Friday, June 28, 2024

Gazans' extreme hunger could leave its mark on subsequent generations

by Hasan Khatib, The Conversation JUNE 28, 2024

As Israel's offensive in Gaza rages on, people across the entire Gaza Strip find themselves in increasingly dire circumstances, with nearly the entire population experiencing high levels of food insecurity, including malnutrition, hunger and starvation. A famine review analysis from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification reported on June 25, 2024, that "a high risk of Famine persists across the whole Gaza Strip as long as conflict continues and humanitarian access is restricted."

The Conversation asked Hasan Khatib, an expert in genetics and epigenetics, to explain the growing crisis in the Gaza Strip and what history lessons from earlier famines can teach us about the short- and long-term consequences of starvation, malnutrition and food insecurity.

What is food insecurity and how widespread is it in Gaza?

Food insecurity refers to the lack of regular access to safe and nutritious food necessary for normal growth and development and maintaining an active, healthy life. Severe food insecurity is characterized by running out of food and going a day or more without eating, leading to the experience of hunger.

An initiative called the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, or IPC, managed by United Nations bodies and major relief agencies, was established in 2004 to enhance analysis and decision-making on food security and nutrition.

The IPC classification system identifies five distinct phases of food security: 1. Minimal/none; 2. Stressed; 3. Crisis; 4. Emergency; 5. Catastrophe/famine.

The IPC estimates that 96% of the population in Gaza—2.15 million people—are experiencing high levels of acute food insecurity, classified as IPC Phase 3 or higher.

Approximately 50% to 60% of buildings throughout Gaza, and over 70% of those in northern Gaza, have been damaged or destroyed, including more than 90% of schools and 84% of health facilities.

Due to the destruction of food production and distribution infrastructure, all households skip meals daily, with adults reducing their portions. The IPC projects that by July 2024, half of the population will be classified as being in a famine, experiencing acute malnutrition or death.

As of June 6, 2024, the World Health Organization reported that 32 patients had died from malnutrition and 73 had been admitted because of severe acute malnutrition in Gaza. Malnutrition can weaken the immune system, increasing the risk of serious illness and death, primarily due to infectious diseases.

And as of the same date, the WHO reported 865,157 cases of acute respiratory infections, 485,315 cases of diarrhea, 57,887 cases of skin rashes and 8,538 cases of chickenpox, all of which can be exacerbated by malnutrition.

How do stress and trauma add to hunger?

Strikes by the Israeli forces across the Gaza Strip have resulted in civilian casualties, the destruction of homes and the displacement of over 1.7 million people since October 2023, including many families who had already been displaced multiple times.

The United Nations Children's Fund estimates that at least 17,000 children have been separated from their parents as of February 2024, and nearly all children in Gaza need mental health and psychological support. Symptoms observed among these children include heightened anxiety levels, loss of appetite, sleep disturbances and panic attacks.

A Palestinian girl who is a cancer patient with malnutrition speaks of her desire to travel to receive help.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has provided critical psychological support, including psychological first aid, fatigue management sessions and individual and group counseling, to over 650,000 displaced persons, including 400,000 children.

UN Women, an organization focused on gender equality and the empowerment of women, reported that from October 2023 to April 2024, 10,000 Palestinian women in Gaza were killed, resulting in 19,000 children being orphaned. Approximately 50,000 pregnant Palestinian women and 20,000 newborn babies face limited access to health care facilities due to the bombardment of hospitals and health clinics.

In addition, more than 180 women per day are giving birth without pain relief, leading to a 300% increase in miscarriages due to the severe conditions. These dire conditions are causing severe stress and trauma among Palestinian children and women. This combination of stress, trauma and hunger can leave a lasting impact on both the women and their offspring.

What might the consequences be for future generations?

Over the past two decades, extensive research has investigated whether environmental factors such as hunger, stress and trauma can affect future generations that are not directly exposed to them. Pioneering studies of the Dutch famine, which occurred in the Netherlands from 1944 to 1945, found that these types of intergenerational effects were indeed happening.

During the Nazi occupation, food supplies were cut off from the western part of the Netherlands between November 1944 and May 1945, leading to widespread starvation. Decades later, researchers discovered that children and grandchildren of pregnant women exposed to the famine had a higher risk of health problems later in life, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other metabolic disorders.

Similarly, the Great Chinese Famine from 1959 to 1961, which resulted in an estimated 15 million to 40 million deaths, is one of the deadliest famines in history. It profoundly affected the physical and mental health, cognition and overall well-being of those exposed to it and their offspring.

Interestingly, our recent research into sheep demonstrated that paternal diet can alter traits such as muscle growth and reproductive characteristics, which can be passed down to two subsequent generations of sheep.

This inheritance of traits is mediated by chemical groups known as epigenetic marks. These epigenetic tags—known as DNA methylation or histone modifications—can originate from external sources, such as diet, or from within our cells. Histones are proteins that help organize and compact the DNA inside our cells.

These changes can control which genes are turned on or off. When exposed to hunger or stress, the epigenetic marks instruct our cells to behave differently, leading to altered traits. Remarkably, some of these epigenetic marks are inherited by offspring, influencing their traits as well.

Stress and trauma have been the focus of extensive research, particularly in understanding how extreme trauma can have biological effects that are transmitted to subsequent generations. Rachel Yehuda, an expert in psychiatry and the neuroscience of trauma, found that experiencing captivity or detention during the Holocaust was linked to elevated levels of epigenetic marks in a gene called FKBP5, which is involved in stress regulation. These epigenetic alterations were also observed in the children of Holocaust survivors.

