Thursday, January 05, 2023

Israel’s new government unveils plan to weaken Supreme Court

New justice minister wants to curb the power of the high court, a move critics say would undermine democracy.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s justice minister has unveiled the new government’s plans to overhaul the Supreme Court [File: Atef Safadi/Pool Photo/AP]

Published On 5 Jan 2023

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s justice minister has unveiled a plan to overhaul the country’s judicial system and weaken the country’s Supreme Court.

Critics have accused the government of declaring war against the judiciary, saying the plan announced on Wednesday will upend Israel’s system of checks and balances and undermine democratic institutions by giving absolute power to the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history.

Justice minister Yariv Levin, a confidant of Netanyahu and longtime critic of the Supreme Court, presented his plan a day before the justices are to debate a controversial new law on Thursday that allows a politician convicted of tax offences to serve as a Cabinet minister.

“The time has come to act,” Levin said of his plan to overhaul the court.

His proposals call for a series of sweeping changes aimed at curbing the powers of Israel’s high court, including by allowing legislators to pass laws the court has struck down and effectively deemed unconstitutional.

Levin laid out a law that would empower the country’s 120-seat parliament, or Knesset, to override Supreme Court decisions with a simple majority of 61 votes. He also proposed that politicians play a greater role in the appointment of Supreme Court judges and that ministers appoint their own legal advisers, instead of using independent professionals.

Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox and ultranationalist allies have also said they hope to scrap Supreme Court rulings outlawing Israeli outposts on private Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. They would also seek to allow for the protracted detention of African asylum-seekers and make official the exclusion of the ultra-Orthodox from the country’s mandatory military service.

Levin argued that the public’s faith in the judicial system has plummeted to a historic low and said he plans to restore power to elected officials that now lies in the hands of what he and his supporters consider overly interventionist judges.

“These reforms will strengthen the judicial system and restore public faith in it,” Levin said in a televised statement.

“People we did not vote for decide for us,” he said, referring to the court.

“That’s not democracy.”

In a speech Wednesday ahead of Levin’s announcement, Netanyahu appeared to back his justice minister by vowing to “implement reforms that will ensure the proper balance between the three branches of government”.

Since being indicted on corruption charges, Netanyahu has campaigned against the judicial system. He denies all charges, saying he is the victim of a witch hunt orchestrated by a hostile media, police and prosecutors.

Levin said his plan to overhaul the Supreme Court is “not connected in any way” to Netanyahu’s trial.


Fierce criticism

The planned overhaul has already drawn fierce criticism from Israel’s attorney general and political opposition, though it is unclear whether they will be able to prevent the far-right government from racing forward.

Yair Lapid, former prime minister and head of the opposition, said he will fight the changes “in every possible way”.

Recent opinion polls by the Israel Democracy Institute found a majority of respondents believe the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down laws that conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which serve as a sort of constitution.

“It will be a hollow democracy,” Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute think-tank, said of the proposed changes.


“When the government has ultimate power, it will use this power not only for issues of LGBTQ rights and asylum-seekers but elections and free speech and anything it wants,” Fuchs said.

“We are already in a very fragile situation when we talk about human rights and our constitutional foundations because we have almost no checks and balances.”



As part of negotiations to form the current government, Israel’s parliament last month changed a law to allow someone convicted and on probation to serve as a Cabinet minister.

That paved the way for Aryeh Deri, the leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, to serve half a term as the minister of health and interior affairs, before becoming finance minister. He will also hold the post of deputy prime minister. Deri was convicted of tax fraud and given a suspended sentence last year.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court is expected to hear petitions against Aryeh Deri serving as minister.


Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, a prime target of the new government, has declared her opposition to the ministerial appointment. Baharav-Miara was appointed by the previous government, which vehemently opposes Netanyahu’s rule.

Netanyahu’s allies have floated the idea of splitting up the post of attorney general into three roles including two that would be political appointments.

That would water down the current attorney general’s authority while opening the door for Netanyahu to install someone more favourable to throwing out the charges against him.

KEEP READING

AL JAZEERA


Benny Gantz: I can't be part of an extreme government that will harm the justice system'

National Unity chairman blasts Minister Yariv Levin's reform: Netanyahu has no legitimacy to dismantle the legal system in Israel.
Benny Gantz

National Unity Party chairman MK Benny Gantz on Wednesday blasted the reforms in the judicial system announced by Justice Minister Yariv Levin.

In an interview with Channel 13 News, Gantz asked to convey a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said, "Yes - you were elected by the majority. Yes - you have the legitimacy to form a government. Yes - you are expected to govern. However, you do not have the legitimacy to dismantle the legal system in Israel. You will be remembered as the one who permitted the system to deteriorate to an unbalanced and dangerous place for democracy in Israel."

