The post Finland’s New Government Unveils Policy Program appeared first on Policy Print.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is visiting Japan shortly after he and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reached an agreement on allowing the United States more access to Philippine military bases to keep China’s territorial ambitions in check.

The defense arrangement signed by Marcos and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will allow Japanese troops to join training exercises to respond to natural disasters and humanitarian needs in the Philippines. The agreement is seen as a step toward broader military cooperation and could lead to similar agreements between Japan and other Southeast Asian nations.

Kishida said the two countries will continue talks to further strengthen and streamline their militaries’ joint exercises and other operations, while seeking to expand the transfer of Japanese defense equipment and technology to the Philippines and strengthen cooperation trilaterally with the United States.

“After our meeting, I can confidently say that our strategic partnership is stronger than ever as we navigate together the rough waters buffeting our region,” Marcos said at a joint news conference with Kishida. “The future of our relationship remains full of promise as we continue to deepen and expand our engagements across a wide range of mutually beneficial cooperation.”

The new defense agreement allows Japan to deploy its forces for humanitarian missions and disaster response in the Philippines, an arrangement Japan hopes to eventually upgrade to include joint military training, cooperation and mutual visits, Japanese officials said.

The two leaders “resolved” to increase the defense capabilities of their own countries and strengthen overall security cooperation with reciprocal port calls and aircraft visits and the transfer of more defense equipment and technology, according to a joint statement released later Thursday. It said Japan will transfer air surveillance radar systems to the Philippines and provide related personnel training.

They “expressed serious concerns about the situation in the East and China Seas and strongly opposed the actions including force or coercion that may increase tensions,” the statement said.

Kishida and Marcos also agreed to strengthen cyber and economic security. They also confirmed Japan’s continuing assistance to the Philippine coast guard in reinforcing its capabilities, including the improvement of port facilities at Subic Bay, a former U.S. naval base.

Last year, the two island nations held their first four-way security talks among their defense and foreign ministers and agreed to strengthen their defense ties.

Kishida’s government in December adopted key security and defense upgrades, including a counterstrike capability that breaks from Japan’s post-World War II principle of self-defense only, while also doubling defense spending in five years.

Under the new strategy, Japan will also use development assistance to support poorer nations as they strengthen their maritime safety and other security capabilities. It’s meant to counter China’s growing regional influence.

“President Marcos’s visit here gives us impetus for Japan and the Philippines to further elevate our cooperation in recent years to even higher levels as we contribute to the peace and stability of the region and the international community,” Kishida said at the news conference.

Kishida announced 600 billion yen ($4.6 billion) in economic assistance from the public and private sector for the Philippines through March 2024, primarily to improve infrastructure, such as construction of a commuter railway, and disaster response. The two sides also signed an agreement to work together in information and communication technology and to cooperate in energy security and industrial development.

“When you think about the stability in the region and sea lanes and deterrence of China’s maritime assertiveness, deepening cooperation with the Philippines is crucial for the security of Japan and the United States,” said Heigo Sato, a Takushoku University professor and expert on defense and security. “Having access to bases in the Philippines would expand strategic options for the Japan-U.S. alliance” in case of an emergency involving Taiwan and China, he said.

Japan has been expanding its military cooperation in recent years beyond its main ally, the United States, forging close ties with Australia and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe.

Marcos met with Emperor Naruhito and Empress Masako ahead of his talks with Kishida and invited the imperial couple to visit the Philippines. He said he plans to join talks with trade and business officials from the two sides before returning home on Sunday.

The post Japan, Philippines Agree to Sharply Boost Defense Ties appeared first on Policy Print.

The announcement came after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met his counterpart Anthony Albanese in Sydney on Wednesday.

The deal aims to “promote the two-way mobility of students, graduates, academic researchers and business people”.

They also discussed regional security amid rising tensions in the region.

India and Australia are part of the four-member Quad group, which also includes Japan and the US.

A scheduled meeting of the group in Sydney was cancelled last week after US President Joe Biden had to return to Washington for debt ceiling talks.

Mr Modi, however, continued his planned visit to Sydney after attending the G7 summit in Japan and travelling to Papua New Guinea.

This is Mr Modi’s first visit to Australia since 2014, and comes two months after Mr Albanese visited India in March.

Negotiations for the migration agreement had been going on for a couple of years. Australia already has a significant number of people who have migrated from India – census data shows that of more than a million people who moved to Australia since 2016, almost a quarter were from India.

According to a statement, the finalised migration agreement will also lead to the creation of a new scheme called MATES (Mobility Arrangement for Talented Early Professionals Scheme), which has been “specifically created for India”.

On Tuesday, the Indian prime minister said the two countries had also discussed increasing cooperation on mining and critical minerals and made progress in establishing an Australia-India Green Hydrogen Taskforce.

India and Australia are also working towards a comprehensive economic cooperation deal for which negotiations began more than a decade ago.

On Tuesday, thousands of people from the country’s Indian diaspora had turned up at one of Sydney’s biggest indoor stadiums, where Mr Modi was speaking at a rally.

“The last time I saw someone on this stage was Bruce Springsteen and he did not get the welcome that Prime Minister Modi has got,” Mr Albanese said at the event.

Mr Modi called the Indian community in Australia “a living bridge” between the two countries.

“The relationship between India and Australia is based on mutual trust and respect,” he said.

The post Modi in Australia: Albanese Announces Migration Deal With India appeared first on Policy Print.