Epigenetic changes can be reversible

Research shows that lifestyle and environmental factors play a significant role in influencing epigenetic marks. So positive changes in these areas can lead to the reversal of some of these epigenetic shifts.

One study showed that stress responses in adult rats that are programmed early in life can be reversed later in life. The researchers supplemented methionine, a methyl group donor that alters DNA methylation, to adult rats and observed that the stress response caused by maternal behavior in early life can be reversed in adult life.

I see an urgent need for the medical and scientific community to investigate the potential long-term impacts of current trauma and hunger on vulnerable populations in Gaza, particularly pregnant women and children. Notably, some of the epigenetic marks responsible for these long-term effects of trauma and hunger are reversible when conditions improve.

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Building Tomorrow: The Challenges and Promises of Pakistan’s First Smart City

Indonesia and Egypt are two notable countries building new capital cities, which are expected to be completed in the next few years or may take shape in the coming decade.

BYWAQAS JAN

MODERN DIPLOMACY
JUNE 28, 2024

photo: Unsplash

Indonesia and Egypt are two notable countries building new capital cities, which are expected to be completed in the next few years or may take shape in the coming decade. Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital city, built by Greek Architect Constantinos Apostolou Doxiadis in 1960, is the second new capital city in the world with Brazil’s Brasilia being built in the 1950s, which is the unique feat of both cities being built from scratch. Looking at the capital cities of various Empires in history, we can notice one thing: cities once built rarely vanish from the face of the Earth; unlike Empires and countries, be it the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire or the Mughal Empire, all these Empires vanished, giving birth to many new countries. However, the cities are still there. Parag Khanna, an author of the famous books like “The Future is Asian” and “Connectography”, termed, “Cities as humanity’s most enduring and stable mode of social organisation, outlasting all empires and nations over which they have presided.

Pakistan is home to some of the most historic and lively cities in the world, and also, to its credit, building a new planned capital city, Islamabad, yet Pakistan is kind of lost in the race to keep its urban planning on par with the rest of the world. But this doesn’t mean we cannot bounce back from that stagnation. The world is now going through a new kind of Urban revolution to make cities climate-compliant and intelligent so that technology is embedded in every nook and corner. It is generally believed that smart cities are expensive and useless pursuits of rich countries, while this proposition about smart cities is unfounded. It is falsely conceived as a city that is to be built from the Scratch and thus belongs to an exclusive club of great powers only. While the fact is that any city can become a smart city, the prerequisite to conceive and build a smart city is a culture of innovation and invention and not the coffers of any nation. Smart City is a holistic term for the hundreds of projects to upgrade its healthcare, grid systems, and energy infrastructure, using cutting-edge technologies from software to materials used in its construction to its modern state-of-the-art law enforcement and crime control units and efficient cyber threat neutralisation mechanisms.

According to historical accounts, Amsterdam was built in the 12th century, but it became a smart city in 2016 through an initiative called (ASC) Amsterdam Smart City, launched in 2009. The European Commission termed it the European Capital of Innovation; this shows that we don’t have to search for new locations or new special economic zones (SEZs) to develop a smart city from Scratch. The development of Sondogo International Business District in South Korea cost a whopping $40 billion. This kind of amount to build a smart city is understandably discouraging for a country like ours, which is in the midst of recovering from the losses incurred by terror attacks as TTP-led terrorism not just resulted in thousands of deaths but also barred the country from vital investment at the crucial juncture of 21st century. But it doesn’t mean we should abandon our pursuit of smart cities. The decisive victory against Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan allowed the country to progress towards rebuilding and focusing on infrastructure and climate issues. As the elections in Pakistan are over, and Federal and Provincial Governments are in operation, another decisive victory for Pakistan will be to garner political stability because big-shot investors always go for long-term to permanent investment venues, and Pakistan’s potential as an investment hub due to its viable transhipment hub in the region is unmatched. The new tenure of all the provincial governments and their prioritisation of urban planning in respective provinces aided by the Federal Government will provide a sound ground to turn Pakistan’s Urban spaces into inclusive, resilient and sustainable ecosystems under the umbrella of local innovative solutions.

With floods becoming an annual occurrence in our country and high temperatures worsened by electricity outages due to old and outdated energy infrastructure, resilience is evident in the proactive stance of citizens and expatriates alike, who, armed with social media, highlight the urgent need for urban renewal and climate resilience. The traditional political promises which are evident in South Asian democracies, including Pakistan, have no place in modern democratic societies as Pakistan’s social order is now defying client politics and actively questioning Federal and Provincial government decisions about various issues, at the same time, people appreciate public facilitation projects like Metro Bus, Orange Line Train, Inauguration of motorways, development of tourist attractions, healthcare initiatives and modernising the internet infrastructure to be on par with international bandwidth.

The presence of Political Parties, treasury ministers and opposition members, government departments, healthcare departments, and law enforcement agencies serves as the first push towards adjusting our course towards smart cities. The public participation via social media with all these officials, departments, and even the executives of this country shows that Pakistan is not left behind in turning its society into a tech-savvy society, where citizens are connected to the internet and are using it to their advantage.

Turning our gaze towards building Pakistan’s first smart city, it’s clear that the path to modernization is fraught with hurdles yet ripe with potential. The transformation of Lahore into a smart city is not just a dream but a necessity, given its historical significance, industrial base, and wealthy urban tapestry. Lahore, currently grappling with the dubious distinction of being one of the most polluted cities globally, is at a crossroads. The journey towards becoming Pakistan’s first smart city is ambitious but achievable, requiring a blend of political will, public-private partnerships, the interest of overseas Pakistanis in the smart city projects and community engagement.