Gantz said the reform in essence seeks to produce "regime change in Israel."

"We don't have a balanced system. We don't have a constitution that protects us. We don't have two houses. There is a government that mostly controls the Knesset, and now they will control the courts together," he added.

Gantz explained that he is not completely opposed to judicial reform and even pointed out some issues that need to be corrected in it.

Related articles:
Gantz: I want no part in civil war Netanyahu is trying to ignite
'Maintaining contacts is of paramount importance'
'We will fight together against the government'
'These coercive & racist policies will harm you the most'

"We are proposing a solution, an orderly reform based on the Basic Law: The Legislation, which will be carried out in a long process and with underhanded opportunism. This would be done together with all the relevant bodies. Then, if the Knesset wants to invalidate a ruling of the Supreme Court, it will be carried out by a majority that is not a political randomness."

To the question of whether he would consider joining the Netanyahu government, he replied, "I cannot sit in an extreme government whose purpose is harming the justice system. There is a great danger here for the country and the private citizen. We will be harming our legal protection in the world."

Posted by at No comments:
UKRAINE
The true war of attrition begins 
Meduza sums up what happened on the battlefield in 2022 — and what it portends for the year ahead

January 4, 2023
Source: Meduza






Ukrainian artillery firing back at Russian positions in the Kharkiv region. December 24, 2022
Evgeniy Maloletka / AP / Scanpix / LETA

Late in 2022, the war in Ukraine reached a new turning point. Russia conducted its “first wave” of mobilization and partially eliminated the personnel deficit that contributed to its numerous military defeats in the fall. Now, the Russian army might face a shortage of a different resource: artillery ammunition. Meanwhile, Ukraine is experiencing a shell shortage of its own. Overcoming the deficiency won’t be easy: the West, which is assisting Ukraine with supplies, has largely exhausted its own stockpiles. It’s against this backdrop that Russia and Ukraine are fighting a protracted artillery battle around the cities of Soledar and Bakhmut, which is rapidly eating away at the ammunition both sides have left. It’s increasing looking like the true “war of attrition” — as many began referring to the war in Ukraine almost as soon as its hot stage began — will take place in 2023. The outcome of this stage will hinge primarily on which side is better able to adapt to its worsening ammunition shortage.

In this article, our editors attempt to assess the military situation in Ukraine based on the available data. Meduza opposes the war and demands the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.

What states were the Russian and Ukrainian armies in at the start of the full-scale war?

The Russian army

In February, Russia’s command planned to mount a quick victory by launching a decisive operative and advancing its troops at a record pace. In the first days of the full-scale invasion, the Russian army captured a significant amount of Ukrainian territory, taking advantage of the fact that the Ukrainian military hadn’t yet had time to deploy and wasn’t ready to mount a full defense anywhere outside the Donbas.

Just a few weeks later, however, as Ukrainian units arrived at the fronts that had by then formed, the Russian army suffered a major defeat: it completely withdrew from Ukraine’s north (with the exception of the Kharkiv area, which was significant for its subsequent offensive in the Donbas) and retreated south — to 50 kilometers outside of Kherson (to prevent the city and surrounding bridges from falling into the reach of Ukrainian artillery). It became clear that Russia’s troops weren’t prepared to attack the positions of a fully deployed and well-motivated opponent.

LISTEN

In the next stage of the war, the Russian command hoped to conduct a wide-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine. The Russian Armed Forces planned to exhaust the Ukrainian army’s reserves, sapping its supply of armored vehicles and personnel. At the same time, the Russian military's own problems had become clear by the spring:

