The debate was heavily focused on US domestic matters—even when questions were on international affairs, both candidates sought to bring the issues back to domestic politics and policies.  

Of most relevance to Australia was the lack of interest in this region. Other than passing references—in heavily political contexts—neither the media nor the candidates raised China in any meaningful way. Notwithstanding the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, China is the most significant issue globally. 

Without China being prioritised by the two candidates or media today, we can only hope that the next administration will be struck by the realities of Beijing as the pacing military and technological threat to our livelihoods and way of life. Australia and partners like Japan, the Quad and NATO, will need to work together to ensure the next administration is focused on competing with and countering China, and does so by viewing China as a strategic rival first and not as an economic partner. 

Given the next president will immediately face a world in conflict, a further debate that is limited to foreign policy and held before the November election would be best for both US voters and America’s partners. 

On China—Bethany Allen, head of program for China investigations and analysis, and Daria Impiombato, analyst 

While the moderators never asked about China, the topic came up unprompted within the first few minutes of the debate with Harris accusing Trump of inviting ‘trade wars’ but then adding the former President ‘sold us out’ to China. In a sense this focus was not surprising because the Trump administration’s tough turn on China was one of the most significant and controversial foreign policy shifts of his term. The Biden-Harris administration has also made competition with Beijing a key platform. 

More surprising was that, other than brief references, the issue of how to manage China strategically and in the context of potential flashpoints such a Taiwan and the South China Sea did not come up at all. 

Harris and Trump went on to spar over tariffs, microchips and the pandemic response, with Harris accusing the Trump administration of allowing the sale of chips to China that served to modernise the People’s Liberation Army. Trump’s retort that the US ‘barely make any chips anymore’ and that it is Taiwan instead that’s selling them to China again demonstrated the economic lens with which he views these issues.  

This is in line with his latest stances on Taiwan, as he has repeatedly stated that the island should pay the US to defend it, and that they have ‘stolen’ the chip manufacturing business from American companies. Harris, instead, opted to focus on the CHIPS Act and her intention to win the competition with China especially on technology and artificial intelligence. 

On Alliances—Eric Lies, analyst 

What stood out, in particular for US allies the world over, was Trump’s refusal to answer the question as to whether he believes Ukraine should win in the war against Russia. Instead, he repeatedly stated that he would end the war as president-elect. A key element of deterrence is convincing potential adversaries that if they choose violence, they will be met with resolve. Responses like Trump’s, which put Ukraine and Russia on a false equivalence, corrode that confidence in US security promises and will likely make allies in the Indo-Pacific nervous, while emboldening China’s revanchist activities. 

In contrast, Harris unequivocally stated her support for allied efforts within Europe, and how she intends to continue those efforts should she be elected. It meant that a clear foreign policy difference came through between the two candidates—a more isolationist, transactional foreign policy on the one hand and an alliance-driven policy on the other.  

On Ukraine and China—Malcolm Davis, senior analyst 

On Ukraine, Harris clearly demonstrated that she understood the potential implications of a Russian victory in Ukraine. Noting that if such an outcome were realised, ‘Putin would have his eye on the rest of Europe’. This is an accurate interpretation of the stakes at play. In contrast, Trump failed to deliver a convincing response, simply saying ‘he’d get on the phone to Putin and Zelensky’. 

The risk is therefore that a second Trump Administration could reduce support for Ukraine and increase the likelihood of delivering Putin a decisive strategic victory. 

On China, both candidates avoided any real discussion of the defence and national security implications of a rising China. Instead, they focused on trade relations. Whichever candidate wins in November, however, there is a chance that they will be confronted with a major crisis with Beijing over Taiwan. This is an issue that is far more important to the United States than tariffs. 

Generally, the debate avoided any real discussion on critical and emerging technologies and the importance of maintaining US leadership. In fact, as the ASPI Critical Technology tracker shows, China now holds a dominance in high-impact research that was once held by the US. Both candidates should have dealt more with this important issue and will need to do so as president. 

On Disinformation and Migration—Mike Copage, head of the Climate and Security Policy Centre 

As the world grapples with the prospect of AI driving mis and dis-information in democracies, the debate highlighted how vulnerable American political discourse has become to the spread of disinformation without it. Pressed by moderators that there’s no evidence to back claims by vice-presidential candidate JD Vance that Haitian illegal immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Trump responded that he knew it was true because he heard it from ‘people on television’. While ridiculous at face value, the real and serious consequences of a former President and current candidate repeating clearly false, racist and anti-immigrant claims cannot be ignored. The violence perpetuated following the spread of anti-immigrant misinformation in the United Kingdom demonstrates how far that can lead without responsible leadership. 

On the Media and China—Greg Brown, senior analyst, Washington DC 

Harris had a solid showing defined by poise without policy articulation. Her supporters will feel emboldened by the strategy to distance herself from the present Administration—noting during the debate that she was neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. 

President Trump had a weaker night—notwithstanding his zingers like ‘wake the President (Biden) up at four o’clock in the afternoon’—and appeared rambling at times. He missed opportunities to attack Harris effectively. 

As usual, the debate moderators (in this case ABC News) and voters were the losers.   

The lone foreign policy issue mentioned with any repetition was migration though with a heavy domestic lens. And neither candidate provided any sense of the drivers of, let alone policy responses to, the weaponization of mass migration. The passing references by both candidates regarding Iran, Ukraine and Russia were pedestrian. 

China, the ​supposed pacing challenge and threat, received little attention. Nor did we have a discussion of the Pentagon’s budget priorities, tariffs as tools of economic warfare, how to revive the US defence industrial base, let alone to US interests across the Pacific. 

On Asia-Pacific—Raji Pillai Rajagopalan, resident senior fellow 

While understandably focused on domestic issues, it was still surprisingly how little interest there was on foreign policy in the presidential debate. Considering the growing chaos the next president will have to deal with, that was unfortunate. 

America’s China and Indo-Pacific policy was not mentioned, nor were any other aspects of foreign and security policy in any detail. We heard only some broad outlines to which we were already familiar, such as a Trump Administration that will be suspicious of its partners because of the worry that America is being exploited, that will be more open to deal-making with adversaries such as Russia, China and North Korea, irrespective of the character of their behaviour and that will potentially raise tariff barriers with wide-ranging economic effects globally. 