A 360-degree view of the previous governments, their manifestos, and development projects in terms of infrastructure building, urban development, adopting a three-dimensional strategy by various governments,

Upgrading rural areas by providing road connectivity, electricity and essential healthcare units.
Establishing local manufacturing units in the Suburb
Gradual Modernization of the urban regions.

The politics in Pakistan is now polarised to the extent that a public facilitation project is also subject to political wrangling, terming the Metro Bus service as Jangla Bus Service. Peshawar BRT was also criticised for delays and over budget. This political sloganeering is only limiting the scope of urban development in the eyes of the Pakistani population. PML(N) is known for its gradual urbanisation strategy, which grants district status to various municipalities across Pakistan; most of those municipalities are now thriving cities waiting for much-needed upgrades. The 2024 election campaign also saw such Urban promises made by the party leadership.

It is pertinent to mention that Pakistan Tehreek Insaf spearheaded a revolutionary new system, which now results in clean cities free from pollution, thus improving the quality of life considerably. Clean water supply and removing waste from streets and markets is the prime focus of the Water and Sanitation Company, commonly known as WSSC. This company was formed in PTI’s first reign in KPK, and it operates in most of its main metropolises across KPK. Waste management is of prime importance for any thriving modern city, and in Pakistan, the Chief Ministers of all the provinces can learn best practices from each other. Thus, for vibrant Urban Planning and New Smart Cities Like Lahore, the onus is on every political office bearer to bring harmony and keep Urban Planning decisions away from politics.

Though it may sound idealistic to bring politicians from different political parties together to form a consensus on establishing Pakistan’s first smart city, if a person far from the corridors of power can sense progress in our neighbourhood, then these politicians who are actually present in those corridors of power know much more than an ordinary person.

GENDER APARTHEID

Outrage as Afghan women excluded from UN-led talks with Taliban

AFP

Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities will meet international envoys on Sunday in Qatar for talks presented by the United Nations as a key step in an engagement process, but condemned by rights groups for sidelining Afghan women.

The Taliban government has not been officially recognised by any state and the international community has wrestled with its approach to Afghanistan’s new rulers.

When the UN, some 25 envoys including from the United States and a Taliban delegation meet in Doha on June 30 and July 1, the agenda will include economic issues and counter-narcotics.

But the exclusion of civil society groups including women’s rights activists has sparked an outcry.

“Caving into the Taliban’s conditions to secure their participation in the talks would risk legitimising their gender-based institutionalised system of oppression,” said head of Amnesty International Agnes Callamard in a statement.

“Sidelining critical discussions on human rights would be unacceptable and set a deeply damaging precedent.”

Taliban authorities were excluded from the first talks in May last year. They refused an invitation in February, insisting on being the only Afghan representatives at the official meeting, to the exclusion of civil society groups.

In this round, that condition has been met.

The UN and international delegations will have the chance to meet with civil society representatives, including women’s rights groups, on July 2, after the close of the main meetings.

Since returning to power in 2021, Taliban authorities have enforced rules based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law, which they have said ensure all citizens’ rights.

Women have borne the brunt of restrictions the UN has labelled “gender apartheid”. They have been pushed out of public life, including bans from secondary schools, universities, various jobs as well as public parks and gyms.

In a letter to the UN seen by AFP, G7+ countries said they were “disappointed” over the lack of human rights on the agenda.

An open letter from 12 high-ranking women politicians from various countries called the exclusion of women “outrageous” and out of step with the UN Charter.

Afghan activists have urged invitees to boycott the meeting and called for protests in multiple countries.

‘Engagement doesn’t mean recognition’ –

The Taliban authorities had warned shortly after announcing that they would attend the talks that changes to the agenda could affect their decision.

Rosemary DiCarlo, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, will chair the talks.

She defended the set-up, saying: “This is not an inter-Afghan dialogue.”

“I would hope we could get to that someday but we’re not there,” she told reporters in New York.

DiCarlo said the talks were a positive step in a process of engagement that would “take time”.

“This is not a meeting about recognition. This is not a meeting to lead to recognition,” she said. “Engagement doesn’t mean recognition.”

But Nader Nadery, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Wilson Center, cautioned that the international community cannot assume the Taliban government has bought in for future meetings where more contentious issues such as women’s rights could be on the table.

“Based on evidence from past talks with the Taliban, unlike what the international community thinks, they are looking at each of these meetings as an event, not a process,” said Nadery, who is also a former negotiator with the Taliban for the ousted Afghan government.

“The meeting would certainly add to their success of making the international community accept to meet with them on their own terms,” Nadery told AFP.

“The agenda as it stands attempts to throw a softball to the Taliban.”

Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi has said the invitation to Doha “indicates that the international community understands the importance and status of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan more day by day”.

World 'failing' to deliver on gender equality as economic violence against women continues: UN rights chief

'To put a stop to economic violence, and proactively ensure economic equity, we need complete overhaul of discriminatory laws and practices,' says Volker Turk

SO THE UN HAS A MEETING WITH THE TALIBAN TO DISCUSS AFGHANISTAN, NO GIRLS ALLOWED

Beyza Binnur Donmez |

28.06.2024 -

GENEVA

The UN human rights chief on Friday said the world is "failing to deliver on the promise of gender equality" as "all women and girls live with the threat of gender-based violence," including economic violence.

Volker Turk's remarks came in his opening speech at an annual full-day discussion on the human rights of women as part of the 56th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Noting that economic violence is a form of gender-based violence against women and girls, Turk said: "Today, regardless of income or background, all women and girls live with the threat of gender-based violence."

Almost one in three women have been subjected to some form of it at least once in their life, he stressed, and added that those forms would be physical, sexual, psychological, or economic.

