UK

Sunak Proposes Laws To 'Sack Teachers And Nurses For Going On Strike'

Report suggests prime minister's anti-strike legislation could be announced this week.

Graeme Demianyk
05/01/2023

Rishi Sunak during his first major domestic speech of 2023 on Wednesday.
STEFAN ROUSSEAU VIA PA WIRE/PA IMAGES

Rishi Sunak is set to announce new anti-strike laws that will allow employers to sack workers who take industrial action – including teachers and nurses.

In a desperate effort to curb the wave of strikes crippling the UK, the prime minister could bring forward legislation to ensure so-called minimum service levels as early as Thursday in six sectors, including the health service, rail, education, fire and border security, The Times reported.

Strikes would be deemed illegal if trade unions refused to provide the minimum level of service, the newspaper quoted a government source involved in the discussions as saying.

Employers will be able to sue unions and sack workers under the government plans, the report added.

However, a significant pay rise for public sector workers is also reportedly under consideration as a means of ending the strikes, according to the paper.




A source told the paper: “This legislation will remove the legal immunity for strikes where unions fail to implement a minimum level of service. The strikes will be illegal. Ultimately people could be fired for breach of contract.”

The move is unlikely to directly affect the current round of disputes. MPs do not return until next week, and even if the legislation jumps hurdles in the Commons and the Lords, unions are likely to mount a legal challenge.

Sunak last month indicated he wanted to introduce anti-strike laws to protect people’s lives and minimise the disruption on their livelihoods.

The prime minister was asked on Wednesday about the wave of strikes sweeping across the country, replying that his government’s door was always open for dialogue.

He said: “You’ll hear more from the government in the coming days about our approach.

“My view is people should always behave reasonably and fairly and make sure that what we’re doing is centred around what is responsible for the country, what’s affordable for the country.

“I think that’s the right dialogue to be having, and I hope we can have that dialogue.”

He said “people should have the right to strike”, adding “that has to be balanced with the right of the British public to go about their lives without suffering completely undue disruption in the way we’ve seen recently”.

Sunak added: “And that’s why I have said we will introduce new legislation that restores that balance and crucially protects people’s lives as well as their livelihoods.”

Sunak to detail anti-strike laws soon – 

Report

Britain has faced a wave of industrial action over the last few months, with strikes crippling various sectors including the rail network set to continue as surging inflation follows more than 10 years of stagnant wage growth.

• Melvin Samuel
 
• 05 January, 2023

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak arrives to deliver his first major domestic speech of the year at Plexal, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park on January 4, 2023 in London, England. (Photo by Stefan Rousseau – WPA Pool/Getty Images)

By: Melvin Samuel

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could set out details of a planned new law to curb strikes as soon as Thursday, The Times reported, saying ministers intend to make industrial action illegal in some sectors if minimum service levels are not met.

The Times newspaper said the legislation would enforce minimum service levels in six sectors, including the health service, rail, education, fire and border security, which would require a proportion of union members to continue working.

Britain has faced a wave of industrial action over the last few months, with strikes crippling various sectors including the rail networkset to continue as surging inflation follows more than 10 years of stagnant wage growth.

The strikes would be deemed illegal if unions refused to provide the minimum level of service, the newspaper quoted a government source involved in the discussions as saying.

Employers would be able to sue unions and sack staff under government plans to curb the right to strike, the report added.

The Prime Minister’s office declinedto comment. On Wednesday Sunak said the government would set out its next steps “in the coming days”.

Opposition Labour leader Keir Starmer said if his party won the next election, expected in 2024, it would repeal the law.

“We’ll look at what they bring forward, but if it’s further restrictions, then we will repeal it,” Starmer said during a question and answer session following a speech on Thursday.

“I do not think that legislation is the way that you bring an end to industrial disputes. You have to get in the room and compromise.”

Sunak told Daily Mail in an interview last month the new law would protect people’s lives and minimise the disruption to their livelihoods.

The head of rail union ASLEF, Mick Whelan, told Reuters Britain already had among the worst trade union laws in Europe.

“Surely people have a right to strike. I don’t see any pernicious legislation coming forward to deal with bad employers,” he said.

New TUC boss calls for urgent meeting with Rishi Sunak to break strike deadlock

Wednesday 4 January 2023 

Paul Nowak took up the role of general secretary of the TUC in December.

Credit: PA Wire/PA Images

The new general secretary of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) has called for an urgent meeting with the prime minister in a bid to break the deadlocked industrial disputes sweeping across the country.

Paul Nowak, who took up his role at the TUC on December 29, called for a change in government direction, saying ministers should open pay negotiations with unions.

It comes as rail workers continue a 48 hour strike, with more stoppages planned this month in the transport industry, NHS and civil service.

In a letter to Rishi Sunak, Mr Nowak said public services were in crisis after years of “underfunding and understaffing.”

Mick Lynch (centre), RMT general secretary, joins members on the picket line outside London Euston train station.

Credit: PA

He wrote: “We can’t solve these problems without a fair deal for the people on the frontline.

“Every month experienced employees are quitting, with one in three public service staff now taking steps to leave their professions or actively considering it. This is simply unsustainable.

“But we cannot fix the staffing crisis in our schools, hospitals and elsewhere if we do not fix the underlying causes.

“That means talking in an open and constructive way about improving public sector pay. But so far your ministers have refused to negotiate directly about pay with unions.”
New TUC leader says 'ball is in government's court' to put an end to strikes

Mr Nowak said unions worked closely with Mr Sunak during the pandemic to deliver the furlough scheme and protect millions of jobs.“That’s the kind of mature approach we need now," he continued.

“Unions have already made clear their willingness to sit down with the government and talk about boosting pay. But while your ministers continue to refuse point blank to discuss improving wages, there can be no resolution.

What is Sunak’s strikes strategy?

The TUC boss said unions worked closely with Mr Sunak during the pandemic to deliver the furlough scheme and protect millions of jobs.