  • Its units badly lacked personnel: this affected both its troops’ ability to conduct combat operations and its supply chain, which also suffered from labor shortages. Vladimir Putin was unwilling to use mobilization to fix this shortcoming at the time (though there were rumors about a mobilization drive as early as May).
  • The practice of using battalion tactical groups (BTGs) consisting of soldiers at constant readiness (every brigade or division was instructed to designate these soldiers in advance) turned out to be unsuitable for a full-scale war; these groups were created for fast-paced operations against relatively weak opponents. BTGs have also been used to support hybrid operations, but in those cases, local partners have usually done the “dirty work” (such as in Syria or in earlier stages of the war in the Donbas). Neither of these scenarios apply to the current situation in Ukraine.
  • The Russian Aerospace Forces tried and failed to gain dominance in Ukrainian airspace. Russian aviation didn’t have a proven system for overcoming anti-air defenses like NATO does. Because Ukraine’s air defense systems are still operating, the Russian Aerospace Forces were unable to use the method that had worked for them in Syria: dropping conventional unguided bombs from medium altitudes after using computer systems to aim them. At the same time, Russia had few high-precision guided weapons.
  • As a result, aviation played a decisive role neither over the front line nor behind it. The latter is especially significant: the Russian military is still incapable of stopping the flow of Ukrainian reinforcements to the most difficult parts of the front.
  • The Russian army’s logistics system also proved ill-suited for intensive fighting. The Russian military depends on railroads, and can therefore only attack from the vicinity of railway stations. It can receive supplies in the Donbas and in the eastern part of the Kharkiv region, but the railroad in the annexed part of the Zaporizhzhia region is only connected by rail to Crimea, which itself can only receive supplies through the Kerch Bridge. The railroad from Donetsk to Melitopol, meanwhile, has been impossible for Russia to restore; it’s too close to the front line.
  • Russia’s logistical problems have determined where it can and can’t launch large-scale offensives. Its only options are parts of Donetsk, western parts of the Luhansk region, and eastern parts of the Kharkiv region.

It was these factors that determined the course of Russia’s summer campaign. Because of its manpower shortage, the Russian military was forced to abandon its plan of surrounding all of Ukraine’s positions in the Donbas. Instead, it had to choose a less ambitious course of action: conducting an offensive on Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk from Izyum in the Kharkiv region. The goal was to reach Ukraine’s main base in the region, in Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.

At the same time, without full aviation support, Russian troops were relying entirely on their superior artillery and ammunition supplies, which seemed inexhaustible. During the battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, according to Ukrainian generals, the Russian army (across the entire front) fired 40,000–60,000 shells a day, while Ukraine launched no more than 6,000 shells daily.

Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk were ultimately captured in early July, at the same time that Russian forces (primarily PMC Wagner) reached the outskirts of Bakhmut. There, however, the offensive wore thin, and Russia’s units were transferred from Sievierodonetsk and Izyum to Kherson, where Ukraine was expected to launch a counteroffensive.

The Ukrainian army

In early December, the British Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) released a report whose authors included high-ranking Ukrainian military officers. It summarized the Ukrainian side’s view of the war’s initial stage.

  • For the first few weeks after Russia launched its invasion, Ukraine was unable to deploy troops in the areas of Russia’s major assaults. It was finally able to complete its deployment in late March, which allowed Ukrainian forces to stop Russia’s offensives around Kyiv and Mykolaiv. Ukrainian artillery, which wasn’t yet suffering from an ammunition shortage at that point, played an important role.
  • Mobilized Ukrainians began joining territorial defense brigades as well as new battalions and brigades in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Over time, the units of mobilized soldiers became more combat capable.
  • Ukraine’s military command managed to save some of its air defense systems (though most of its air defenses were destroyed by Russia’s first offensive) and aviation (Russia’s Aerospace Forces were unable to stop Ukraine from sending its aircraft to alternate airfields).
  • After the Russian army’s retreat from northern Ukraine, the West agreed to significantly ramp up both the quantity and quality of its weapon supplies to the Ukrainian military. In late spring, Ukraine started receiving heavy weaponry, including howitzers. This was especially significant, as ammunition for the Soviet-made weapons the military was using before had started to run out — both because it consumed ammo at a high rate and because it had lost multiple large storage facilities to Russia.
  • In July, when the Ukrainian army was retreating from Sievierodonetsk, it received its first shipment of HIMARS multiple rocket launcher systems. This immediately changed the situation on the front, exacerbating Russia’s already-serious logistics problems. By late summer, large Russian weapons storage facilities were blowing up practically every day. It’s likely that Russia lost a significant portion of its shells to Ukrainian HIMARS strikes. By the end of July, Russian artillery activity had decreased markedly.

After that, the Ukrainian Armed Forces took advantage of the numerical advantage it had gained as a result of the country’s mobilization (and of the Kremlin’s refusal — at the point — to conduct its own mobilization). This took the form of two major attacks:

  • The first was launched in late August, in the Kharkiv region, and didn’t lead to quick success. From the beginning, Ukrainian troops faced combat-ready Russian reserve troops that had been transferred from the Donbas, and suffered significant losses without gaining much territory in most areas. Nonetheless, by the end of the fall, Russia had left Kherson. Supporting a large group of forces capable of resisting sustained Ukrainian attacks while its crossing points over the Dnipro River were bombed everyday turned out to be an impossible task.
  • Ukraine’s second attack was launched in early September in the southeastern part of the Kharkiv region. It caused the immediate collapse of Russia’s defenses and the destruction of Russia’s bridgehead on the Seversky Donets River, from which Russia had been attacking Slovyansk and Kramatorsk. Russian troops abandoned hundreds of armored vehicles in the course of their retreat. A week after the start of the offensive near Kupyansk, Ukrainian forces blocked the supply routes for all of Russia’s forces in the northern Donbas. As a result, the Russian army abandoned its defense line along the left bank of the Seversky Donets, as well as a large railway station and the city of Lyman.