"If one in three men globally were subject to such devastating and pervasive harm we would be convening an emergency summit," he said.

Explaining forms of economic violence as economic control, economic sabotage, and economic exploitation, he said in all its forms, economic violence is facilitated by "archaic gender norms" that consider men the financial decision-makers.

"The world is failing to deliver on the promise of gender equality," the human rights chief said. "Failing to put in place the measures needed to ensure half of humanity enjoy their fundamental rights and freedoms."

Some 3.9 billion women worldwide face legal barriers affecting their economic participation, Turk said, adding that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar paid to men.

While 92 countries lack provisions mandating equal pay for work of equal value, the wealth gap between women and men globally stands at a "staggering" $100 trillion, he lamented.

"To put a stop to economic violence, and proactively to ensure economic equity, we need a complete overhaul of discriminatory laws and practices," he said. "Gender equality needs to be positively fostered through laws governing all areas of life – economic, public and political."

"And we need policy measures to ensure that these laws are applied," he added.

Turk also noted that violence against women and girls -- in all its forms -- is "abhorrent and inexcusable."

What about Kamala?

The vice president has taken on an expanded role in the last few months. Now Biden needs her more than ever.

by Christian Paz

Jun 28, 2024,

Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks on reproductive rights at Ritchie Coliseum on the campus of the University of Maryland on June 24, 2024 in College Park, Maryland, on the two-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty

If President Joe Biden decides to drop out of the presidential race, it appears likely that his replacement at the top of the ticket would be his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Until this week, that possibility wasn’t really worth pondering too much. But after Biden’s disastrous performance during Thursday night’s debate, Harris becoming the Democratic nominee is suddenly a more serious hypothetical.

Before considering what that would actually look like, it’s helpful to take stock of her vice presidency — and vice presidential candidacy — so far. Despite frequent criticisms and confusion surrounding what exactly her job is, she is now emerging as an indispensable surrogate and defender, and maybe even successor. She hasn’t been a particularly groundbreaking vice president, but she has had moments on the campaign trail, albeit overlooked by the public and the press, when she is able to showcase her value. It’s a preview of how her role could change in the coming months and even years, whether or not Biden steps aside.

Thursday night was one of those times. As shocked and panicked reactions from Democratic operatives and the political press began to pour in post-debate, Harris was dispatched to defend Biden on CNN and MSNBC. She admitted that Biden had a “slow start,” but rounded that answer off by playing up a “strong finish” by the president. She went on offense: attacking Trump for his many lies during the debate and emphasizing Trump’s statements in defense of the January 6 insurrection and refusal to accept the results of the election.

In the process, she surprised a host of pundits who wondered why the White House has “kept her under wraps for three years.”

The answer is complicated.

Harris’s vice presidency has been muted by design

Unlike Biden’s tenure under former President Barack Obama, Harris’s role as vice president has been low-key. For most of her term, she’s been relegated to warm-up speaker and occasional Biden stand-in, delivering remarks at White House events with the president, attending summits and visiting foreign leaders when Biden is needed in DC or on another trip, or, like Thursday night, brought in to do clean-up.

Many of those back-seat responsibilities have been due to the nature of the vice presidency: a constitutional office without any clear authorities beyond being a spare body in the event the president can’t do his job and being an extra vote when the US Senate is evenly tied.

But some of it appears to have been intentional. Vice presidents have exerted influence and power before. Vice President Dick Cheney essentially ran foreign policy for a few years during George W. Bush’s first term. Biden himself was given a large mandate by Obama during the government’s response to the Great Recession, administering hundreds of billions of dollars in federal stimulus spending.

Harris got no such assignments, despite Biden suggesting that he wanted his second-in-command to be a governing “partner” during the 2020 campaign season. Questions about this have dogged Harris. Just nine months into Biden’s term, after waves of negative media coverage, public absence, staff departures, and rhetorical missteps (which have now become a genre of meme), the White House issued a statement assuring the public that the president did rely on Harris.

By that point, the idea that Harris served a superfluous role was already baking into public and media perception. Instead of working on issues like criminal-justice reform and policing — her areas of expertise — she took on voting rights, an issue that was doomed to fail in an evenly divided Senate. Her portfolio was then filled with another cursed assignment: dealing with the root causes of migration from Latin America. Mainstream press coverage of that task, and Republican framing of it online and in right-wing media, made it seem like her job would be dealing with immigration and the southern border, however. That fog made her an easier target for Republicans.

Still, something changed in 2022: When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade that summer and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, Harris suddenly had a clear lane in which to operate, and she has taken it: being the Biden administration’s point person on conservative threats to reproductive rights.

Campaign-trail Harris has shown how much of an asset she could be

Post-Dobbs and since the generally successful midterms that followed later that same year, Harris’s official role has shifted. She’s been on more foreign visits and to gatherings of NATO and allied leaders, headlined a national college tour, and embarked on two other nationwide tours: one this winter dedicated to raising awareness of threats to reproductive freedom (it kicked off on the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade) and another this spring focused on “economic opportunity.”

The tours, though events run out of the White House, served a campaign function as well. The stops were concentrated in swing states, and meant to reach a swath of core Democratic constituencies that Harris may be better positioned to speak to like young voters and college students, women, Black and Latino Americans, and working-class communities. Unlike Biden, who has been struggling with voters from all of these backgrounds, Harris is a natural communicator in these settings.

The change in these official duties has also resulted in a shift in her campaign role, especially as the primary season wrapped up this spring and the general election began. She made history, the White House said, when she visited and toured an abortion clinic in Minneapolis in March, and has since delivered campaign speeches in states that have taken measures to restrict abortion access, like Florida and Arizona, both when the state’s top court allowed a century-old abortion ban go into effect and again on the second anniversary of Dobbs.