Credit: PA

“In the NHS, for example, appropriate structures already exist to allow the immediate start of pay negotiations involving health unions, employers and ministers. This was exactly what happened in 2018, leading to the three-year wage deal.

“We want to find a resolution to the current disputes so our public service staff can get on with doing the jobs they love. And so our public services can start to improve for everyone who relies on them.”

Around half of Britain’s railway lines are closed and only a fifth of services are running as tens of thousands of workers at Network Rail and train operators walk out on the second day of the strike, with another to begin on Friday.

On Wednesday, the DVSA driving examiners’ strike starts in London, the South East, South Wales and the South West, while traffic officer service workers at National Highways will continue their walkout.
Who is striking when? A timeline of public sector walkouts in January 2023

Meanwhile, industrial action by the UK-wide National Highways and Rural Payments Agency staff will continue.

London bus workers at Abellio will also begin a two-day strike – the first in a series of action planned by the group throughout January.

More industrial action is planned later in the month by workers in the transport sector, along with staff in the NHS and civil service.

Workers have lost £20,000, on average, in real wages since 2008 as a result of pay not keeping up with inflation, and by 2025 the loss will total £24,000, according to TUC analysis.Nurses have lost £42,000 in real earnings since 2008, midwives £56,000 and paramedics £56,000, with workers facing another year of "pay misery", said the TUC.

The government argues it has agreed to the recommendations made by independent pay review bodies and that double digit pay rises would push inflation up further.

 OPINION

Call for Restraints in US Arms Transfers to Ukraine

By Natalie Goldring

F-16A fighter aircraft. Credit: US Air Force photo

ARLINGTON, Virginia, Jan 5 2023 (IPS) - More than 10 months since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its allies continue to seek the most effective military, humanitarian, political, and economic means of assisting Ukraine.

In his December 2022 visit to Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly reiterated his desire for advanced US weapons; Ukraine’s wish list includes Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter aircraft. Fulfilling President Zelensky’s request for US combat aircraft and tanks would be a significant escalation of the US military commitment to Ukraine and could further increase the risks associated with that commitment.

The situation is fraught, with threats of conventional war beyond Ukraine’s borders and even possible nuclear weapons use, as well as uncertainty about weapons suppliers’ ability to ensure that the weapons transferred reach their intended users and are not retransferred.

Danger of transferring weapons and munitions that could be used to attack Russia

The US weapons that have been transferred to Ukraine so far have been largely defensive in nature; these include anti-aircraft and anti-armor systems. The US has reportedly not provided the munitions with the longest range for systems such as rocket launchers, making it more difficult for Ukrainian forces to strike far beyond the Ukrainian-Russian border.

In contrast, weapons such as battle tanks and fighter aircraft can be used in offensive roles that may increase the likelihood of Russian reprisals against the United States and our European allies. In particular, providing weapons that can reach deep into Russian territory may increase the likelihood of escalation, with Russia potentially responding by attacking countries in Europe that have assisted with Ukraine’s war effort.

Through its actions, the US government implicitly seems to assume that the Russian government will perceive these transfers the way that the US government wants them to — as defensive in nature. There’s no guarantee that this will be the case. And even if the Russian government does not deliberately choose escalation, it may still occur because of accident, mistake, or miscalculation. Focusing US aid on defensive weapons and shorter-range munitions is likely to decrease this risk.

Insufficient accountability for weapons transfers

Far too often, the US government transfers weapons and ammunition without putting sufficient systems in place to ensure accountability for their storage, deployment, and use. Without robust controls, these weapons can be stolen and sold to the highest bidder or transferred to other conflicts.

The capture of US weapons by Russia would present a particular threat — the potential disclosure of US technology through Russian reverse engineering of US weapons systems.

The hurried nature of transfers to Ukraine further increases the likelihood of diversion. Continuing to expand the number and capability of US weapons provided may also exacerbate these risks.

In addition, even if US military forces are not deployed in Ukraine, in the future they could still face US weapons that were diverted to other conflicts.

The risk of diversion can be reduced by verifying that only authorized users receive US weapons and ammunition, that they carefully track the deployment and use of the weapons, and that weapons and their ammunition are securely stored when not deployed. In addition, diversion to other conflicts can be reduced by destroying the weapons and ammunition that remain when the conflict ends.

US even more dominant in assistance to Ukraine than in global conventional weapons transfers

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States continues to be the world’s largest supplier of conventional weapons, supplying nearly 40 percent of the global value of weapons transferred from 2017-2021. This was virtually identical to the total value of weapons transferred by the next four countries during the same period (Russia, France, China, and Germany). US dominance in aid to Ukraine is even more pronounced.

In conjunction with President Zelensky’s visit to Washington, the US Department of Defense announced the 28th drawdown of US defense stocks to aid Ukraine since August 2021. The press release acknowledging the latest commitments indicated that the US has provided more than $21 billion in security assistance since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The omnibus spending bill that President Biden signed in late December 2022 contains $47 billion in additional military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.

In contrast, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) issued a press release on 30 December 2022 stating that the UK had provided £2.3bn of military aid in 2022, and that this was second only to the United States. The MOD also indicated that they planned to provide the same level of funding in 2023. This commitment is a small fraction of US assistance.

As with other US transfers of conventional weapons, transfers to Ukraine risk diversion to other countries and other conflicts. US dominance of the supply of weapons means that it also holds a disproportionate responsibility for the use and potential misuse of the weapons.

Danger of nuclear weapons use

During the Cold War, one of the most significant concerns was that a conventional war might escalate to the nuclear level. Analysts and political leaders alike recognized while this could take place because of deliberate action, it could also occur because of accident or miscalculation.

This likelihood of nuclear use persists today, and is arguably higher as a result of Russian President Putin’s threat to use all means of military force in the conflict in Ukraine.

If Russia is losing the conventional war, they may decide to turn to nuclear weapons to try to change the war’s outcome. The US providing Ukraine with weapons designed primarily for offensive use may increase this risk.