The success of this offensive is directly linked to the Russian army’s logistics problems. After the fierce battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, Russia was suffering from a severe manpower shortage. The Russian command was ultimately only able to devote combat-capable troops to one area that was under threat: its bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro (where it sent troops from Izyum, among others). In the area around the Balakliya and Kharkiv regions, the Ukrainian military encountered only small and ineffective Russian units.

Please, read this message from Meduza’s team:

Dear readers! For eight years, Meduza has delivered reliable information about Russia and the rest of the world. Our reporting is vital for millions of people in Russia, Ukraine, and beyond. Access to trusted news sources is even more important in times of war. Help Meduza publish the news that Russia’s censors want to silence. Please, support our work.

To plug its holes in the front, the Kremlin declared mobilization in Russia immediately after it lost Lyman. The units of mobilized soldiers that arrived near Lyman and Kupyansk were ultimately able to stop the Ukrainian military from advancing further into the Luhansk region.

The battle for Bakhmut continues to rage on. Why are both sides so determined to control the city?

Russia’s offensive on Bakhmut began all the way back in July — immediately after it captured Lysychansk. The fighting scaled down fairly quickly; most of Russia’s forces that had fought in the battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk left the Donbas in August (many soldiers were transferred to Kherson, while others went on leave). Many Ukrainian troops, too, were transferred out of the area for various reasons.

PMC Wagner (whose numbers were then relatively small) spent several months working to capture favorable positions on the flank of a small Ukrainian group defending Bakhmut. In late July, the Wagner Group captured the Vuhlehirska Power Station, which was just 20 kilometers (12 miles) south of the city. In August, forces from the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Republic” joined the mercenaries to take control of the Knauf plant in Soledar, eight kilometers (five miles) from northeastern Bakhmut. After gradually gaining ground throughout the two months that followed, they found themselves quite close to Bakhmut in the southeast and northeast.

But while Russia’s proxy forces had been making slow progress towards the city, the situation on the front had fundamentally changed. The Russian grouping that was supposed to advance from Izyum to meet Wagner’s forces had disappeared from the map; an immediate assault on Bakhmut no longer made sense. Russia could no longer surround Ukraine’s forces in Kramatorsk and Slovyansk or even capture significant territory in the Donbas: the Ukrainian Armed Forces had already set up a new defense line beyond Bakhmut that Russia’s troops would have to break through, suffering more losses and expending ammunition.

At the same time, however, the Wagner Group itself had grown significantly larger over the fall by recruiting prisoners and acquired its own heavy artillery (along with the experienced artillery gunners of the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Republic”), aviation, and air defense systems. Airborne units were also sent from Kherson to provide assistance.

Ultimately, as the mercenary group’s assault intensified, Ukraine’s command was forced to choose between surrendering Bakhmut or sending massive reinforcements to the area. It chose the second option. In December, units of more than 10 Ukrainian brigades took part in combat from Soledar and Bakhmut to the outskirts of Horlivka.

This isn’t the first time both sides have involved major forces in a battle of little to no strategic importance — the same thing happened in Sievierodonetsk. In June, the Ukrainian military sent substantial reserves to defend the city but was unable to hold its positions — and suffered huge losses. Nonetheless, Ukraine’s resistance exhausted the Russian army and forced it to expend a huge amount of artillery shells.

It’s likely that both sides consider the summer battle to have been a success:

  • The Russian army formally occupied a significant portion of the Donbas and tied down Ukraine’s forces;
  • The Ukrainian army forced the Russian army to spend a large amount of resources.

Many Western military experts, including Michael Kofman and Rob Lee, agree: in their view, even though Russia won the battle for Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk, it was probably even more damaging to the Russian army than the defeats in Balakliya, Izyum, Kupyansk, and Lyman. Russia’s irrational expenditure of resources this summer was the key to the success of Ukraine’s subsequent offensive, according to Kofman and Lee.

Now, however, both sides are experiencing growing ammunition shortages that will be difficult to overcome. While the West supplied Ukraine with more than 100,000 shells after its defeat at Sievierodonetsk this summer, it’s unlikely to give support on such a large scale again. But the Russian side is in a similar boat: while its shell stocks seemed practically endless in the summer, now it’s experiencing a deficit even around Bakhmut.