On the Democrat side, Vice President Harris reiterated she would strengthen partnerships and stand up to authoritarian leaders, which is a more positive starting point, but all said without much detail. 

From a foreign policy perspective, it was clearly not a substantive debate. Leaving out everything from narrow issues of nuances to nuclear policy to broad issues such as relative commitment to different theatres like Europe, Middle East and Indo-Pacific. 

Source

The post The US presidential debate: ASPI responds appeared first on Policy Print.

Deanne Millison, Elizabeth “Liz” Kosobucki and Alec Rogers are joining Ford’s public policy and government affairs team. 

Millison joins as a senior director and was most recently chief economic adviser to Vice President Harris. She previously served as deputy chief of staff and legislative director to then-Sen. Harris and as director for the city of Chicago under former Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Kosobucki, the former director for Europe in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office of Europe and the Middle East, will be the director for trade policy strategy. Rogers, who served as the legislative director for former Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) and as Republican counsel to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, joins Ford as director of government affairs, tax and finance policy.

Alice Lugo, the former assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will join the government relations practice at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck as senior counsel. Before her time at DHS, Lugo worked on Capitol Hill as chief counsel and senior immigration adviser to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and as counsel to former Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.)

Invariant added Melanie Harris as a senior director, where she will focus on artificial intelligence and technology policy. Harris was the United Kingdom digital policy lead for Amazon Web Services in London. She also worked on military modernization as a professional staff member for the House Armed Services Committee and served as a special assistant to the secretary of Defense and in the National Security Division of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Andrew Mueller is now vice president of government relations at Crowley. Mueller was most recently the senior director of policy and international development for General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems and served as an officer in the U.S. Navy for more than two decades.

John Jacobs joins the Alliance for Automotive Innovation as vice president of industry engagement and partnerships. He was most recently the nonprofit and association industry leader at Hartman Executive Advisors, and he was vice president of marketing, membership and business development at the Telecommunications Industry Association.

Source : The Hill

The post Lobbying World: Ford Fuels Policy Team With Addition of Executive Branch, Capitol Hill Veterans 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.

House GOP members and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) leaders attacked the Biden administration’s broadband policy at Thursday’s FCC oversight hearing.  

After two years without a fifth commissioner, FCC Democrats have started the process to reinstate Obama-era net neutrality rules. The 3-2 vote reinstated the policy that brings internet service providers under the jurisdiction of the FCC as telecommunications carriers. The FCC repealed net neutrality in 2017 under the Trump administration. 

“The Biden administration has chosen partisan ideology over smart policy,” Commissioner Brendan Carr (R) said. “Indeed, almost three years into this administration, a clear pattern has emerged. The Biden administration’s entire approach to the Internet — its broadband agenda, if you will — can be boiled down to one word: control.” 

House Republicans agreed, with Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) saying, “Burdensome and expansive regulations like these will only discourage broadband buildout at a time when Americans need it most.” 

Carr continued to attack the Biden administration, saying the regulation is not about consumer safety or efficiency, but about reinstating government control. 

“In other words, utility-style regulation of the Internet was never about improving your online experience — that was just the sheep’s clothing,” Carr said. “It was always about government control.” 

Other lawmakers agreed and said media marketplace legislation should be handled by Congress, not the FCC.  

“Changes to laws that govern the media marketplace need to be made by Congress, not by the FCC,” Energy and Commerce Chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said. 

Congress members clashed with the FCC’s Democratic chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, throughout the hearing. When Latta asked how the reinstatement of net neutrality rules could impact national security, Rosenworcel responded, “I would be happy to have [a] discussion with you about national security issues. You and I spoke about this already.” 

Before beginning his questioning, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) addressed Rosenworcel, saying, “One of the main functions of Congress is oversight. So, we’re here for oversight, not confrontation. I want to be educated; I don’t want to be confrontational.” 

Other commissioners and House members encouraged their colleagues to refocus their attention on important issues at hand, such as consumer safety, rather than partisan finger-pointing. 

“Device security is just one of many other policy priorities that the FCC should instead focus on in lieu of partisan goals that do not further the public interest,” Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington said. “I am hopeful that my colleagues will embrace more bipartisan, commonsense policies going forward.” 

Recently confirmed fifth Commissioner Anna Gomez (D) agreed, saying, “We must be vigilant about protecting consumers. From spam calls and scam texts, to protecting victims of domestic violence, to ensuring the internet remains open, consumers’ interests must lead our policymaking.”    

Source : The Hill

The post Republicans Rip Biden’s Broadband Policy at FCC Hearing appeared first on Policy Print.

A recent indictment from the United States Department of Justice has alleged an Indian security official was involved in attempting to assassinate a U.S. and Canadian citizen in New York. The alleged target, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, is a leader in the Sikh separatist movement and has been involved in organizing referendums for the establishment of Khalistan, a proposed independent Sikh state in northern India.

The indictment also states that there is a link between the foiled attempt to kill Pannun and the murder of Canadian Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, B.C. earlier this year.

The Indian government said it was investigating the allegations, and had established a committee to “address the security concerns highlighted by the US government.”

This announcement by the U.S. could have potential ramifications for Indian politics, both at home and abroad. However, it is unlikely to have any significant impact on next year’s general elections, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be seeking his third term in office.

Bolstering Modi’s strongman image

Canadian allegations against India had handed Modi an excellent political platform for the next general elections.

It sent a clear message that India’s government would, under no circumstances, tolerate any threats to the country.

India’s foreign policy has become more muscular under Modi; and that’s a strategy that resonates with his supporters.

His landslide victory in 2019 had a lot to do with support for India’s “surgical strikes” in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir in 2016 in response to an attack that killed 19 Indian soldiers.

Following Canada’s allegations of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s killing, the Modi government was once again able to successfully generate a narrative against Canada in general and the Liberal party in particular.