The continued use of nuclear threats is yet another illustration of the danger of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, this danger continues. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides a roadmap for escaping this existential threat.

Danger of ignoring long-term risks in favor of potential short-term gains

Taken together, these risks highlight the danger of giving priority to potential short-term political and military gains over longer-term negative consequences.

Further weapons transfers to Ukraine need to be subjected to rigorous analysis of potential long-term consequences before the transfers occur. Saying yes to Ukraine may be the easier response from a short-term perspective.

For example, saying yes is likely to enhance the political connection between the US and Ukraine, and military contractor’s profit from weapons sales. However, that response may well endanger US security interests in the longer term.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, a Visiting Professor of the Practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on conventional and nuclear disarmament issues.

IPS UN Bureau

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Two Years After the January 6 Attack, Voters Blame Trump and Support Criminal Charges

By Kirby Phares and Lew Blank

Two years ago on January 6, hundreds of rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol building in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The attack was spurred by President Donald Trump, who falsely denied the legitimacy of the election and encouraged followers to challenge the results in court and state legislatures. Over the past year and a half, the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the attack interviewed thousands of people and held multiple hearings to present its findings on Trump’s involvement in the insurrection. The committee recently released its final report, which concluded that Trump was singularly responsible for the attack on the Capitol.

From December 22-29, 2022, Data for Progress conducted a poll of 1,189 likely voters to analyze the sentiment around the January 6 attack two years later. We find that majorities of voters believe that Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election, disapprove of Trump supporters’ actions on January 6, and find Trump responsible for the insurrection. We also find that voters support criminal charges against Trump.

We first asked voters whether the 2020 presidential election was fairly won by Biden or stolen from Trump. A majority of voters (57 percent) believe that Biden legitimately won the election, including 92 percent of Democratic voters, 55 percent of Independents, and 26 percent of Republicans.




Furthermore, a majority of voters disapprove of supporters of Trump who stormed the U.S. Capitol in hopes of overturning the election. Specifically, a +77-point margin of Democrats, a +63-point margin of Independents, and a +34-point margin of Republicans believe that supporters were wrong to incite violence and threaten American democracy. Less than a third of Republican voters agree that January 6 rioters were justified in their actions by standing up for Trump.


The House Select Committee found that Trump was the “central cause” of January 6. With regard to this, we then asked how voters’ viewed Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Fifty-nine percent of likely voters agree that Trump had either “a lot of responsibility” or “some responsibility” for the insurrection. This result is driven by Democratic and Independent voters. However, 48 percent of Republicans believe that Trump had some degree of responsibility for the January 6 attack.





We also tested support for the U.S. House of Representatives’ investigation into the insurrection and the events leading up to it. We find that a clear majority of voters — 59 percent — support the House’s investigation, while just 35 percent are opposed.




As a result of this investigation, on December 19, 2022, the House Select Committee on the January 6 attack recommended four criminal charges against Trump for sparking the insurrection. The recommended charges include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by blocking the certification of Biden’s victory, conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting the insurrection. We find that 50 percent of voters support charging Trump for these actions, while 44 percent think he should not be charged.





While majorities of voters oppose the insurrection and believe Trump is responsible, it’s a different question whether this would actually harm Trump in a hypothetical 2024 general election matchup with Biden. In our survey, we conducted a polling experiment to test that.

We split voters into two groups. The first group was asked whether they would vote for Trump or Biden in the 2024 presidential election. The second group was asked the same question, but provided additional information: that Biden opposes the insurrection but Trump supports it.

We find that this framing makes a noticeable difference in vote choice. Without the messaging, Biden holds a +2-point advantage over Trump among likely voters, but he holds a +7-point edge when we include messaging. Broken down by partisanship, the added messaging provides a +5-point increase for Biden among Independent voters and a +8-point increase among Republican voters.




These findings clearly show that voters nationwide oppose the insurrection — and that the issue is hurting Trump and the Republican Party. Clear majorities think Biden fairly won the 2020 election, think Trump did the wrong thing on January 6, and believe Trump is responsible for the attack. Voters also support the House’s investigation into the attack and want Trump to be criminally charged. Furthermore, messaging around Trump’s support for the January 6 attack harms his prospects against Biden in a potential 2024 general election matchup, showing the clear negative impact of Republicans’ support of the insurrection on their electoral success.

Kirby Phares is a senior analyst at Data for Progress.

Lew Blank (@LewBlank) is a polling analyst at Data for Progress.
Survey Methodology

Peru police use tear gas to clear protests after Machu Picchu evacuated
Reuters
January 04, 2023


LIMA (Reuters) -Police used tear gas to disperse protesters trying to approach Peru's Congress headquarters on Wednesday, as thousands took to the streets two weeks after a wave of deadly protests over the ousting of former President Pedro Castillo.

By early evening, there were no reports of clashes with police, who closed off access to Congress, though transport authorities reported 35 blockade points across the country.

Almost two dozen died in protests across the country last month.

On Wednesday, protesters marched in Lima and Arequipa, many carrying the country's red-and-white flag, and demanded the resignation of current President Dina Boluarte, closure of Congress, changes to the constitution and Castillo's release.

Meanwhile, authorities said trains to the Inca citadel of Machu Picchu had been suspended, a day after some 2,062 tourists were evacuated.

Prime Minister Alberto Otarola had earlier called for demonstrations to be peaceful.

Authorities had "scrupulously complied" with Boluarte's instructions to use force prudently, Defense Minister Jorge Chavez told local news outlet RPP.

Castillo is serving 18-month pretrial detention while he is investigated for "rebellion," a charge the former president denies. He was ousted after he tried to illegally dissolve Congress and reorganize the judiciary.

Boluarte, a former vice president who assumed power shortly after Castillo's removal, has proposed bringing forward the next general elections.