She’s also been zeroing in on other progressive priorities like gun safety, student loan forgiveness, and the war in Gaza. She’s been engaging media and giving many more interviews than Biden, appearing as a guest on popular podcasts, TV shows like The Drew Barrymore Show and Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and online talk shows to discuss the White House and the Biden campaign’s priorities.

She’s filling the void that Biden has created intentionally (because of his age) or not (because he is also president, governing the country). Thursday night’s interviews, and whatever appearances she will have to make to defend Biden, show us what is likely to come: an expanded role for the veep in this term and a theoretical next.

Biden will need it and Democrats should want it, in the event that Harris has to step up to win the election, govern the nation, or just be a solid backup — precisely as the vice presidency is supposed to work.

Christian Paz is a senior politics reporter at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic’s politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election.

After disastrous debate, Joe Biden can’t beat Donald Trump but there is a woman who can

Columnists
By Susan Dalgety
Published 28th Jun 2024,

THE SCOTSMAN

After a stumbling performance by a deathly white Joe Biden reduces Susan Dalgety to tears, she turns to the formidable Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, for hope

In the late autumn of 2008, just days before Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, I spent an early Friday evening as a steward at a Joe Biden gig. The school hall in rural Pennsylvania was filled with excited Obama supporters, clutching Hope and Change placards, and chanting the campaign’s slogan “Fired Up”.

So far, so predictable. I had witnessed Obama-fever every day during the six weeks I had been volunteering in the campaign’s Bethlehem field office, and as election day approached, the excitement was reaching fever pitch, but this was first time I had seen Biden fans up close.

Clustered round the low-rise stage were scores of young, blue-collar men. Mostly white, all union men, and all very excited that they were soon going to be in the presence of Biden. I was surprised at their fervour. The campaign team I worked on was run by young middle-class liberals, many from out of state. To them, Biden was a relic of America’s industrial past – similar to the giant steel plant in south Bethlehem. It once produced the steel that built 20th century America, and was now a casino and arts complex.

Biden was an avuncular figure, a Washington insider, but he was already yesterday’s man. Obama was the future. But not to the young men waiting for Uncle Joe. Biden was their hero. A man of the people. And he did not let them down. He gave a tub-thumping, old-fashioned stump speech, evoking a mythical United States of America where working class men and women were the bedrock of the world’s greatest economy. And would be again, under an Obama-Biden administration. The crowd loved it. I loved it. We were fired up, ready to go.

A much more dangerous world

In the early hours of this morning, I watched with tears in my eyes as a confused old man stumbled his way through the most important public appearance of his life. Perhaps the most important public appearance of all our lives, because if Donald Trump, a self-confessed fan of Vladimir Putin, wins the presidential election on November 5, the world will immediately become a much more dangerous place.

The spectacle of a deathly white Biden, his voice so hoarse as to be almost inaudible at times, stumbling to craft a coherent sentence will remain with me forever. It was like spending an hour or so with a much-loved grandparent, someone who was once the vital heart of the family, but now sits dazed and confused in the corner of every family gathering while life goes on around about them. Trump may be only three years younger than his rival, but at 78, he is a young-old man. Biden is just too old.

Will he stand down in time to allow the Democrats to choose another presidential candidate? He should. Even if he was to win in November – and the polls suggest he will struggle to beat Trump – he is clearly not fit to be President for another four years. He will be 82 only two weeks after the election. His body, if not his mind, is clearly worn out. He is simply not fit to be leader of the free world. But who is?

Harris would struggle

Kamala Harris, his vice president, is the obvious choice, and if she won she would be America’s first female President, but she has failed to shine as Joe’s number two. A staunch advocate for a woman’s right to choose, she has led the campaign against the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, which, according to most commentators, is the issue that has galvanised more voters, particularly women, in states run by Republicans.

Speaking in Wisconsin at the start of a national tour to mark the 51st anniversary of Roe v Wade, she stood next to a banner that screamed “TRUST WOMEN”. “These extremists want to roll back the clock to a time before women were treated as full citizens,” she said. But the polls consistently show that America, even Democrat America, does not trust this particular woman.

There is another female politician, however, who is arguably a more suitable heir to Biden, and given enough time could be a formidable challenger to Trump.

During a six-month road trip across America in 2018, when I ended up back in Bethlehem for a third election campaign – this time the mid-terms during Trump’s first administration – we drove the length of Michigan. The state is the ancestral home of America’s car industry. It also had the worst roads of any of the 35 states we spent time in.

Fix the country, save the world

One woman had had enough. Democrat Gretchen Whitmer stood for state governor on the slogan of “fix the damn roads” and stormed to victory. She was comfortably re-elected in 2022, and at 52, with six years’ experience of running a big, post-industrial state, she is surely a major contender for the top job. And Trump fears her so much that he can barely bring himself to use her name, referring to her as “that woman from Michigan”.

In a recent New York Times interview, Whitmer, who is co-chair of Biden’s re-election campaign, argued that the 2028 presidential election will be when the keys to the White House are passed to the next generation. She said: “…I’m hopeful that in 2028, we see Gen Xers running for the White House and that someone from my generation is ready to take the mantle.”

After Thursday night’s heart-breaking performance by Biden, the Democrats, America, indeed the world, must be hoping that someone from Whitmer’s generation is ready to take the mantle now, because in four years’ time. it might well be too late. Surely it is time for Gretchen Whitmer to “fix the damn country”, and save the world.

Polish FM appears to link Biden’s disastrous debate with decline of Roman empire

“It’s important to manage one’s ride into the sunset,” Radosław Sikorski said.