India’s narrative consists of four parts:

• Canada is a safe haven for terrorists, extremism and organized crime, and there is a nexus between Indo-Canadian gangsters and Sikh separatists working with Pakistan’s intelligence agency.
• The Canadian government has consistently ignored repeated requests from India to take actions against Khalistani “terrorists” operating on Canadian soil.
• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is pandering to the large Sikh diaspora in Canada.
• The Liberal minority government is dependent on support from the New Democratic Party leader, Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh supposedly sympathetic to the Khalistani cause.

Indian news media and politicians have repeated the official discourse constantly for weeks.

While India was quick to dismiss Canadian allegations, it has adopted a much more cautious approach to the U.S. indictment. India has much to lose by alienating the Biden administration as both countries have invested a great deal in enhancing Indo-U.S. relations and making India a central ally in America’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

Meanwhile, Indo-Canadian relations have been chilly since 2015, largely due to Khalistan activity in Canada. Moreover, annual trade between India and Canada is worth about $12 billion while trade with the U.S. is worth $192 billion. In short, India has much more to lose by alienating the U.S than it does by taking a hard line with Canada.

Furthering authoritarianism

On the surface it might appear that news of the U.S. indictment could fracture India’s muscular foreign policy. However, this episode is unlikely to have much impact on India’s domestic politics. Modi remains popular with an approval rating of 78 per cent.

He is credited, among other things, with India’s emergence as a global power, with his effective handling of border issues with China, for taking on Pakistan and with the success of the country’s space program.

The 26-party opposition coalition, Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), is unlikely to challenge Modi on this particular issue. The national defense narrative is a strong one, and India’s territorial integrity is a sacrosanct issue for all political parties.

However, among some minority communities, Muslims and Sikhs, both at home and abroad, revelations of assassination plots could raise serious concerns. The Modi government’s aggressive pursuit of a Hindu nationalist agenda, its repression of minorities and control over dissent have become more entrenched.

India’s parliament is in the process of amending its sedition laws. If the changes are passed, endangering the unity and integrity of the country could result in life-term imprisonment. These proposed changes to the already harsh and draconian penal code will only further criminalize dissent. The Modi government is ensuring that dissenting voices, particularly those of minority communities, completely disappear from Indian democracy.

Amplifying the Khalistan movement

India’s campaign of global repression of Sikh separatists could have the effect of unifying the Sikh diaspora. It was in 2018 that Pannun came up with the idea of holding a non-binding referendums to mobilize the global Sikh community.

That year, Sikh activists announced their campaign for holding referendums starting in 2021 across multiple cities. The first referendum took place in London on Oct. 31, 2021, followed by eight more referendums during 2022 and 2023 in the cities of Leeds and Luton (United Kingdom), Geneva (Switzerland), Brampton, Mississauga and Surrey (Canada), Melbourne (Australia), and Brescia (Italy).

Pannun announced plans for referendums in Punjab and the U.S, and for another round of voting in Canadian cities. In October, following Trudeau’s announcement of credible allegations against the Indian government, thousands of voters turned out to participate in a referendum in Surrey, B.C., some coming from as far as the cities of Edmonton and Calgary.

While only a small minority of the Sikh diaspora is thought to support creating a separate Sikh state, the majority were likely registering their disapproval of India and its repression of minorities. Memory of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination which left thousands dead remains very much alive within the entire Sikh community to this day.

But Khalistani referendum politics relies heavily on images depicting so-called “martyrs” (separatists killed by India) and Indian diplomats as the assassins of Sikh activists. The desecration of Hindu temples also has the potential to create division within the Indian Hindu and Sikh diasporas. Canadian Liberal MP Chandra Arya has accused Khalistan supporters of targetting Hindu temples.

As more information comes out, the Canadian government will need to carefully manage its relations with India and the relationship between diasporic communities here.

Source : The Conversation

The post Alleged Assassination Plots in the U.S. And Canada Signal a More Assertive Indian Foreign Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Conventional wisdom suggests Americans know little about foreign policy and care about it even less. Opinion polls regularly show that international issues take a back seat to topics more prosaic (economics, education) or provocative (culture wars, gun control).

Next year’s presidential election, however, might be a bit different. Continued international crises could focus attention on the benefits and burdens of American global leadership, and our polarized politics may turn on battles and events far from home. We might experience the rare phenomenon: a foreign policy election.

Israel’s war against Hamas has become a domestic political focal point, either praised as a righteous campaign of self-defense or criticized for bringing humanitarian catastrophe to Gaza. Some experts now believe Ukraine’s war aims are “out of reach,” and call on Washington to encourage Ukraine to pursue a cease-fire.

One might think a president with Joe Biden’s experience would perform well in a foreign policy election. So it’s surprising that his approach to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine — an approach he doubled down on in a recent op-ed that touted the U.S. as “the essential nation,” worried about Russian leader Vladimir “Putin’s drive for conquest” and reduced Hamas’ motives to “murderous nihilism” — instead appears to be endangering his reelection.

Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks and the president’s nearly unconditional support for Israel’s response have brought to a boil the simmering divisions within the Democratic Party on the issue of Palestinians. Many young, diverse and progressive voters are critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the “open-air prison” of Gaza. They believe the Gaza war is unjust and disproportionate.

Fully 70% of U.S. voters under age 35 disapprove of Biden’s handling of the war, according to a Nov. 19 NBC News poll. Other polls show that a majority of young voters do not support sending weapons to Israel, and less than half of Gen Z and millennials even want the U.S. to publicly voice support for Israel as the president has so consistently done. The issue could tip the scale in the crucial swing states, such as Michigan, where razor-thin margins of victory are common.

Support for Israel has been uncontroversial for most of Biden’s political career. A decade ago, a pro-Israel lobbyist described his work to me as “pushing against an open door.” But as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has moved to the right and threatened Israel’s democratic institutions, he has infuriated many Israelis and tested the patience of otherwise sympathetic Americans — including many American Jews. Today, Washington’s pro-Israel lobby is dominated by evangelical Christians in the Republican Party base, borne by what one commentator called “solidarity with a particularly aggressive strain of Zionism.”