Television footage earlier on Wednesday showed police and the army guarding headquarters of public institutions in some areas where protests were planned, including Ayacucho, a region with the highest number of victims in the December demonstrations.

On Tuesday, thousands of people had marched in Lima and elsewhere demanding "peace and tranquility."

Boluarte installed on Wednesday morning a "Monitoring and Crisis Control" center, together with the defense and interior ministers.

"I call for peace, calm, and unity to boost the development of the homeland," she said in a speech.

Sergio Belloso, the vice-president of Peru's hotels and restaurants association, said the lack of tourists in 2022 caused by the political and social crisis had cost the country some $2.5 billion.

(Reporting by Marco Aquino; Writing by Sarah Morland; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)

Global Instability Reflected In Large Number Of Desperate Migrants – OpEd

 January 5, 2023 

By Arab News

By Mohamed Chebaro*

Like many at the beginning of the new year, I have been wondering if 2023 will be better for the world based on what we saw unfold in 2022. The short answer is no. The long answer is that, given human nature’s inclination to always be hopeful, I am going to hold on to positivity and wish for the best.

But my positivity was quickly dampened by the news that 13 Moroccans had drowned trying to reach the Canary Islands in Spain last week. Meanwhile, the Italian coastguard rushed to the rescue of 50 migrants who were in distress in the sea between Italy and Libya this week, despite the desire of Rome’s anti-immigration government to reduce the number of arrivals. In Lebanon on Saturday, two people drowned and 200 were rescued after their boat, which was destined for Europe, sank. In Gaza, a mother has received the corpse of her son, who perished at sea along with seven others after making the land journey through Egypt to Libya with the aim of making it to Europe with the help of human traffickers.

Last year, nearly 2,000 people were recorded as dead or missing in the Mediterranean by the UN Refugee Agency. The number reaching Europe by crossing the Mediterranean has been on the increase for the past three years, reaching 146,000 in 2022. The UK announced this week that more than 45,000 migrants reached its shores in small boats last year, which is 17,000 more than the previous year.

The majority of those arriving in Europe have claimed they are fleeing persecution, conflict, violence, instability and poverty in North and sub-Saharan Africa, Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran and even farther afield, such as Afghanistan and other parts of Asia.

As the UK and many other countries have found out, there is no easy way to stop people from trying to seek an alternative life

Mohamed Chebaro

The moral case for giving shelter to those in need still mobilizes many in the Western world, despite the pressure on resources and ever-shrinking state purses for providing adequate housing, social care and education for their needy citizens, let alone the newcomers who require funding for their initial integration, which might last for years.

But there are also some adversities, as many countries known for their hospitable policies toward refugees have been grappling to separate illegal or economic migrants from genuine asylum seekers and a smaller number of those who could be victims of criminal human trafficking gangs.

The UK has been promising to make it extremely difficult for those arriving illegally to remain in the country, since the belief is that many of them have been paying people smugglers huge sums of money for the journey. They are then classified as economic migrants risking their lives for what they hope will be better living conditions and opportunities in a developed country.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, under pressure to curb migration, has pledged to reduce the backlog of asylum seeker applications waiting to be processed in a bid to curb the overall number of migrants reaching the UK in general. Specifically, he wants to try and create precedents of failed applications to deter those arriving by small boats from French shores from paying large sums of money for nothing.

As the UK and many other countries have found out, there is no easy way to stop people from trying to seek an alternative life, under whatever pretext and at any cost, material or physical. Since the dawn of history, people have been on the move and it is no different today for those determined to try to seek a better life somewhere else. The problem faced by host countries — which are often Western, democratic, stable nations — is that people are ready to go to any lengths to reach their soil.

The UK Conservative government has drawn heavy criticism for its Rwanda removal policy and its efforts to process and remove the Albanians who made up at least 25 percent of all small boat arrivals last year, despite their home country being deemed safe. The UN Refugee Agency said that British plans are likely to undermine global refugee protection rules and violate international law. It said London was going against the basic principles of international solidarity and responsibility sharing, upon which the 1951 Refugee Convention was founded. Britain’s new focus on Albanian migrants also seems to have angered that country’s Prime Minister Edi Rama, who said that the UK should “stop discriminating” against people from Albania to excuse its own migration policy failures.

For years, Britain has suffered from a broken immigration system, which is viewed by many as having too many loopholes that, while helping deserving political refugees and genuine asylum seekers, can also be capitalized on and used and abused by economic migrants and criminal human traffickers.

The year 2023 has started with the world looking more and more volatile, with no indication of a rapid end to the war in Ukraine, while there is also instability in Afghanistan under the Taliban and the heavy-handed clampdown on demonstrators in Iran, to mention just a few. In addition to violent conflicts and civil strife, economic woes are multiplying and exerting more pressure on precarious nations that are struggling in the face of costly food and crop failures due to climate change, along with other adversities, putting further pressure on people to seek alternatives and maybe flee.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist, media consultant and trainer with more than 25 years of experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.

Arab News

Arab News is Saudi Arabia's first English-language newspaper. It was founded in 1975 by Hisham and Mohammed Ali Hafiz. Today, it is one of 29 publications produced by Saudi Research & Publishing Company (SRPC), a subsidiary of Saudi Research & Marketing Group (SRMG).

 

U.S. would accept up to 30,000 migrants a month in expanded program -sources

Reuters
January 05, 2023


By Steve Holland, Ted Hesson and Dave Graham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States plans to accept up to 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela under a program paired with expulsions of people from those countries caught at the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. and Mexican officials said.

The expanded humanitarian program would build on a policy launched in October that allowed thousands of Venezuelans to enter by air if they applied from abroad and could demonstrate they had a U.S. sponsor, two U.S. and one Mexican official said on Wednesday.

The details on the planned program come as U.S. President Joe Biden plans to give a border security-themed speech on Thursday and intends to visit the U.S.-Mexico border next week, addressing an issue that has challenged the Democratic president during his first two years in office.