The war is exhausting ammunition stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine, and the West. How do they replan to replenish them?

In late December, a video appeared online in which two men claiming to be PMC Wagner fighters berated Russian Army General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov for his failure to supply the troops carrying out the assault on Bakhmut with enough ammunition. Wagner Group founder Evgeny Prigozhin later confirmed that the clip was made by his mercenaries — and with his approval. According to Prigozhin, the ammunition shortage is preventing Russian forces from completing the operation successfully.

Western military and intelligence officials have also spoken about this issue: according to some estimates, Russia will start facing critical ammunition problems in January. Ukrainian officers, too, have noted that Russia’s artillery around Bakhmut seems to be firing less than it did in the summer.

In other words, Russia is now feeling the consequences of its intensive shelling against Ukrainian forces this summer. On one hand, the Russian military is unable to use the reserves that remain from the Soviet period (they’re expired). On the other hand, it can’t manufacture ammunition fast enough to keep shelling at the rate it did during the battle for Sievierodonetsk (even if the Ukrainian estimates that Russia used 40,000–60,000 shells a day are exaggerated). Experts estimate that between 2014 and 2021, Russia produced about 3.5 million 152-mm shells. That’s likely the same amount it consumed in the first six months of the war. The situation with multiple launch rocket system munitions is comparable. As a result, even increasing production by dozens of percentage points wouldn’t be enough to solve the problem.

At the same time, Western media has begun reporting that the Pentagon wants the Ukrainian military to adjust its approach in the war. Rather than expending large amounts of ammunition, Washington reportedly wants Ukrainians to learn to fight “more like Americans” — that is, to maneuver more effectively.

The West’s desire to change the way Ukrainians fight is almost certainly a response to NATO’s own shell shortage. Unlike countries whose armies were built on the legacy of the Soviet one, NATO countries stopped viewing artillery as the “God of war” decades ago — and, as a result, they have neither the stockpiles necessary for firing thousands of weapons for months on end nor the manufacturing capacity necessary to produce millions of shells per year. The West’s plans for increasing production are clearly insufficient to provide Kyiv with ammunition on the scale it needs.

But making Ukrainian troops “fight like Americans” won’t work either, Michael Kofman has warned. That’s because the U.S. relies not just on maneuvers and interactions between different branches of its armed forces, but also — and more heavily — on its overwhelming firepower. And that firepower lies not in artillery but in aviation — something the Ukrainians don’t currently have on the necessary scale.

The U.S. is taking practical steps to make Ukraine’s Air Force more effective in its current state. Its last military aid package to Ukraine, for example, included kits for converting unguided aerial munitions into guided ones. These should increase the accuracy of Ukraine’s bombs, though they won’t solve the country’s main problem, which is a shortage of planes. Even before the full-scale war, the Ukrainian Air Force was an order of magnitude inferior to Russia’s in size, and it’s suffered significant losses since February. But NATO has made it clear that, at least for now, providing Ukraine with Western-made planes is off the table: Washington believes the risk of unnecessary escalation is too high.

Posted by at No comments:

The next stage of the Hot Cold War


January 05, 2023 

After a year of big surprises, led by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the global spike in inflation rates, and the collapse of cryptocurrency ventures, what kind of year will 2023 prove to be? This kind of short-run question is hard to answer, because repercussions of events spread so quickly and unpredictably across our globalized world. But the last 12 months highlighted one major trend that will shape what happens next, in 2023 and beyond: the decline of Russia.

Russian aggression is nothing new. Moscow has been invading other countries since the mid-1990s and has occupied parts of Ukrainian territory since 2014. But the brutality of Russia’s attacks since late February far exceeds what is acceptable to most countries. The most recent phase, destroying civilian energy infrastructure, is widely seen as amounting to a war crime. It is unlikely to change the course of the war, which Russia is losing.

In the bigger picture, Russia has again entered a period of secular decline, during which it will have limited access to Western investment, technology, or consumer goods. Russia’s empires have collapsed before, in 1917-18 and again when the Soviet Union imploded in 1989-91. In both cases, the collapse took a while to get going, and then proved quite complete. Of course, historically Russia has also been able to reassert control, using its own resources during the Civil War of 1917-22 and getting a lot of help from Western companies during the 1990s.

This time, too, we should expect a long struggle for power within Russia, implying serious existential risks for the world, including who ends up controlling Russian nuclear weapons. But the more direct economic impact will be reflected in the world energy market.