Democrats have sweated the electoral consequences of being seen as insufficiently pro-Israel since before it was even a country. In 1947, as the United Nations considered recognizing a Jewish state, President Truman’s general counsel, Clark Clifford, penned a private memo to his boss: “Unless the Palestine matter is boldly and favorably handled, there is bound to be some defection on [Jewish voters’] part to the alert [GOP nominee Thomas E.] Dewey.” Unlike Truman, Biden has to contend with a voting Middle Eastern diaspora, new human rights norms and mass media capable of relaying round-the-clock images of Palestinian suffering.

Apart from the Israel-Hamas war, a foreign policy election would present Biden with other fresh challenges. In broad terms, independent voters don’t seem to share Democrats’ — and the president’s — expansive view of the purpose of American power.

A survey released in October by the Institute for Global Affairs at the Eurasia Group found that Republicans and independents, when asked what the primary goal of U.S. foreign policy should be, chose “to protect America from foreign threats and stop other countries from taking advantage of the U.S.” Democrats, on the other hand, chose “to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law across the globe as the leader of the free world.”

When House Republicans recently cut Ukraine funding from a plan to keep the government running, they elicited howls from some Democrats about “abandoning” Ukraine. But independents aren’t howling. The survey shows that many share Republicans’ skepticism of alliances, concern over diminishing weapons stockpiles and desire to withdraw U.S. troops stationed in Europe.

In other words, independents echo the rhetoric of Donald Trump more than that of Joe Biden. The president has lately dialed down his trumpeting of a worldwide “battle between democracy and autocracy.” Perhaps his campaign realized this resonated with those inclined to vote for him anyway, and could fail to win over swing voters.

Historically, a foreign policy election benefits the incumbent. During the Cold War, politics were said to stop at the water’s edge, as Americans sought to show the world a united front. International crises often generated a “rally ’round the flag” effect for leaders seen as taking decisive action.

However, voters today don’t agree on the dangers the U.S. faces, let alone the best way to address them. Republicans’ greatest perceived threat — immigration threatens the country’s national identity — ranked last among Democrats on our survey. Climate -change-induced natural disasters were seen as the top threat among Democrats, but the second-to-last among Republicans.

Political leaders can usually be forgiven for not heeding the public’s foreign policy preferences. Voters can be capricious or ill-informed, and expertise is crucial for foreign policy decision-making. But if foreign crises continue to focus Americans’ attention next year, Biden ignores their views at his peril.

Source : Los Angeles Times

The post Opinion: Does Biden Benefit if Foreign Policy Dominates the 2024 Campaign? appeared first on Policy Print.

“The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades,” asserted US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on 29 September.

“Now challenges remain, but the amount of time that I have to spend on crisis and conflict in the Middle East today compared to any of my predecessors going back to 9/11 is significantly reduced.”

Sullivan’s comments have aged horribly. Just eight days later, Hamas waged its incursion into southern Israel, triggering a brutal Israeli campaign of bombardment of Gaza. The fighting since 7 October has thus far killed more than 8,000 Palestinians in Gaza and 1,400 Israelis.

The violence has spilled into Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Egypt. At this point, the escalating crisis risks spreading to other parts of the Middle East, possibly entailing direct US and Iranian involvement.

Now a full-scale Israeli ground invasion of Gaza looms and Palestinians are concerned about a ‘Nakba 2.0’. Considering rhetoric coming from high-ranking Israeli officials and Tel Aviv’s plans and actions this month, such concerns are entirely valid. As usual, the US has not put any real pressure on Israel to change its destructive and destabilising behaviour.

“Looking ahead, it will be increasingly difficult to imagine the Global South taking the Biden administration’s rhetoric about human rights with anything more than a grain of salt. The hypocrisy from America is just too great”

The timing of this crisis is also particularly horrible given that President Joe Biden, who is seeking re-election next year, doesn’t want to appear to be giving Israel anything less than ironclad support.

As the world witnesses Israel’s war crimes in Gaza carried out with Washington’s blessing, the US’s capacity to be taken seriously when criticising Russia’s rogue behaviour in Ukraine has been severely, and most likely permanently, damaged.

Looking ahead, it will be increasingly difficult to imagine the Global South taking the Biden administration’s rhetoric about human rights with anything more than a grain of salt. The hypocrisy from America is just too great.

“It’s been an unseemly spectacle to see Washington and its European allies support Israel as it cuts off aid, water, and food to besieged civilians in Gaza,” Aron Lund, a fellow at Century International and a Middle East analyst, told The New Arab.

“It is exactly what these same nations denounced the Syrian regime for doing in Homs, Ghouta, Aleppo, and other places. They didn’t mince words when Russia stepped up to support Damascus and vetoed UN condemnations. Now when their own ally blocked aid and food in the same way, they couldn’t muster even mild criticism,” added Lund.

A foreign policy blunder

It is increasingly difficult to deny the major failures of Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East. While continuing many aspects of the Trump administration’s approach to the region, the Biden administration has made expanding the scope of the Abraham Accords central to its agenda in the Arab world.

The White House naively believed it could bring Libya into a normalisation deal with Israel, which backfired disastrously.

The Biden administration has also invested massive amounts of diplomatic energy into trying to pull Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords – something that no expert can imagine happening any time soon given ongoing developments in Israel and Palestine.

“The recent events have punched a giant hole into the paper-thin superficial Biden administration policy on the Middle East, which has deluded itself into believing that establishing close ties with apartheid Israel and dictatorships in the Middle East is some kind of recipe for stability,” Sarah Leah Whitson, the Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), told TNA.

What is being painfully demonstrated is that lasting peace and security for Israel will not come from diplomatic deals with Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which were arguably never confrontational toward Israel.

It can only come from a lasting solution to the unresolved Palestinian question. Attempts to bury the Palestinian issue based on the assumption that the Palestinian cause stopped mattering to the Arab world have proven extremely misguided.

“As with Israel, one of the assumptions of US foreign policy in the Middle East has been annihilated in the past three weeks: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be contained, and that the region could move on,” said Dr Thomas Juneau, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, in an interview with TNA.