The two U.S. officials expected the new policies to be rolled out on Thursday but the White House did not respond to a request for comment seeking official confirmation.

Biden told reporters at the White House on Wednesday after a visit to Kentucky that he wants to see "peace and security" at the border. He said earlier in the day that he intended to visit the southwest border but that details were still being finalized.

"I'm going to see what's going on," Biden said of the border trip. "I'm going to be making a speech tomorrow on border security, and you'll hear more about it tomorrow."

Biden did not reply when asked which city he planned to visit although the news website Axios later reported he would visit El Paso, Texas, a border city that declared a state of emergency in December amid high levels of migrant arrivals.

Biden is scheduled to travel to Mexico City on Jan. 9 and 10 for the North American Leaders' Summit, where he will meet with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Biden, who took office in January 2021, has struggled operationally and politically with record numbers of migrants caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, and migration is expected to be on the agenda at the meeting.

Republicans have criticized what they say are lenient border security policies, while Biden officials say they are trying to create a more orderly and humane system.

Reuters reported last week that the Biden administration is planning to use pandemic-era restrictions to expel many Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught at the southwest border back to Mexico, while simultaneously allowing some to enter the United States by air on humanitarian grounds.

Migrant advocates and some Democrats have pushed back on expanding the expulsions, saying the restrictions block migrants from exercising their right to apply for asylum and expose them to risky situations in Mexico.

(Reporting by Steve Holland in Hebron, Kentucky, Trevor Hunnicutt, Andrea Shalal and Ted Hesson in Washington, and Dave Graham in Mexico City; Editing by Mary Milliken, Josie Kao, Aurora Ellis and Christian Schmollinger)

US unveils new border curbs for Haitians, Cubans, Nicaraguans

Joe Biden says new rules allowing asylum seekers to be returned to Mexico aim to reduce arrivals at US southern border.

Published On 5 Jan 2023

The United States will begin turning back migrants and refugees from Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba who try to enter the country without permits at the border with Mexico, the White House has announced, as part of continued efforts to stem arrivals.

The White House said on Thursday that it would accept as many as 30,000 people per month from the three countries – along with Venezuela – and give them two-year work authorisation, provided they have sponsors in the US and pass background checks.

However, anyone who seeks to irregularly cross the border will be ineligible for the programme and will be sent back to Mexico, which the US said had agreed to take back 30,000 people monthly from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Haiti.

“These four countries account for most of the people now travelling into Mexico to try to start a new life by crossing the border into the United States of America,” US President Joe Biden said during a news conference on Thursday that announced the new restrictions.

“We anticipate this action is going to substantially reduce the number of people attempting to cross our southwest border without going through a legal process,” Biden told reporters.

“My message is this: If you’re trying to leave Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti … do not, do not just show up at the border. Stay where you are and apply legally from there.”

Migrants and refugees from Venezuela huddle around a fire near the US-Mexico border [File: John Moore/Getty Images/AFP]

The move marks a massive change in US immigration rules, and it will stand even as the US Supreme Court considers ending a border expulsion policy known as Title 42 that has allowed authorities to rapidly expel asylum seekers without offering them a chance to seek protection.

Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center, on Thursday accused the Biden administration of “openly rejecting” US law, which “clearly says it is legal to arrive at the border & seek asylum”.

“For many people that is the *only* option because they are fleeing for their lives & there’s no other safe haven,” Altman wrote on Twitter.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, also said Thursday’s announcement “had a lot of bad things in it”, but one major positive: the new programme that could allow 360,000 nationals from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti into the US annually.

That, Reichlin-Melnick tweeted, offers “a real ‘alternate pathway’ like we’ve asked for”.
Increased arrivals

The US has seen a surge in asylum seeker arrivals at its southern border with Mexico, fuelling a pressure campaign by Republican politicians who argue that the Biden administration is not doing enough to secure the frontier.

Biden had campaigned for the presidency on a promise to reverse some of his predecessor Donald Trump’s most hardline, anti-immigration policies, and he has promoted efforts to develop what the White House calls “a fair, orderly and humane immigration system”.

But the Biden administration has sought to deter migrants and refugees from arriving at the border while also defending Title 42 in court despite criticism from rights groups who said the measure puts asylum seekers’ lives in danger.

Thousands have fled their home countries due to gang violence, political turmoil, environmental disasters and socioeconomic crises, among other factors – and rights advocates say US deterrence policies have done little to stem the flow of arrivals.

According to data from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), border authorities have used Title 42 to turn migrants and refugees away more than 2.5 million times since Trump first invoked it in March 2020, arguing it was needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

However, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last April said Title 42 was no longer necessary on public health grounds, and the government announced plans to rescind it – prompting concern over a potential spike in border arrivals.

After a lengthy court battle, a US federal judge in November ordered Title 42 be lifted, but the US Supreme Court late last month agreed to consider whether Republican-led states can challenge the end of the policy, leaving it in place for the time being.

Meanwhile, Biden will travel to El Paso, Texas on Sunday – his first trip to the southern border as president – to meet with local officials to discuss their needs. He then will take a planned trip to Mexico City to meet with North American leaders on Monday.

Migrants and refugees board a bus that will take them to a processing facility, in Eagle Pass, Texas on December 19, 2022 [File: Veronica G Cardenas/AFP]

“I know that migration is putting a real strain on the border and border communities … We’re going to get these communities more support,” Biden said during Thursday’s news conference.

His visit comes amid a campaign by a group of Republican governors, led by Greg Abbott in Texas, who have been sending busloads of migrants and refugees to Democratic-run cities in an effort to “share the burden” of arrivals in US border communities.

In late December, more than 100 people – including children – were transported from Texas and dropped off in subzero temperatures outside the Washington, DC, residence of Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden appointed as his point person on migration.

Critics have denounced the busing as an inhumane political stunt, saying it puts people in danger.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

Biden Stiffens Border Rules Amid GOP Paralysis

With the GOP stalled as it struggles to agree on a House speaker, Biden stepped into the vacuum on one of their signature issues and took control of the debate.