Demand for Russian fossil fuels is way down. Before its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia produced about 10.8 million barrels of oil per day, of which around eight million were exported (either as crude or refined products). The sharp decline in Russian economic activity means that more oil is available for export, but the European Union, the United States, and their allies are now buying crude from other suppliers – and the same will be true for refined products from February 2023. The International Energy Agency predicts that Russian oil exports will fall to around six million barrels per day over 2023-24. Over the medium term, India might buy 1-2 million barrels and China could sop up the rest – assuming both countries want to become more dependent on a malevolent and unreliable partner.

Purchases by India, China, and a few others can still result in a lot of free cash flow and tax revenue for Russia. Whoever leads Russia will put much of these proceeds into building and buying weapons – including missiles with which it can hit a wide range of countries from long distance. NATO member countries are, one hopes, protected to some extent by the threat of retaliation, but Russia can be expected to engage in sabotage and other deniable attacks on Western energy infrastructure (and similar vulnerable strategic targets). Russia is on its way to becoming the best-financed pariah state ever.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was careful not to attack Western Europe and the US too directly (and vice versa). Instead, both sides used proxy wars and other forms of pressure. This time, however, we should expect much more direct confrontation. The Russian elite have boxed themselves into a corner, with a bizarre set of beliefs – right-wing nationalism on steroids – and long-range weapons. Giving ground – literally or metaphorically – to these extremists, will only embolden them to take more.

The need to limit over time how much cash Russia can spend on aggression is why the price cap on Russian oil exports is so important. The evidence so far is that this is working as intended, enabling India and China to buy Russian oil at a big discount compared to world prices.

But further measures are needed, including accelerated investments in renewable energy to reduce world demand for oil. If we continue to depend on Russia and its allies in the OPEC+ cartel, the ability and temptation to disrupt our economies will be immense. There is now a pressing national security dimension to the energy transition.

High inflation in the 1970s had multiple causes, beginning with tight economies in the 1960s (and the Vietnam War). But the problems were exacerbated by two oil price shocks, in 1973 and 1979. OPEC+ members understand that they have the power to do this again, at a time of their choosing – or the next time Russia asks for a favor.

Oil demand and supply are quite unresponsive to oil prices in the short run, but historically quite responsive over 5-10 years. In 2023 and beyond, the West needs to focus more intently on reducing demand for fossil fuels, particularly oil, and increasing the supply of alternative energy sources (outside the control of Russia and OPEC).

Copyright: Project Syndicate
-- Contact us at english@hkej.com




SIMON JOHNSON
Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-founder of a leading economics blog, The Baseline Scenario. 
Posted by at No comments:

Iran frees actress Alidoosti, jailed over anti-government unrest

JANUARY 04, 2023
The 75th Cannes Film Festival - News conference for the film "Leila's Brothers" in competition - Cannes, France on May 26, 2022. Cast member Taraneh Alidoosti reacts.
Reuters file

DUBAI — Iran has released top Iranian actress Taraneh Alidoosti on bail, state media reported on Wednesday (Jan 4), weeks after she was detained for criticising a crackdown on anti-government protests that have rocked the Islamic Republic for months.

Best-known for her role in "The Salesman", which won an Academy Award in 2017, the pro-reform artist Alidoosti had supported the protests, including by posting her picture on Instagram in November without the compulsory hijab head covering, and holding up a sign which read "Woman, Life, Freedom" in Kurdish, a popular slogan in the mass protests.

The semi-official ILNA news agency, citing her lawyer, said "Alidoosti, who was arrested on Dec 17, was released today on bail", without giving further details.

Her picture, taken in front of Tehran's notorious Evin prison, was widely shared on social media.

The protests, sparked by the death of a young Kurdish woman while in the custody of the morality police, have posed one of the biggest legitimacy challenges to the Shi'ite Muslim-ruled Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution.

Since Amini's death, protesters from all walks of life have taken to the streets, calling for the downfall of the country's clerical rulers, with women taking off and burning their headscarves in fury across the country.

Dozens of female Iranian actresses and artists have posted pictures of themselves without the compulsory hijab, in solidarity with the demonstrations in which women have played a leading role.

Facing their worst legitimacy crisis in the past four decades, Iran's clerical rulers have accused a coalition of “anarchists, terrorists and foreign foes" of orchestrating the protests.

The Islamic Republic has so far executed two people involved in mass protests. The Norway-based Iran Human Rights group has said that at least 100 detained protesters face possible death sentences.