“This was predictably an unsustainable assumption, but it was one of the premises of American foreign policy under Biden (and Trump) nevertheless. There are still some positive elements to the Abraham Accords – the stabilisation of relations among Israel and key Arab states – but to be sustainable, it needs to be accompanied by genuine, not fictitious, progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front,” added Dr Juneau.

“Recent events have punched a giant hole into the paper-thin superficial Biden administration policy on the Middle East”

Arab backlash

Anger at the US is growing in the Middle East. Large scale protests in capitals from Amman to Manama, Sana‘a to Baghdad, and Rabat to Beirut speak to the widespread support that the Palestinians are receiving across the Arab world.

In response to public opinion in their own countries, Arab leaders and policymakers have had no choice but to strongly condemn Israel and express support for the Palestinian cause.

Each Arab government faces slightly different circumstances given differences in these countries’ relationships with the US and Israel. Yet, the dynamics across the region are putting pressure on all of them to speak up in defence of the Palestinians and, at least in the case of most Arab states, refrain from directly criticising Hamas.

It was notable that Saudi Arabia, which only several weeks ago was flirting with normalisation with Israel, referred to Israelis as “occupation forces” in its response to Hamas’ Operation al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October.

Despite the Abraham Accords, the UAE, in its capacity as the only Arab state currently on the UN Security Council, has been highly critical of Israel and condemned various aspects of its response to Hamas’ surprise attack. As the humanitarian suffering in Gaza worsens, it’s safe to assume that such criticisms from the UAE will increase.

However, this appears to be about safeguarding regimes from internal legitimacy crises rather than a true commitment to the well-being of the Palestinians.

“It is heartening to see that kind of a pretty united Arab response, but I think it probably has more to do with their concerns about popular unrest in their own countries and wanting to temper that than any pure or genuine concern for Palestinians,” Whitson said.

“All Arab states want Washington to be more mindful of Palestinian and Arab interests, but they’re not equally vocal about it,” explained Lund.

The failure of Biden’s Middle East foreign policy threatens to undermine US standing in the region as well as the US president’s position in the upcoming election. [Getty]

“Governments like that in Syria, which is already hostile to the United States, delight in the opportunity to denounce Washington’s support for Israeli policies,” Lund added.

“Some Arab states, including US-allied nations in the Gulf and states that normalised their ties with Israel, mainly seem to be turning up the volume on Palestine for domestic reasons, or to avoid exposing themselves to criticism from rivals.”

Lund explained how many of these Washington-friendly Arab states are not comfortable confronting the Biden administration about their problems with blind support for Israel.

“You see them criticising Israel in harsher terms than on a normal day, but they haven’t said much about the US support that enables Israel’s actions,” noted Lund.

“On the other hand, I think most realise that if this situation is going to be de-escalated somehow in the future, it’ll have to be the United States that leads the way.”

A time to reassess US foreign policy

When it comes to the White House’s approach to the Middle East, the Biden administration would be wise to change course and ask some tough questions about how we arrived here. But this is unlikely for two principal reasons, said Whitson.

First, Team Biden, “continues to calculate based on short-term interests – namely the upcoming elections – and continues to believe that [Biden’s] victory in the polls is tied to demonstrating extreme support for Israel,” which Whitson sees as a “growing miscalculation”.

Second, the “deeply held personal biases of the Biden administration, of people in the State Department who are not approaching this conflict with clear eyes, with independent thinking, with thinking that prioritises the interests of the American people,” explained Whitson.

“Rather, as Secretary Blinken amply demonstrated during his visit to Israel, their approach to Israel is driven by their own personal, familial feelings of affinity for Israel.”

Source : New Arab

The post Biden’s Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East appeared first on Policy Print.

Montreal, Canada – More than a month into its bombardment of Gaza, the Israeli military issued a warning: Ground troops had surrounded the largest hospital in the Palestinian enclave, al-Shifa. A raid would be launched “in minutes”.

The impending siege of the Gaza City health complex sparked panic among the thousands of injured patients, medical staff and displaced Palestinians sheltering there.

But amid urgent international pleas to protect Gaza’s hospitals, much of the focus in Canada was on the tougher tone of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“I have been clear: The price of justice cannot be the continued suffering of all Palestinian civilians. Even wars have rules,” Trudeau said in a news conference on November 14, around the time the al-Shifa raid began.

“I urge the government of Israel to exercise maximum restraint,” he continued, offering his toughest comments since the war began. For weeks, Trudeau had been ignoring calls – and some of Canada’s largest protests in recent memory – demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

“The world is watching. On TV, on social media, we’re hearing the testimonies of doctors, family members, survivors, kids who’ve lost their parents. The world is witnessing this. The killing of women and children – of babies; this has to stop.”

The response from Tel Aviv was swift. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted publicly to Trudeau’s speech, arguing on social media that the Palestinian group Hamas, not Israel, was responsible for any civilian casualties. Netanyahu pointed to Hamas’s attacks in southern Israel on October 7, one of the events that precipitated the war.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in Canada echoed that argument, saying “the blood of dead babies – Israeli and Palestinian – is on Hamas” and accusing Trudeau of fuelling anti-Semitism.

In the days that followed, Canadian ministers sought to temper Trudeau’s comments.

“The prime minister, quite understandably, is concerned about innocent lives on both sides of that border,” Defence Minister Bill Blair told the Canadian network CTV. “We’ve also been crystal clear: Israel has the right to defend itself.”

The episode is one of many examples in recent weeks of what observers have described as Canada’s “schizophrenic” foreign policy when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

“Whenever [Trudeau] does show any mettle with respect to this, he invariably then steps back from what he said after any sort of criticism coming from either the Israel lobby in Canada or Israeli leaders,” Michael Lynk, a former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, told Al Jazeera.

Unlike its powerful neighbour and Israel’s foremost backer, the United States, Canada says it aims to tread the middle ground in its policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It supports a two-state solution, opposes illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and says international law must be respected by all parties.

But experts say Canada has two policies when it comes to the conflict: one on paper and one in practice.

They note that Canada has cast UN votes against its own stated positions and opposed Palestinian efforts to seek redress at the International Criminal Court, and argue that it has backed hardline, Israeli policies and failed to hold the country accountable for rights abuses.