By Susan Milligan
Jan. 5, 2023


Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, second from left, speaks during a news conference, Jan. 5, 2023, in Washington.(SUSAN WALSH/AP)


As House Republicans scrambled to choose the person who will become second in line to the presidency, President Joe Biden on Thursday seized one of his most vulnerable political issues – immigration – with an announcement of new policies meant to ease entry for those who follow the rules while expediting expulsion for those who break them.

READ: GOP Senators Blast Biden Over Border ]

Under the new rules, which senior White House officials said would take effect immediately, would-be immigrants who enter the country illegally and do not have a legal basis to stay will be "increasingly subject to expedited removal to their country of origin" and will be banned from reentering the United States for five years

Meanwhile, the administration will expand a parole process currently in effect for people fleeing political turmoil in Venezuela to include individuals from Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba. Under those rules, up to 30,000 people per month can come to the United States for up to two years and receive work authorization, as long as they have a U.S. sponsor and have passed vetting and background checks, the White House said.

Since those migrants would need a U.S. sponsor and substantial resources to come to the United States, the new rules could squeeze out some of the most vulnerable hopeful immigrants.

But Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the idea was a "humane and orderly way" to help eligible immigrants under a program already used to help Venezuelans and Ukrainians escaping their war-ravaged country to seek refugee here.



"What they do is cut out the ruthless smuggling operations" that have taken migrants' life savings, Mayorkas told reporters Thursday, without the benefit of legal residence.


The Thursday announcement did not include any kind of the sweeping immigration overhaul the administration has sought. And Biden made it clear that he was moved to act because congressional Republicans – who have used the immigration and border issues as campaign darts at the president and other Democrats – would not come to the table and work out a deal on what Biden said had long been a bipartisan matter.

"It's clear that immigration is a political issue that extreme Republicans are always going to run on," Biden said at the White House, flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Biden made his point person on immigration in 2021.

"But now they have a choice. They can keep using immigration to try to score political points or they can help solve the problem. They can help solve the problem and come together to fix a broken issue," Biden said.

READ: The Refugee Program Gets a Makeover ]

Those individuals in the four countries eligible for the "parole" programs could apply through an app while still in their home countries and, if approved, use the approval on the app at a port of U.S. entry. They would not be allowed to seek entry into the United States by migrating through the region and showing up at the Mexican border.

Those who try to enter without using the parole program will not be eligible for the program in the future, Biden said.

Do not – do not just show up at the border,” Biden said, addressing immigrants. "Stay where you are and apply legally.”

The policies are meant to reduce the crush of people at the southern border. Biden said Mexico has agreed to accept up to 30,000 expelled migrants a month.

Biden will also visit El Paso, Texas, on Sunday, meeting a demand Republicans have made for years that the president witness the chaotic scene of migrants sleeping in the streets and burdening border communities and nonprofit resources.

The new policies will continue even if Title 42 – a health order from the Donald Trump era – expires, administration officials said. That order allows for the speedy expulsion of migrants at the border to stop the spread of COVID-19.The Supreme Court recently allowed the rule to stay in place pending a full hearing before the high court, and the Biden administration is arguing on behalf of lifting the rule.

Biden's announcement is unlikely to mollify Republicans, who have been highly critical of the president's border policies. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has gone so far as to bus migrants north – including to the entrance of Harris' vice presidential residence. Nonprofit groups have sought to meet the bewildered migrants to provide food and shelter.

Immigration has been a constant and potent attack issue for Republicans, who have vowed to use their new majority in the House to investigate Biden's performance on border control and to impeach Mayorkas.

The GOP's momentum on those goals has been stalled as it struggled this week to agree on a speaker to lead their party in the chamber. The vacuum allowed Biden, who has said he intends to run for reelection but has not made a formal announcement, to take some control of the debate.

"It's time to stop listening to their inflammatory talk. It's time to look at their record," Biden said of Republicans, adding that he was willing to sit down and talk to any GOPers willing to negotiate "in good faith."

But as long as the House – which when Biden was speaking still did not have a speaker, committees or sworn-in members – declined to act, Biden said, "I'm left with only one choice: to act on my own, to do as much as I can on my own."

 

What you need to know about cellphone radiation

Pro Publica
January 05, 2023

Photo by Fausto Sandoval on Unsplash

To many people, the notion that cellphones or cell towers might present a health risk long ago receded into a realm somewhere between trivial concern and conspiracy theory. For decades, the wireless industry has dismissed such ideas as fearmongering, and federal regulators have maintained that cellphones pose no danger. But a growing body of scientific research is raising questions, with the stakes heightened by the ongoing deployment of hundreds of thousands of new transmitters in neighborhoods across America. ProPublica recently examined the issue in detail, finding that the chief government regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, relies on an exposure standard from 1996, when the Motorola StarTAC flip phone was cutting edge, and that the agency brushed aside a lengthy study by a different arm of the federal government that found that cellphone radiation caused rare cancers and DNA damage in lab animals. The newest generation of cellphone technology, known as 5G, remains largely untested.

Here’s what you need to know:

Do cellphones give off radiation?

Yes. Both cellphones and wireless transmitters (which are mounted on towers, street poles and rooftops) send and receive radio-frequency energy, called “nonionizing radiation.” The amount of this radiation absorbed by the human body depends on how close a person is to a phone and a cell transmitter, as well as the strength of the signal the phone needs to connect with a transmitter. Cellphones displaying fewer bars, which means their connection with a transmitter is weak, require stronger power to communicate and so produce more radiation. Wireless transmitters, for their part, emit radiation continually, but little of that is absorbed unless a person is very close to the transmitter.

What does the science say about this? Is it harmful?

That’s the multibillion-dollar question. Government-approved cellphones are required to keep radiation exposure well below levels that the FCC considers dangerous. Those safeguards, however, have not changed since 1996, and they focus exclusively on the unlikely prospect of “thermal” harm: the potential for overheating body tissue, as a microwave oven would. The government guidelines do not address other potential forms of harm.