Joe Biden’s debate performance in the early hours of Friday was at times unintelligible. | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

JUNE 28, 2024
BY SEB STARCEVIC

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski took what appeared to be a shot at U.S. President Joe Biden by drawing a parallel between his widely panned debate performance against Donald Trump and the decline of the Roman empire.

Sikorski posted Friday morning on X: “It’s important to manage one’s ride into the sunset,” just hours after Biden’s stumbling debate display led to growing calls for him to pull out of the race for a second White House term.

Sikorski drew a cryptic parallel with Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, calling him “a great emperor” who “screwed up his succession” by passing the mantle to his son, Commodus, whose “disastrous rule started Rome’s decline.”

The popular idea that Marcus Aurelius’ reign marked the end of the glory days of Rome goes back to the ancient historian Cassius Dio, who said the end of his rule marked the transition “from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust.”

Biden’s debate performance in the early hours of Friday was at times unintelligible with a raspy voice, wandering eyes, pallid complexion and a halting delivery, sparking horror among Democratic operatives and the European media.

For Sikorski, the latest comments aren’t the first time he has courted controversy on social media.

He tweeted a photo in September 2022 of the damaged Nord Stream pipeline and captioned it “Thank You, USA,” seemingly accusing the U.S. of being involved in the sabotage of the Russia-to-Europe pipeline and earning a rebuke from his own party. He later deleted that tweet.

Sikorski’s enigmatic Marcus Aurelius tweet is still up — for now.

A Nobel Prize-winning economist breaks down exactly how Trump's proposed policies could make inflation worse

Madison Hoff

Jun 28, 2024

Joseph Stiglitz and other Nobel Prize-winning economists are worried about another Trump administration.

They explained why in a recent letter, and Stiglitz further explained in a Business Insider interview.

Inflation is one concern, which has cooled from its peak in 2022.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told Business Insider the US economy is "remarkably strong."

However, Stiglitz and others foresee a potential resurgence of inflation and other woes depending on who wins the next presidential election.

"I think general consensus, not just my view, but almost anybody modeling what is going on would say the Trump administration would be more inflationary," Stiglitz told BI. "How much more depends on how radical they are. And that depends on where Congress is. If they have a Democratic Congress, they won't have the ability to do what they would do with a Republican Congress."

Stiglitz recently spearheaded a letter signed by over a dozen Nobel Prize-winning economists. The letter, which was first obtained by Axios, stated the economists were "deeply concerned about the risks of a second Trump administration for the U.S. economy."

The economists predicted dire results from a Trump victory this fall. "The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come," the letter stated. "We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.'s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.'s domestic economy."

President Joe Biden and Trump had their first presidential debate of 2024 on Thursday. There are still a little over four months until the election, and FiveThirtyEight reports as of June 25 its forecast finds it's a "pure toss-up" who will win.

RENT INCREASES ARE INFLATION

Here's how inflation has ratcheted up the cost of basics like housing and food for families across the US

Business Insider talked to Stiglitz about the economy if Trump is once again president. Stiglitz said the widely shared view is this could result in higher inflation, worse inequality, and a potential broader economic slowdown. Massive progress has already been made in cooling off inflation.

Stiglitz pointed out how remarkably the inflation rate had cooled down without leading to high unemployment. The US unemployment rate has been at or under 4% since the end of 2021, a historically long stretch of low joblessness.
Advertisement

Stiglitz noted Trump's promise of large increases in tariffs as one of the things that could make inflation worse.

"Those tariffs overwhelmingly get passed on to consumers and increasing their prices and get fed down the supply chain — again, increasing prices to consumers," Stiglitz said.

Another could be the large decrease in taxes Trump proposed "that are not paid for and increasing the budgetary deficit from the level that it is today," Stiglitz said.

"And given where we are, I think the broad assessment is that that would be inflationary," he said. "And the broad assessment of the consequences of that is that the Fed would be forced to raise interest rates, and all that combined would still serve to increase inflation even as unemployment increased and GDP slowed."
Advertisement

A third factor that could juice inflation would be the "drastic reductions in immigration" that Trump has proposed, Stiglitz said.

There are different sectors of the US economy that rely on immigration, and Stiglitz said that the tight labor market could become even tighter with this drop in immigration.

Stiglitz also pointed to the possibility of a partial or full repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, which included a Medicare prescription drug provision, among other things. "Without that, which Republicans had talked about repealing, drug prices will go up."

Outside of the risks to inflation, Stiglitz said a Trump presidency could also mean a slowing GDP. Another problem that could get worse is the inequality crisis.
Advertisement

Stiglitz pointed to Trump's tax policy as one that could boost inequality.

"The tax cut is a tax cut for the corporations and the billionaires," Stiglitz said. "If you look at the share of the tax cuts that go to the bottom, very small. In fact, in some of my analysis I suggested that it's even possible that some parts of the bottom would see a tax increase."

CNN and others noted statements from the Trump campaign disagreeing with the letter that the 16 economists signed.

"The American people don't need worthless out of touch Nobel prize winners to tell them which president put more money in their pockets," Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign's national press secretary, told CNN in a statement. "Americans know we cannot afford four more years of Bidenomics, and when President Trump is back in the White House, he will reimplement his pro-growth, pro-energy, pro-jobs agenda to bring down the cost of living and uplift all Americans."

OPINION - First Trump-Biden TV debate: Looks speak louder than words

Long-awaited debate fell short of being platform where policies could properly compete, leaving more questions than answers

Bekir İlhan |28.06.2024 - AA

President of the United States Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump's first Presidential Debate is displayed on a TV screen in Los Angeles, California, United States in June 27, 2024.