“This government, as well as previous Canadian governments, have unfortunately had a blind spot with respect to Israel,” said Farida Deif, Canada director at Human Rights Watch.

She added that Canada’s stance has not changed despite the nearly two-month-long military campaign in Gaza, where bombs have struck hospitals, refugee camps and schools serving as shelters. More than 15,200 Palestinians have been killed.

“What we’ve seen with respect to Canada’s policy on Israel-Palestine is really a lack of coherence, confusion, and essentially not really engaging with the reality on the ground,” she told Al Jazeera. “And the reality on the ground that we’ve seen – that Palestinian organisations, Israeli organisations, international organisations have documented – is the reality of apartheid and persecution.”

So what drives Canada’s position?

Al Jazeera spoke to nearly a dozen human rights advocates, politicians, former officials and other experts about how foreign and domestic calculations influence Ottawa’s stance – and whether public outrage could shift its strategy.

Canada has had close ties to Israel for years. It recognised the country shortly after it was founded in 1948 and established an embassy there not long after.

The two countries have had a free-trade agreement in place since 1997, with two-way trade totalling 1.8 billion Canadian dollars ($1.3bn) in 2021. Last year, Canada also exported 21.3m Canadian dollars ($15.7m) worth of weapons to Israel.

Some observers argue that the countries enjoy a natural affinity because of the similar ways in which they were created. Like Israel, Canada was built on the dispossession and forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands.

But relations truly flourished during the almost decade-long tenure of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “Canada and Israel are the greatest of friends and the most natural of allies,” Harper said in a speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in 2014.

A year later, the Conservatives would lose to Trudeau’s Liberal Party in the federal elections, ending Harper’s tenure.

Yet, while Harper’s support for Israel was largely motivated by right-wing, Christian ideology, Trudeau and his more centrist government appear driven by political pragmatism.

Part of that pragmatism stems from Canada’s need to maintain good relations with the US, the country’s largest trading partner and most important ally, according to Peter Larson, chair of the nonprofit Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine.

“Canadian policymakers make a political calculation that coming out strongly or critical of Israel or supportive of the Palestinians is likely to get the Americans angry with us,” Larson said.

The government’s perspective, he said, was that Canada has “no control” over what happens in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. “We have no purchase there, we have no trade there, we have no military there. So why in the world would we get the Americans mad at us when we can’t really do anything anyway?”

Michael Bueckert, vice president of the advocacy group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), agreed. “Every time we see an indication of a policy position [from Canada], it’s closely following whatever the US says,” he told Al Jazeera.

He pointed out that Canada has continued to mirror US positions during the war in Gaza.

“It just seems like everything that Canada does is triangulated based on what the US and Israel are saying,” Bueckert said. “That’s more important to them than being aligned with all other members of the UN, for example, or every humanitarian agency, or a majority of Canadian public opinion.”

Yet sources with knowledge of the government’s inner workings say that domestic politics is the primary driver behind Canada’s position. One of the most important factors, they maintain, is the pro-Israel lobby.

Corey Balsam, national coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices Canada, an advocacy organisation, said the lobby groups have an “unmatched” ability “to be in the room” with political decision-makers.

“The lobby writ large is very well-resourced and influential and well-placed,” he said.

That has forced the Liberal government to weigh whether their decisions will spark a backlash among pro-Israel lobby groups, which could lose them votes, notably to their Conservative rivals, Balsam said.

“I don’t know exactly the calculations that they’re making, but these are the things that they pay attention to – votes in certain ridings [electoral districts], for instance. Also funds and fundraising for the party, I think this is a big factor for them.”

Lynk, the former UN special rapporteur and Canadian law professor, also said Ottawa’s position on the conflict relates in large part to “who has access to the corridors of power”.

The Trudeau government attacked Lynk’s UN appointment at the outset in 2016, as did pro-Israel lobby groups, which put out statements arguing that he had an anti-Israel bias. Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Lynk’s colleagues at Western University in Ontario came to his defence, but the damage was done.

“I tried to engage with as high a level of political and diplomatic decision-makers as I could. I didn’t get very far [in Canada],” he told Al Jazeera.

“What I was trying to do is say, ‘I’m showing you what international law says. I’m showing you what, in fact, your own foreign policy ends up saying … Why is your foreign policy so schizophrenic when it comes to Israel and Palestine?’ Doors weren’t open for me.”

Several people Al Jazeera spoke to for this story described a pervasive fear of being accused of anti-Semitism for speaking out on Israeli rights abuses.

“There’s a certain weight [to anti-Semitism accusations] that is instrumentalised,” said Balsam.

“I think racism influences whose complaints are taken more seriously and whose pain is taken more seriously more broadly,” he added. “Complaints that invoke anti-Semitism – whether or not it is actually anti-Semitism – are taken seriously, whereas on the other hand, with Muslim and Arab groups or Palestinian groups and individuals, they can be much more easily brushed off.”

During the Gaza war, nowhere has Canada’s position been more clearly on display than at the United Nations. After the UN Security Council failed to pass any resolution to address the situation, the focus shifted in late October to the General Assembly, where a non-binding motion was put forward to urge a humanitarian truce.

The measure passed with overwhelming support, but Canada abstained. It also put forward an amendment to the resolution to condemn Hamas.

“Unfortunately, Canada cannot support the text as it is currently proposed. We cannot act as the UN General Assembly without recognising the horrible events of October 7 and without condemning the terrorists behind them,” Canada’s UN ambassador, Bob Rae, said as he presented the amendment on October 27. It failed.

Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa-based nonprofit, said whereas Canada previously was seen as a bridge-building country, the amendment was a “bridge-weakening exercise”.

“And it was unconscionable, in my view, in the context of efforts to curtail an unfolding humanitarian crisis of horrific dimensions,” she told Al Jazeera.

Canada came under even closer scrutiny when its UN mission voted against a draft resolution on November 9 condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as illegal – even though the government’s stated position is that the settlements violate international law.

In a statement explaining the vote, Canada said it was concerned by the number of resolutions that “unfairly single out Israel” at the General Assembly every year.

“Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach at the United Nations and will continue to vote ‘no’ on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues,” the statement read.

According to Bueckert of CJPME, no one is buying that excuse. “They’ve created this rationale for it, but good luck convincing Canadians of this, that these actions make any sense. That it makes sense to vote against things that you say you support,” he told Al Jazeera.

The resolution to condemn the Israeli settlements is among a number of Palestinian-related motions that come up for a vote at the UN General Assembly every year.

And the way Canada votes on these resolutions is dictated by the prime minister’s office, according to a source familiar with the matter, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.

“It’s unusual that the [prime minister] would directly intervene on an issue before the United Nations,” the source said. Usually, foreign policy files are handled by Canada’s foreign affairs department, known as Global Affairs Canada.

Lynk, the former UN expert, also told Al Jazeera that most foreign policy issues “are decided at Global Affairs and rarely ever make it to the prime minister’s office for yea or nay”. But matters related to Israel and Palestine are different. They are “determined and directed out of the prime minister’s office”, Lynk said.

Meanwhile, the anonymous source said Canada’s UN mission has faced direct pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists. That person described a meeting years ago in which a top lobbyist urged Canada to change its votes. The mission told the lobbyist no, but 24 hours after their meeting, the prime minister’s office directed the mission to vote the way the lobbyist had wanted.

“I thought it was outrageous, and I was angry and offended,” the source said. “It’s not the way to run a country. It’s not the way to run a foreign policy.”

Trudeau’s office redirected Al Jazeera’s question on whether it handles Canada’s UN votes to Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada did not answer the question when pressed by Al Jazeera.

“When it comes to votes at the UN, Canada reiterates the importance of a fair-minded approach,” the department said in an emailed statement.

“We will continue to vote no on resolutions that do not address the complexities of the issues or address the actions of all parties. We also remain opposed to the disproportionate singling out of Israel for criticism. Canada rejects the suggestion that there is any kind of ‘double standard’ at play.”

Many people Al Jazeera spoke to said there is a growing sense that the Canadian government’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict could change in the face of shifting demographics.

“As Parliament gets more diverse and has connections to different communities, I do think that the calculus – in terms of, ‘Is this going to hurt me or help me electorally?’ – is shifting,” said Bueckert.

“It clearly hasn’t shifted enough to change Canada’s position in a meaningful way, but that is how we can make sense of the change in tone where Canada at least has to appear to care about what’s happening to people in Gaza.”

Since the war began, there also has been a split within the Liberal Party between politicians who staunchly support Israel and those calling for a ceasefire despite Trudeau’s own reticence to do so.

Less than two weeks into the Israeli military operation, Liberal MP Salma Zahid, who represents a district east of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, stood up in the House of Commons to urge Ottawa to call for a ceasefire.

“It’s very, very important that Canada be a strong voice to call for a ceasefire and make sure that we put an end to the killing of these innocent civilians,” she told Al Jazeera in a phone interview in November.

Asked about divisions within her own party, Zahid said the Liberal Party is a “big tent” and that all views can and should be heard. But she said she aims to represent her constituents, many of whom are Muslim Canadians.

“Some people have called me a terrorist sympathiser. That is sad to see that. But I will not stop because of these comments on social media or anything. I think it is really very important that I be there as a strong voice for the Palestinian people and also for the community,” Zahid said.

Uthman Quick, communications director at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said a recent poll showed the disconnect between public opinion and the Liberal government’s positions.

The poll, released by the Angus Reid Institute on November 7, found that 30 percent of Canadians said they wanted an immediate ceasefire, compared with 19 percent who did not. Among Liberal voters, 34 percent supported a ceasefire compared with 12 percent who were opposed.

While Quick said the federal government’s tone has shifted since the war began, rhetoric alone is not enough. “For the amount of violence and killing that we’ve seen in Gaza, I think that warrants a more drastic approach from our government to really call for peace and for a ceasefire,” he told Al Jazeera.

He also said the government’s position could lead to political ramifications that extend beyond Arab and Muslim communities, as anti-war protests draw people of all backgrounds. “It’s not just a purely Muslim slash Palestinian slash Arab community divide on electoral fronts,” Quick said.

According to Deif at Human Rights Watch, Canada should be trying to pursue a “consistent policy” rooted in international law – and condemn war crimes regardless of who is responsible and who is the victim. It also should suspend weapons sales to Israel so long as “Israeli forces commit widespread, serious abuses against Palestinian civilians with impunity”.

“What we would like to see is Canada engaging on Israel-Palestine in the way that Ambassador Bob Rae engaged on Myanmar and the Rohingya crisis, in the same way that [Foreign] Minister [Melanie] Joly engaged on Ukraine following the Russian invasion,” she told Al Jazeera.

The consequences of inaction, she added, can be devastating.

“When powerful governments, whether it’s Canada or other Western states, turn a blind eye to the Israeli government’s abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law, it certainly sends a message that it can continue to commit those acts.”

Source : Al Jazeera

The post Israel, Palestine and Canada’s ‘Schizophrenic Foreign Policy’ appeared first on Policy Print.

The shocking success of Geert Wilders’ far-right PVV party in Dutch elections has left climate activists fearful of a drastic shift to fossil fuels and a rollback of climate policies if it manages to form a government.

Best known abroad for its rhetoric against Muslims, the PVV, which came first in Wednesday’s election but may struggle to find coalition partners, has taken a hard line on policies to stop the planet getting hotter.

The party wants to extract more oil and gas from the North Sea and stop building wind turbines and solar farms. It also wants to abolish the Dutch climate law and leave the Paris agreement on climate change.

“If these elections make one thing clear, it’s that politics will not save us,” said Yolande Schuur from the Dutch branch of activist group Extinction Rebellion.

The PVV, whose success with voters was praised by far-right leaders across Europe on Thursday, has said it is not going to waste billions on “pointless climate hobbies”.

Its manifesto says that the climate has always changed and that the Netherlands – 26% of which lies below sea level – can adapt to further changes. “We will stop the hysterical reduction of CO₂ , with which we, as a small country, mistakenly think we can save the climate.”