But a growing body of research has found evidence of health risks even when people are exposed to radiation below the FCC limits. The array of possible harms ranges from effects on fertility and fetal development to associations with cancer. Some studies of people living near cell towers have also confirmed an array of health complaints, including dizziness, nausea, headaches, tinnitus and insomnia, from people identified as having “electromagnetic hypersensitivity.”

The most sensational — and hotly debated — health fear about wireless radiation is cancer. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, cited troubling but uncertain evidence in classifying wireless radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” In 2018, a study by the federal government that was nearly two decades in the making found “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation caused cancer in lab animals. A major study in Italy produced similar results.

Do cellphones pose any special health risks for kids?

Some experts say they do, citing studies suggesting children’s thinner, smaller skulls and developing brains leave them more vulnerable to the effects of cellphone radiation. The American Academy of Pediatrics embraces this concern and has for years urged the FCC to revisit its radiation standards, saying they don’t adequately protect kids. More than 20 foreign governments, as well as the European Environment Agency, urge precautionary steps to limit wireless exposure, especially for children.

What about risks in pregnancy?

A Yale study found hyperactivity and reduced memory in mice exposed to cellphone radiation in the womb, consistent with human epidemiological research showing a rise in behavioral disorders among children who were exposed to cellphones in the womb. Dr. Hugh Taylor, the author of the mouse study and chair of the obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences department at the Yale School of Medicine, told ProPublica: “The evidence is really, really strong now that there is a causal relationship between cellphone radiation exposure and behavior issues in children.”

What does the U.S. government say about cellphone radiation?

The key federal agencies — the FCC and the Food and Drug Administration — have echoed the wireless industry and a number of other groups in rejecting evidence of any “nonthermal” human health risk, saying it remains unproven. The government websites also reject the claim that children face any special risk.

In 2019, during the administration of President Donald Trump, the FCC shut down a six-year review of its 1996 wireless-radiation safety standards. The agency rejected pleas to make the standards more stringent, saying it had seen no evidence its safeguards were “outdated or insufficient to protect human safety.” In 2021, however, a federal appeals court ordered the FCC to revisit the issue, saying the agency had ignored evidence of an array of noncancer harms to humans, animals and the environment, and that its decision to uphold its exposure standard failed to meet “even the low threshold of reasoned analysis.” The FCC has taken no formal action since then.

Why is the issue not resolved?


Determining wireless radiation’s health effects with certainty is difficult. Researchers cannot ethically subject people to endless hours of cellphone radiation to gauge the results. Scientists have to rely on alternatives such as animal studies or epidemiological research, where challenges include getting subjects to accurately recount their wireless use and pinpointing the specific causes of disease or harm. Many health effects of toxic exposure, especially cancer, take years or decades to appear. And the mechanisms of how wireless radiation could affect the body at the cellular level are poorly understood.

Research funding on the issue has also been scarce in the U.S., despite frequent calls for more study. Research (and researchers) raising health concerns have come under sharp attack from industry, and government regulators have remained skeptical. A key FDA official, for example, dismissed the relevance of the federal study that found “clear evidence” of cancer in lab animals, saying it wasn’t designed to test the safety of cellphone use in humans, even though his agency had commissioned the research for that reason.

Linda Birnbaum, who led the federal agency that conducted the cellphone study, said that while proof of harm remains elusive, what is known means that precautions are merited. “Do I see a smoking gun? Not per se,” she told ProPublica. “But do I see smoke? Absolutely. There’s enough data now to say that things can happen. … Protective policy is needed today. We really don’t need more science to know that we should be reducing exposures.”

If I’m concerned about the risk, are there precautions I can take to protect myself and my family?

Because exposure varies dramatically with your proximity to the source of the radiation, experts say a key to minimizing risk is increasing your distance from the phone. This means keeping any cellphone that’s turned on away from direct contact with your body. Don’t keep it in your bra, in your pocket or (especially if you’re pregnant) against your abdomen, they say. And instead of holding the phone against your head when you talk, use a speaker or wired earphones. (Wireless headsets, such as AirPods, also emit some radiation.) Try to avoid making calls when the phone is telling you the signal is weak because that boosts the radiation level. You can also limit exposure by simply reducing how much time you spend talking on your cellphone and texting instead, they say. 

Using an old-fashioned landline avoids the problem altogether.

How France’s prized nuclear sector stalled in Europe’s hour of need

Agence France-Presse
January 05, 2023

View of French utility EDF's Penly Nuclear Power Plant in Petit-Caux, near Dieppe, France, December 9, 2022. © Benoit Tessier, Reuters

France should be in a strong position as Europe reels from the energy crisis, drawing on the renowned nuclear industry that supplies the lion’s share of its power. But France’s nuclear sector has been going through a tricky time, as a significant proportion of its reactors have had to close for maintenance. Analysts blame a mixture of bad luck and the consequences of a political deal from a decade ago.

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted Europe’s energy crisis and climate change racks the world, you could expect France to be congratulating itself on its vast fleet of nuclear power stations. After all, nuclear energy produces barely any CO2 and does not leave countries relying on Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

France went all in on nuclear after the OPEC embargo sparked the 1973 oil shock – unlike Britain, for example, which tapped then-abundant fossil fuel reserves in the North Sea (and is now one of the countries worst-affected by energy inflation).

Nuclear power now produces some 70 percent of France’s energy – the highest proportion in the world – thanks to this long-term strategy known as the Messmer plan (named after its architect, then PM Pierre Messmer) to nourish domestic nuclear expertise and build a large fleet of nuclear reactors.

“Obviously there was the fact that France did not have large reserves of coal or gas and they weren’t able to start drilling in the North Sea; and there was also that Gaullist desire to ensure national independence, while France already had a certain amount of nuclear expertise because it had its independent nuclear weapons system known as the force de frappe,” explained Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow in economics and trade at the German Marshall Fund Brussels bureau.