ALSO READ: Iranian chess player was warned not to return to Iran after competing without hijab: Source

Source: Reuters

Posted by at No comments:
Anti-Boluarte protests resume in Peru

Protesters barricade main routes in southern regions of Puno, Cusco, Apurimac and Arequipa, as well as Junin in the centre, demanding resignation of President Dina Boluarte, who took over from her ousted predecessor Pedro Castillo.

Demonstrators march with makeshift shields during a protest against President Dina Boluarte's government and Congress, in Arequipa. (AP)

After a fortnight-long break, Peruvians have taken to the streets again, blocking roads countrywide to demand the resignation of President Dina Boluarte, who took over from her ousted predecessor in December.

Protesters on Wednesday used stones and burning tires to barricade main routes in the southern regions of Puno, Cusco, Apurimac and Arequipa, as well as Junin in the centre, chanting for Boluarte to leave.

The demonstrations died down over the holiday period, but by Wednesday, the protesters had remobilised.

"There are 10 blockades, mainly around Puno," government spokesperson Alberto Otarola told reporters in Lima, where a crisis centre was erected.

In Arequipa, police sought to break up hundreds of protesters using tear gas.

Dozens also gathered in the capital, Lima.

"The airports are functioning normally," said Otarola.

READ MORE: Ousted Peru leader Castillo calls his detention 'political revenge'

Nationwide state of emergency

Boluarte took over on December 7 as the South American country's first woman president following the impeachment and arrest of Pedro Castillo after he tried to dissolve Congress and rule by decree.

Castillo, a leftist former rural school teacher and union leader, faced vehement opposition from Congress during his 18 months in office, and had been the subject of numerous criminal investigations into allegations of widespread graft.

His ouster sparked nationwide protests, with Peru's rights ombudsman reporting 22 people killed in clashes and more than 600 injured.

Boluarte's government declared a 30-day nationwide state of emergency, while she attempted to calm the uproar by seeking to bring forward elections.

READ MORE: Peru court orders 18-month detention for ousted president Castillo

Riot police face off with demonstrators protesting against President Dina Boluarte's government and Congress, in Arequipa. (AP)

'This will continue'

As a precaution, train services between the town of Cusco and the Inca citadel of Machu Picchu were suspended indefinitely on Tuesday, and some 2,000 tourists were escorted from the heritage site.

In the first wave of protests, thousands of tourists found themselves stranded at Machu Picchu and Cusco for days due to road, railway and airport blockades.

TV footage showed police and the army guarding the headquarters of public institutions in some areas where protests have been announced, including Ayacucho, a region with the highest number of victims in the recent demonstrations.

From Lima, Boluarte called for an end to the protests she blamed for "delays, pain, economic losses" and appealed instead for "peace, calm, unity to promote development of the homeland."

Protest leader Milan Knezvich, in the mountainous Apurimac region, vowed the struggle will continue.

"No one will want to talk to her. As long as Mrs Dina Boluarte does not resign, this will continue," he told Exitosa radio.

The new government has agreed to bring forward elections set for 2026 to April next year, but many want voting to happen even sooner.

On Tuesday, marches were held in various parts of Peru against the planned restart of the anti-Boluarte protests.

READ MORE: Peru Congress to reconsider early election amid protests
Posted by at No comments:
West opposes rest of world in UN votes for fairer economic system, equality, sustainable development

The West opposed the rest of the planet in United Nations General Assembly votes that called for a new international economic order based on sovereign equality, sustainable development, and biological diversity.



By Ben Norton
Published2022-12-22




Most countries on Earth voted at the United Nations General Assembly to support a call for a new international economic order that is based on sovereign equality and cooperation, that rejects unilateral sanctions and advocates for debt relief for the Global South.

The only countries that opposed this widely popular proposal were the West and its allies.

The United States and its proxies were also the lone votes against common-sensical resolutions promoting sustainable development, biological diversity, and basic civil rights for Palestinians. Almost the entire world supported these proposals.



Washington showed itself to be a rogue state on the international stage, voting against practically every resolution, even on uncontroversial issues where the rest of the planet is in agreement.

Most of these resolutions were commonplace, are introduced every year, and have been voted on many times before, with similar results: the West vs. the rest.

In 1974, formerly colonized nations in the Global South proposed a plan to dismantle the remaining economic structures of colonialism.

They called it the New International Economic Order (NIEO), and said that it should be “based on the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States.”

The NIEO has been consistently voted on at the United Nations in the five decades since. And the West has persistently opposed it.

On December 14, 2022, 123 countries voted in favor of the NIEO – 64% of the UN’s 193 member states. (The number would have been even higher, but several nations that have been illegally sanctioned by the US, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe, had their UN voting rights temporarily suspended because they have been unable to pay their membership fees in dollars.)

Just 50 nations voted against it, with one abstention, from NATO member Türkiye.



The 50 countries opposed to the call for a fairer, more equitable economic system consisted of the United States, members of the European Union, Britain, Israel, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Japan.

This grouping has been referred to as the “Collective West.”

The West is not a geographic construct; it is a political one. This is why Australia, which was created as a British settler colony, is located in the eastern hemisphere but is politically and culturally part of the West.

The same is true for apartheid Israel, which like Australia was created as a British settler-colonial project and has since become a US proxy with a key geostrategic location in West Asia.

Similarly, the two East Asian nations that are part of this Western bloc are military occupied by the United States, which has stationed tens of thousands of troops in Japan since the mid-1940s and in South Korea since the early 1950s.

Reflecting on the December 14 vote, Chinese journalist Chen Weihua observed, “It’s US and EU against the rest of the world. Basically 900 million against the more than 7 billion from Asia, Africa to Latin America.”

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution “reaffirms the need to continue working towards a new international economic order based on the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States.”

It also “reiterates that States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries.”

The resolution calls for “mutually supporting world trade, monetary and financial systems” and “coordination of macroeconomic policies among countries to avoid negative spillover effects, especially in developing countries”

It similarly urges debt relief for the Global South, stating that it “expresses concern over the increasing debt vulnerabilities of developing countries, the net negative capital flows from developing countries, the fluctuation of exchange rates and the tightening of global financial conditions, and in this regard stresses the need to explore the means and instruments needed to achieve debt sustainability and the measures necessary to reduce the indebtedness of developing countries.”

The December 14 vote took place in the 53rd plenary meeting of the 77th session of the UNGA, featuring reports from the body’s Second Committee, which focuses on economic and financial affairs.
Rogue state: USA votes against entire world at UN

The votes were very similar on related UNGA resolutions. They illustrated how the United States and its proxies act as rogue regimes, violating the will of the international community.

A proposal on “international trade and development” had almost the exact same vote, with 122 in favor, 48 against, and one abstention (once again, Türkiye).

In this resolution, “the Assembly urged the international community to adopt urgent and effective measures to eliminate the use of unilateral economic, financial or trade measures that are not authorized by relevant organs of the United Nations, and that are inconsistent with the principles of international law or the Charter of the United Nations or that contravene the basic principles of the multilateral trading system and that affect, in particular, but not exclusively, developing countries.”



A related resolution emphasized the “role of the United Nations in promoting development in the context of globalization and interdependence.”

In this vote, European countries abstained. The only votes against the resolution came from the United States and Israel.

In the measure, “the Assembly noted with concern that the mobilization of sufficient financing remains a major challenge in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and that progress has not been shared evenly within and among countries, leading to further deepening of existing inequalities.”



Even on other resolutions that were completely straightforward and common-sensical, the US voted against the entire world.

The UNGA adopted a resolution calling to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity and reaffirming its contribution to sustainable development.

166 countries supported the resolution, while just three nations opposed it (the US, Israel, and Japan), with one abstention (South Korea).

All 193 UN member states except for one, the USA, have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. Washington stands alone as the only capital on Earth that refuses to join the planet-saving agreement.



The United States also opposed most of the world in a UN vote to recognized the “permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources.”

This resolution passed with 159 countries in favor and 10 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Togo, and Tuvalu).

A mere eight member states voted against recognizing these basic political and civil rights for Palestinians, including the US, Israel, Canada, Chad, and small island nations that typically vote as US proxies at the UN, including the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau (all former US colonies that have “free association” agreements with Washington and use the dollar as their currency), and Nauru (which uses the Australian dollar).



This pattern was yet again visible in a resolution titled “Oil Slick on Lebanese Shores,” in which the UN lightly criticized Israel for illegally bombing Lebanon’s Jiyeh Power Station in 2006, unleashing a massive oil spill that still causes problems today.

In addition to severely damaging the environment, the UN noted that this Israeli attack cost Lebanon at least $856.4 million.

The language of the resolution was very mild, expressing “its deep concern about the adverse implications of the destruction by the Israeli Air Force of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the Lebanese Jiyeh electric power plant for the achievement of sustainable development in Lebanon.”

160 member states voted in favor of the resolution, including European countries.

It was opposed only by the US, Israel, Canada, Australia, and Washington’s proxies in the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau.



These votes on December 14 were by no means the only time the United States has exposed to the world its status as an unaccountable rogue regime.
In recent UN votes condemning the six-decade US blockade on Cuba and calling on Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons, Washington and Tel Aviv spat in the face of the rest of the world.


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)