The Dutch are among the biggest polluters in the world, and also in Europe. Per person, the Netherlands pumped more planet-heating gas into the atmosphere in 2021 than all other EU member states bar Estonia, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Luxembourg.

“PVV is close to climate denialism,” said Heleen de Coninck, professor of climate policy at Eindhoven University of Technology. “It’s not quite denying that climate change is happening and human-made any more, but this is a recent turn.”

Despite this, said De Coninck, who also serves as the vice-chair of the Netherlands Scientific Climate Council, the party’s most extreme views may be tempered even if it is part of a ruling coalition.

“For many of its proposals, the party will not find a majority at all in parliament,” she said. “There was an easy majority for the climate law in parliament and that has not changed.”

Kees van der Leun, managing director of energy consultancy Common Futures, agreed that most Dutch lawmakers favoured “staying the course”.

The country’s climate policies, he said, are guided by EU commitments, recent efforts to kick its dependence on Russian gas and growing interest from businesses. “In my view, the election outcome isn’t likely to significantly slow down our climate policies.”

The EU has committed to cutting emissions by 55% by the end of the decade from 1990 levels before reaching net zero by 2050. The Netherlands is a vocal force in EU climate debates and its former deputy prime minister Wopke Hoekstra is the bloc’s top climate envoy.

Dick van Dam, a researcher at the Netherlands environment agency, said the influence of the election on the climate “may be felt more in Brussels than in The Hague”.

But the prospect of a so-called “Nexit” could change this. PVV wants a referendum on taking the Netherlands out of the EU, though Wilders told Dutch media on Thursday that cutting immigration was his priority.

Two other centre-right parties from which Wilders may seek support – the VVD of the outgoing prime minister Mark Rutte and the NSC of Pieter Omtzigt – have committed to remaining in the EU and supporting the Paris agreement.

“Wilders will need at least two other parties to form a coalition,” said Silke Mooldijk, an analyst at the environmental thinktank NewClimate Institute. “While climate mitigation is not a top priority of either the VVD or the NSC, we don’t expect these parties to agree to a complete standstill of national climate policies.”

Climate activists are more fearful. Activists from Greenpeace protested against his success in The Hague on Thursday afternoon, waving banners that said: “No climate denier as our prime minister.”

Andy Palmen, director of the Dutch branch of Greenpeace, said: “The climate, our oceans, healthy nature and sustainable agriculture are all at stake.”

He added that the Netherlands does not need a leader who denies climate change but someone who knows how to unite people with honesty, hope and respect. “Wilders has shown that he is not the right person for that.”

Schuur from Extinction Rebellion said the climate policy of the previous government was already inadequate and that the PVV has enough seats to align with delayers and deniers in other parties to block needed policies.

“Even if the PVV is not part of the new government, they can frustrate necessary climate action with 37 seats [out of 150] in the House of Representatives.”

Although small, the Netherlands is an outsize polluter and hub for European industry and agriculture. Its efforts to cut nitrogen pollution after a court ruled levels of the pollutant too high led to widespread protests from farmers and support for the Farmer Citizen Movement, which won the most seats in the Dutch senate earlier this year.

A poll from Ipsos before the election found nitrogen is one of the most polarising issues for Dutch voters – 30% think livestock herds should be limited to cut nitrogen emissions, while 40% disagree.

Still, said De Coninck, voters may have been more concerned with trust in government than the environment, particularly on the right.

“Even though this is a black page in Dutch election history – with a populist extreme-right party becoming so big – I don’t think this was a climate election.”

Source : The Guardian

The post Success of Geert Wilders’ Far-Right PVV Raises Fears for Dutch Climate Policies appeared first on Policy Print.

Sameh Shoukry, Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, condemned on Saturday the killings of civilians in Gaza, saying that they cannot be justified by Israel’s claim of self-defence. He also criticized Israel’s policy of collective punishment, targeting of civilians and forced displacement of Palestinians.

Shoukry spoke at a press conference with the foreign ministers of Jordan and the United States after the Arab-American ministerial meeting in Amman on the developments in the situation in Gaza. He called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza and urged the international community to stop applying double standards to the Palestinian issue.

The foreign minister said that the number of civilian casualties in Gaza was unacceptable and demanded an immediate halt to the Israeli aggression. He reiterated Egypt’s firm rejection of any attempts to undermine the Palestinian cause or the rights of the Palestinian people.

He also stressed the need to revive the peace process based on the two-state solution and to launch an international investigation into the violations committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Shoukry said that Egypt was doing everything possible to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and to provide medical assistance to the wounded civilians. He added that Egypt faced many obstacles in its efforts, but would continue to work for the sake of peace and stability in the region.

He said that Egypt and the United States had many points of agreement on the need to stop the war and protect the civilians, and that Egypt would always cooperate with the United States on this matter.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi echoed Shoukry’s sentiments, saying that the war in Gaza was against all religions and human values. He said that the war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip must stop and that Israel must not enjoy impunity from accountability.

He called for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the destruction caused by the war. He rejected Israel’s characterization of its actions as self-defense, saying that it would not bring security to Israel or peace to the region.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken affirmed on Saturday that the United States aimed to end the crisis in the Gaza Strip and to achieve a lasting peace in the region. He expressed his gratitude to Egypt and Jordan for their hard work on the two-state solution and their dedication to achieving a safer and more stable Middle East.

Blinken expressed his concern over the escalation in the West Bank and said that the United States condemned the violence and called for holding the perpetrators accountable. He said that the United States believed that the two-state solution was the best way to ensure the freedom and dignity of both peoples. He also said that the United States would take some practical steps to advance this goal.

He said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was very critical and that the United States would work with its partners to ensure the delivery of aid to the Palestinians. He said that the status quo before the war was not sustainable and that the international community had a responsibility to create a new path for a better future. He said that the United States would intensify its efforts to achieve this objective.

US Secretary of State said: “The humanitarian pause is very important to get aid in to the Palestinians; to ensure that people move safely, buildings are rebuilt; and we will continue to work with our partners to ensure that aid gets in.”

Source : Daily News Egypt

The post FM Shoukry Condemns Israel’s Policy of Collective Punishment appeared first on Policy Print.