Largely thanks to this policy stretching back to the 1970s, French CO2 emissions per capita stood at around 4.5 tons in 2019, compared to 5.2 tons in the UK and 7.9 tons in Germany, which has leaned heavily on Russian gas.

France’s nuclear plants ‘important for Europe’

But rather than enjoying the benefits of its vaunted nuclear industry, France found itself importing electricity from Germany in 2022. By November, a record 26 of France’s 56 nuclear reactors were shut for repairs or maintenance – although as of January 2 that figure had fallen to 15 and is expected to fall to nine by the end of January, according to Olivier Appert, an energy specialist at the French Institute of International Affairs (IFRI) in Paris and a member of the French Academy of Engineering.

Meanwhile the French government is fully nationalizing EDF, the state-controlled energy company running the power stations, to stop it going bankrupt. EDF’s new boss Luc Rémont said in October the company faces a “serious crisis”.

“France’s nuclear energy production was in August 2022 the lowest it’s been for 30 years,” Appert noted.

France has been a “net exporter of electricity” over the past decades, Appert added. But “since the autumn of 2022, in light of the maintenance problems, France became a net importer for the first time in 30 years or so” – even if lower energy demand meant it became an energy exporter again on January 2.

This makes matters worse for Europe as a whole as it faces the energy crunch caused by Putin cutting off the supplies of Russian gas in retaliation for European sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine.

“France’s nuclear plants are very important for electricity generation in Europe as a whole,” Appert continued. “The network is very interconnected; each member contributes to the overall security of the system.”

‘Bad luck’

In part, France’s nuclear power stations can be seen as victims of that successful response to the 1973 energy crisis. So many of them were built around the same time as France moved relatively quickly into this current energy paradigm – and that means they have to undergo maintenance around the same time. They were also built according to a single standard – and that means issues found in one plant prompt fixes in others.

“Plants will need to be shut down for maintenance or decennial revision and this happens every two or 10 years,” Appert said. “But the time nuclear power stations were taken out of action was extended a great deal by Covid, because of course people couldn’t move around and do their jobs in the usual way during the lockdowns. So one really musn’t underestimate the effect of Covid in helping cause France’s current nuclear problems.”

As well as the impact of Covid, last summer’s drought was another “bad luck” factor pushing France’s nuclear capacity down, Kirkegaard pointed out, because it meant there was “less water available for cooling reactors”.

However, the current problems are not only down to bad luck. Ahead of the 2012 presidential elections, Socialist François Hollande cut a deal with the Greens in exchange for their support: he vowed to shut the two reactors at Fessenheim, France’s oldest nuclear plant, and cut to 50 percent the proportion of French energy nuclear generates by 2025. After he won, Hollande closed the two reactors – even if he reneged on part of the deal by keeping nuclear’s contribution to French energy needs at around 70 percent.

‘Relic of a bygone age’

Nuclear energy was perceived quite differently a decade ago. The 2011 nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima plant caused by a tsunami made many feel wary of nuclear power – even prompting then chancellor Angela Merkel to promise a phase-out of nuclear energy in Germany, under pressure from the ascendant Greens.

In addition to the Fukushima effect, concerns about the supply security of natural gas and the environmental impact of fossil fuels were less prominent a decade ago. “It wasn’t just Germany but many other European countries, including France, that believed in a relationship with Russia,” Kirkegaard noted. “And back in 2012, especially in Germany but also elsewhere in Europe, plenty of people saw nuclear power as a bigger safety issue than carbon emissions from an environmental point of view,” he added.

All that has changed as heatwaves bake Europe every summer and the invasion of Ukraine exposed Russia as an untenable gas supplier for the old continent. Nearly 80 percent of the French public support nuclear energy, up 20 points from 2016, according to an Elabe poll for Les Échos published in November. Even Germany – with the Greens now in government – is extending the life of three nuclear power stations until April.

“The discourse has changed a lot against natural gas, against fossil fuels more generally, in favor of basically carbon-free energy sources like nuclear,” Kirkegaard noted. “Hollande’s pledge in 2012 is the legacy of a bygone age.”

But the consequences of Hollande’s pact have contributed to France’s current nuclear woes, Kirkegaard continued. In particular, it will have put many talented engineers off the French nuclear sector, he said, because “people are not going to pledge their future to an industry perceived to be in terminal decline”. Moreover, “there’s clearly a reason why so many French reactors are as old as they are”, Kirkegaard added: “They haven’t been consistently replaced – so Hollande’s statements absolutely had an effect.”

A renaissance thanks to Macron?

Even before the energy crunch, Hollande’s successor Emmanuel Macron was keen to renew Messmer’s approach and keep France in the vanguard of the nuclear industry –announcing in 2021 that the “number one priority” for his industrial strategy is for France to develop a cutting-edge fleet of small-scale nuclear reactors by 2030.

Together with this long-term plan, Macron acted to deal with the nuclear situation in the short term with that full nationalization of EDF so the state can pump in funds.

“Nationalizing EDF means a lot of public money can be put in to resolve the problems, and – handily for Macron’s government – because it’s a state-owned company, the money it’s losing, which will be quite significant, will not come up officially on the public books for a while,” Kirkegaard said. “That said, the state will still be paying to sort out EDF,” he cautioned.

During this process, Macron’s strategy will take the French nuclear sector into a new paradigm, away from big reactors such as the one EDF is constructing at Flamanville next to the English Channel, which has been married by delays and cost overruns.

The new approach stands a good chance of bearing fruit, Kirkegaard concluded: “Building smaller reactors makes a lot of sense because they’re a lot quicker and easier to build”, he said. “So you’re much less likely to have building delays, and as well as that it’s much easier to find suitable locations for them because they’re a lot smaller – and that means they’re advantageous for France and especially well-suited for export to more densely populated countries like the UK.”