The author is a PhD candidate at the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Cincinnati in the US state of Ohio.In such settings, what matters most is who suffers the least damage. At the end of the day, voters witnessed a stumbling Biden alongside a sharp Trump.

ISTANBUL

On June 27, former President Donald Trump and incumbent Joe Biden faced off in a TV debate. Both candidates were asked questions on a wide range of policy issues, ranging from the economy to immigration. However, the long-awaited debate fell short of being a platform where policies could properly compete, leaving more questions than answers for many American voters. While each side tried to claim the better result, many Americans questioned if this was the best their country could offer.

Given the ages of both candidates, the TV debate almost turned into a health check showdown in the eyes of voters. How the candidates stood on stage emerged as a more important signal than their words. Thus the delivery, rather than the content, of their messages resonated more with voters. Biden's health issues were evident from the moment he took the floor. It was not surprising that many wondered if Biden would be able to make it through another four years in office. Yet the consequences of Trump's unpredictable character are another matter of concern for many voters.

While televised debates are a common practice in American politics, the recent debate was unusual given its timing. Held in June, months before the presidential election, the first debate lacked substantial policy discussions for voters. However, having the TV debate take place so early could benefit the candidates throughout the rest of their campaigns. In a way, the debate will surely provide an early opportunity for damage control for both candidates. Lessons learned at this stage will be instructive for shaping the future direction of their campaign strategies.

Such TV debates often shift into a showcase for candidates to prove how their personality is suitable for the presidency, rather than convincing voters of their policies. In a politically polarized society, it is already difficult to convince large audiences through just a few television debates. And in the age of multiple channels of mass communication, there are many tools and mediums available for candidates to reach voters. In this sense, TV debates turn into a mental battle where the candidates' stances and judgments are tested. American voters saw this firsthand during last night's debate, and the results were not promising.

Role of negative campaigning

Negative campaigning methods aimed at demobilizing the opponent’s voter base seems to be at the very center of campaign strategies during this US campaign season. The primary objective is not winning over voters from the opposite side, but rather wearing down their political stamina and enthusiasm, discouraging them from going to the polls. The first TV debate was yet another example of this trend, as neither candidate seemed to convince voters to change their minds or preferences in favor of the opposite camp.

The Trump campaign has long pursued a strategy targeting Biden's physical and mental health while claiming Trump is in quite good health. And Trump was not hesitant to exploit this on the stage. The Biden campaign, on the other hand, focused on Trump's legal issues, highlighting his status as a convicted felon. In May, in a New York court, Trump was found guilty of all 34 criminal counts in a hush money trial. Despite claims of politicization of the legal process, after the verdict both candidates pointed to the ballots. Trump said, “The real verdict is going to be on Nov. 5, by the people,” while Biden said, “The only way to keep Trump out of the Oval Office is through the ballot box.”

It is still too early to predict the election's outcome, though Trump appears to lead by a slight margin in most polls. And such public debates are risky, with ample room for self-destruction. In such settings, what matters most is who suffers the least damage. At the end of the day, voters witnessed a stumbling Biden alongside a sharp Trump on the debate stage.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS)

Illegal migration, tax and abortion - fact checking Trump-Biden debate

BBC
16 hours ago

Donald Trump and Joe Biden have fielded questions on a wide range of election issues in a televised CNN presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia.

They traded claims on issues such as the economy, abortion and taxation.

BBC Verify has been examining some of the assertions made on stage.

Is Biden planning to quadruple taxes?

CLAIM: Trump said that Biden “wants to raise your taxes by four times... He wants the Trump tax cuts to expire".

VERDICT: President Biden’s most recent US budget makes no reference to the quadrupling of taxes for ordinary households. In fact, it proposes tax cuts for families earning less than $400,000 a year, along with increases for higher earners.

Trump introduced sweeping tax cuts in 2017, and many of these are due to expire in 2025.

Even if these aren’t extended, that wouldn’t amount to anything like a four-fold increase in household taxation.

An analysis carried out by the Tax Policy Center based on the 2024 Budget concluded that the top 1% of earners would see an increase in taxation of 9.7%.

Are there 40% fewer illegal border crossings?

CLAIM: Joe Biden said: "I've changed it in a way that now you're in a situation where there are 40% fewer people coming across the border illegally, it's better than when he left office."

VERDICT: Since Biden introduced regulations in early June restricting the right for those crossing the border to claim asylum, daily illegal border crossings have averaged roughly 2,000, according to internal Department of Homeland Security data obtained by the BBC’s news partner CBS News.

That’s a 47% drop from the 3,800 daily average in May.

In 2019, during the Trump administration, illegal border crossings peaked at 4,300. But there were months during the Covid pandemic when illegal border crossings averaged fewer than 2,000.

Since February 2021, the US Customs and Border Protection agency says there have been 9.6m encounters by enforcement officers with those having crossed the southern border.

This doesn’t mean that number entered the US, as some of these will have been the same person multiple times. Others will have been turned back or deported.

What is Biden's position on late abortions?

On the subject of abortion, Biden said he would restore Roe v Wade if elected to another term.

When asked if he supports legal limits on how late a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy, the president pointed to his support for the framework in the Roe decision.

CLAIM: Trump responded: "So that means he can take the life of the baby in the ninth month and even after birth" and added "he's willing to, as we say, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month and kill the baby."

VERDICT: Roe v Wade's framework states during the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion only to protect the health of the woman. During the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion to promote the interest of the fetus, except when it is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to an abortion nationwide until the foetus becomes viable outside of the womb (after about 24 weeks).

This ruling was repealed in 2022 by the court, which included three Trump-appointed justices.

Killing a newborn is illegal in every US state, and no state is attempting to pass a law which would change that.

Less than 1% of abortions in the US happen from 21 weeks onwards, according to data from the CDC.

And 93.5% of abortions happen in the first trimester, so before 13 weeks.

Have US troops died during Biden's presidency?

CLAIM: Biden said he is the only president in the last decade that doesn’t have "any troops dying anywhere in the world like he [Trump] did".

VERDICT: Three US service members were killed in a drone attack in Jordan in January this year.

And during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, 13 US service members were killed in a suicide attack at Kabul airport by IS-K, the Afghan branch of the Islamic State group.

According to figures by the Defense Casualty Analysis System, 65 US service members were killed in combat during the Trump presidency from 2017-20.

Did Biden have 'largest deficit in history'?

CLAIM: "He's got the largest deficit in the history of our country," said Trump about Biden.

VERDICT: According to data from the US Treasury, the deficit peaked while Trump was in the White House at $3.13tn (£2.48tn).

By 2023, with Biden in office, it had declined to $1.7tn but the 2024 estimate is that it rises again to $1.9tn.

Is black unemployment at its lowest?

CLAIM: At one point during the debate, Biden said black unemployment "is the lowest it's been in a long, long time”.

VERDICT: While it is true that the unemployment rate for African Americans reached a record low during one month of the Biden administration, the claim lacks context.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for black Americans was 4.8% in April 2023 under Biden, a record low at the time.

Since then, it's gone back up, standing at 6.1% in May.

However, the jobless rate for African Americans during the Trump presidency fell to 5.3% in August and September 2019, also a record low at that point.

Did Biden play any part in Trump's conviction?

CLAIM: Biden was behind the prosecution of Trump that led to his recent hush money conviction in New York.

"He basically went after his political opponent because he thought it was going to damage me," said Trump.

VERDICT: The case was brought by New York prosecutors rather than any federal authority. The Department of Justice does not approve the charging decisions of the Manhattan district attorney's office.

What happened to inflation?

CLAIM: Trump said in the debate that Biden inherited "almost no inflation" when he came into office and that now "inflation is killing us".

VERDICT: When Biden came to office in January 2021, inflation stood at 1.4% using the most widely used measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index, based on the average spending in urban areas.

It rose significantly during the first two years of his administration, hitting a peak of 9.1% in the year to June 2022.

This was comparable with many other Western countries, which experienced high inflation rates in 2021 and 2022, the main contributing factors being global supply chain issues as a consequence of the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Since then, US inflation has steadily fallen, with the latest monthly figure 3.3% in May.

Since Biden took office in January 2021, prices have risen by a total of about 20%.

Global Nuclear Stockpiles on the Rise: SIPRI

Story by Express Defence • 1d •

Credit: SIPRI© Provided by The Financial Express

The global landscape of nuclear arsenals has seen notable changes in 2024, as revealed by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The latest data indicates a significant increase in nuclear warheads, with China and India making substantial additions to their stockpiles. This development marks a pivotal moment in the global nuclear arms race, highlighting shifts in strategic postures and nuclear deterrence reliance.

China’s Rising Nuclear Readiness

For the first time, China has placed some of its nuclear warheads on high operational alert, pairing them with long-range missiles capable of short-notice strikes. This move represents a major shift in China’s nuclear strategy, signalling an enhanced readiness to respond swiftly to potential threats.

According to the latest report from the arms tracker SIPRI as of January 2024, China’s total nuclear stockpile is estimated at approximately 500 warheads, an increase of around 90 from the previous year. This development underscores China’s ongoing efforts to modernize and expand its nuclear capabilities, aiming to strengthen its position on the global stage.

India’s Growing Arsenal

India has also made strides in expanding its nuclear arsenal. SIPRI’s report reveals that India now possesses 172 nuclear warheads, surpassing Pakistan’s estimated stockpile of 170 for the first time in 25 years. This small yet significant increase highlights India’s commitment to bolstering its nuclear deterrence in a region marked by long-standing rivalries. The report also notes that India, along with Pakistan and North Korea, is advancing its capabilities to deploy multiple warheads on ballistic missiles—a technology already mastered by the US, Russia, UK, France, and now China.

Global Nuclear Arsenal Overview

As of early 2024, nine countries—the United States, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel—collectively possess around 12,121 nuclear weapons. Out of these, an estimated 3,904 warheads are deployed with operational forces, including about 2,100 kept on high operational alert. The bulk of these alert-ready warheads belong to Russia and the United States, but China’s recent actions mark a notable addition to this category.

Despite an overall stability in the size of their respective military stockpiles, both the US and Russia are deeply invested in modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Russia, in particular, has increased its deployed operational warheads by approximately 36 since January 2023. This expansion occurs amid a backdrop of reduced transparency regarding nuclear forces, a trend that has been particularly pronounced since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Regional and Global Implications

The expansion of nuclear capabilities by China and India has significant implications for regional and global security dynamics. In India, the growing nuclear stockpile is seen as a necessary measure in response to regional security challenges and the evolving nuclear landscape.

Earlier this week, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan underlined the renewed importance of nuclear weapons in contemporary geopolitics during a recent seminar, reflecting on the strategic necessity of maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent.

China’s increased nuclear readiness is likely to influence the strategic calculations of other nuclear-armed states, particularly in the context of US-China relations and regional security in East Asia. The ability to deploy warheads on high operational alert enhances China’s deterrence capabilities, potentially altering the strategic balance in the region.

The 2024 SIPRI report indicates that nuclear arsenals are not only growing but also becoming more operationally ready. This trend raises important questions about the future of global nuclear stability and the potential for arms control agreements to address the evolving landscape.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment