Amid an economic crisis, Iraqi parliament’s 'secret' salary hike vote sparks public fury

The decision provoked strong reactions across Iraq, where unemployment rates are soaring, and public sector employees are demanding wage increases.

Dana Taib Menmy
Iraq
19 August, 2024

The secretive nature of the vote has drawn sharp criticism from activists and political observers. [Getty]

The Iraqi Parliament's "secret" vote to significantly increase its members' salaries and entitlements has ignited widespread public outrage and intense political controversy.

The decision—concealed from the official agenda during the parliamentary session on 7 August and kept away from media scrutiny—provoked strong reactions across Iraq, where unemployment rates are soaring, and public sector employees are demanding wage increases.

Soran Omar, a Kurdish lawmaker from the Kurdistan Justice Group, told The New Arab that the salary increase for Iraqi lawmakers would elevate their pay to the same level as ministers in the Iraqi federal government. Omar, who did not support the decision, formally expressed his opposition to the parliamentary presidency, citing the lack of transparency and details provided during the vote.

Analysts warn that this move could trigger a wave of protests, as public anger intensifies over the lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process, especially when Iraq is grappling with liquidity issues and high unemployment.

"This is a great scandal given Iraq's current situation," Yassin Taha, a Kurdish political analyst, told TNA. He highlighted the dire economic conditions, with thousands of young people unemployed and many others working for very low wages, all while the country’s infrastructure remains in a poor state.

Taha further noted that the decision reinforces previous accusations that the Iraqi Parliament is more focused on personal enrichment rather than serving the public interest. He warned that if the salary increase is finalised, it could inflame ongoing protests demanding employment opportunities and wage increases for public sector workers.

He also pointed out a troubling dynamic in Iraqi politics, where lawmakers are often expected to provide financial support to voters and party loyalists rather than focusing on active parliamentary work. This expectation, he argued, makes even the current parliamentary salaries insufficient to cover such expenditures.

The controversy began on 7 August, when the Iraqi Parliament convened with an agenda listing six items—none of which mentioned a vote on salary increases. During the session, however, parliamentary leadership secretly introduced the salary hike proposal, which was then approved without public knowledge. The decision remained hidden until a leaked document from the parliamentary leadership revealed the details.

An Iraqi lawyer, speaking to TNA on condition of anonymity, revealed that the parliament has the authority to add new topics to its agenda based on requests from some MPs.

The document disclosed that the Parliament had voted to raise the salaries and allowances of its members to match those of ministers. It also included a 30% increase in danger pay for parliamentary staff based on their base salary.

Currently, an Iraqi MP earns between eight and ten million Iraqi dinars (approximately US$6,700) per month, but the increase would raise this to 19 million dinars (approximately US$12,750) per month.

The secretive nature of the vote has drawn sharp criticism from activists and political observers, who pointed out that the Iraqi Constitution mandates that parliamentary sessions be conducted openly. Former officials have condemned the decision, arguing that it targets Iraq's poor and could incite public anger. Some have suggested that instead of raising salaries, the Parliament should have voted to reduce ministerial salaries to align them with those of parliamentarians.

In response to the growing controversy, Iraqi MP Ahmed al-Sharmani declared to local media outlets that the decision was "invalid" and threatened to take the matter to the Federal Supreme Court if the parliamentary leadership does not reverse it. Fellow MP Zohair al-Fatlawi also criticized the secret vote, stating, "The secret vote to increase MPs' salaries is unjustifiable and seems to provoke millions of Iraqis."

Despite the widespread backlash, the Iraqi parliamentary leadership has yet to issue any clarification regarding the vote. It remains unclear why the leadership chose to conduct the vote in secret, and whether any specific political pressures influenced the decision.

Israeli airstrikes on Yemen’s Al Hudaydah Port ‘possible war crime’: Rights group

At least 6 killed, dozens injured in Israeli strikes on oil storage tanks, shipping cranes in Al Hudaydah Port last month

Rania Abu Shamala |19.08.2024 

- TRT/AA

ISTANBUL

Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Monday denounced last month’s Israeli airstrikes on Al Hudaydah Port in western Yemen as a “possible war crime.”

At least six civilians were killed and over 80 others injured on July 20 when Israeli warplanes struck more than two dozen oil storage tanks and two shipping cranes in the Yemeni port as well as a power plant in the province.

The attacks came one day after a Houthi drone strike killed one Israeli and injured four others in Tel Aviv.

“The attacks appeared to cause disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects,” the New York-based rights groups said.

“Serious violations of the laws of war committed willfully, that is deliberately or recklessly, are war crimes.”

Niku Jafarnia, a HWR researcher for Yemen and Bahrain, said the Israeli attacks on Al Hudaydah “could have a lasting impact on millions of Yemenis in Houthi-controlled territories.”

“Yemenis are already enduring widespread hunger after a decade-long conflict. These attacks will only exacerbate their suffering.”

The Al Hudaydah Port is critical for delivering food and other necessities to Yemen, through which about 70% of the country’s commercial imports and 80% of its humanitarian assistance passes.

“The applicable laws of war prohibit deliberate, indiscriminate, or disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian objects,” HRW said.

“An attack not directed at a specific military objective is indiscriminate. An attack is disproportionate if the expected civilian loss is excessive compared to the anticipated military gain of the attack.”

The rights group said governments that continue to provide arms to the Israeli government risk complicity in war crimes.

“The Israeli airstrikes on critical infrastructure in Al Hudaydah could have a profoundly devastating impact on many Yemeni lives over the longer term,” Jafarnia said. “Both the Israelis and the Houthis should immediately halt all unlawful attacks affecting civilians and their lives.”

Regional tensions have escalated due to Israel’s brutal offensive on the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 40,130 people, mostly women and children, and injured 92,700 others since last Oct. 7 following a Hamas attack.

Politicians working past 65 reflects U.S. society

By Matthew J. Wolf-Meyer, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

THE CONVERSATION

08/19/24


Why don't more politicians retire? President Joe Biden's decision to step down offers a chance to collectively consider when Americans should retire. File Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are hardly the only examples of politicians who work well into their golden years. Members of the baby-boom generation -- Americans born between 1946 and 1964 -- are the most numerous in the House, and in the Senate they outnumber lawmakers from all other generations combined.

All told, two-thirds of U.S. senators and nearly half of House lawmakers are eligible for full retirement benefits through the Federal Employees' Retirement System. And yet they keep working. So do the four Supreme Court justices who are over 65.

They're not alone. When given the choice, many Americans seem to prefer to work more rather than less. This is true in their weekly and annual work hours as well as the period of their life they spend working. About 1 in 5 Americans over 65 are working, even though they've passed the point where they are eligible for full retirement benefits and Social Security payments.

The share of older adults in the workforce is rising, although it's not clear how many of them are still punching a clock because they want to and how many can't afford to stop because of holes in the U.S. safety net.

As a historian and anthropologist of medicine in the United States, I have spent years researching the ways that American adults have generally chosen to earn higher wages rather than reduce their work hours.

I believe that Biden's decision to retire after years of public service offers an opportunity to consider what is at stake as a society when so many people over the age of 65 keep working, especially in prominent roles.

Retirement conventions in other countries

Maybe not for politicians, but in many occupations it now takes fewer hours of work to achieve the same labor output as a century ago, thanks to advances in manufacturing and computing.

Yet, hardly anyone is reducing their workloads despite these increases in efficiency. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government agency, most full-time U.S. employees log about 40 hours of work each week.

Many Europeans work shorter hours, take longer vacations and get more generous retirement benefits from their governments than their U.S. counterparts. Not coincidentally, support of retirement at the age of 65 or earlier has broad support in the European Union.

In the United States, later retirement is partly due to policy changes. For Americans born in 1960 or later, the federal retirement age has edged up to 67 from 65. That includes the tail end of those born during the baby boom, who will turn 65 between 2025 and 2028. Retirees eligible for Social Security benefits can collect a lower level of them at 62 and get rewarded with higher levels of Social Security benefits if they work until they turn 70.

As economist Dora Costa recounts in her book The Evolution of Retirement, the convention of a set retirement age arose in the early 20th century as a result of actuarial data on life expectancy and the establishment of pensions and social security systems.

Aging and health

To be sure, everyone ages differently, and there are benefits for society when older people remain on the job after their 65th birthday, including institutional memory and workplace experience.

There are recurrent debates about the benefits of working through one's later life. In some cases, research supports the benefits some people derive from working after 65. But research also supports the importance of having hobbies and their health-promoting effects. What is clear is that remaining active later in life is the most important thing in staying healthy in old age.

But there are several drawbacks, too, related to the health issues associated with aging.

For example, routine illnesses can have outsized effects on aging bodies, and recovery from injuries and sickness can take longer when you're over 65 than it does for younger adults. That can mean long stretches where an employee can't do their job.

Cognitive abilities may barely decline for some people, while others experience the dramatic changes associated with age-related dementia.

Unfortunately, figuring out who really should retire if they don't volunteer to do so is tough because cognitive tests are not always reliable. They often assess the capacities needed to take the test rather than underlying capacities.

For example, aural tests inadvertently assess hearing comprehension by attempting to measure the ability to remember a sequence of words. Many tests functionally test someone's personality rather than their cognitive capacities. People with certain personality types can mask their cognitive changes. Moreover, bias in assessing cognitive changes is often based in the assessor's experience of their interactions with the testee.

Except in cases where someone is obviously experiencing clear-cut changes in their cognitive capacity and ability to interact with others, arguing that somebody must retire is often rooted in ableist assumptions.

Social Security concerns

Basing the need for someone to retire on their perceived capacity to do the job brings unnecessary bias to this decision. In my view, setting a mandatory retirement age would provide a neutral mechanism to ensure that retirement from public service happens more smoothly than has been the case with Biden.

Many older Americans who keep working past 65 do so because they can't afford to retire. The cost of living, including the costs associated with longevity, have outstripped the support provided by Social Security benefits. The poverty rate among adults over 65 is much higher than it is in Europe.

But nearly all U.S. politicians and civil servants are free to stop working when they turn 65 or soon after. They have the benefit of the Federal Employees' Retirement System and the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan, which some economist argue could serve as a model for everyone else. Despite their ability to step back from their careers with few financial concerns, many of these leaders and workers remain on the job long after they could step down.

If the United States were to adopt a mandatory retirement age for all federal employees, it would spare at least those Americans from the difficult conversations about mental capacity many of us eventually face as we age.

In the meantime, Biden's decision to retire offers a chance to collectively consider when Americans should retire.

Matthew J. Wolf-Meyer is a professor of science and technology studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

 

Favorable views of Kamala Harris have risen this summer heading into the DNC, AP-NORC poll shows

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris is entering the Democratic National Convention with increased excitement from Democrats and a steady rise in her favorability ratings among Americans as a whole. About half of U.S.

Linley Sanders, The Associated Press

Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris greets supporters at a campaign event, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2024, in Rochester, Pa. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris is entering the Democratic National Convention with increased excitement from Democrats and a steady rise in her favorability ratings among Americans as a whole.

About half of U.S. adults — 48% — have a very or somewhat favorable view of Harris, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That is up from 39% at the beginning of the summer, before President Joe Biden's poor performance in his debate against former President Donald Trump ultimately led him to drop out of the presidential race.

That's not just an improvement for Harris but also from where President Joe Biden stood before he dropped out, when 38% said they had a favorable opinion of him. It's also somewhat better than the 41% of adults who say they have a favorable opinion of Trump.

The rise in favorability for Harris comes as more Americans overall have formed an opinion about her while the Harris and Trump campaigns rush to define her nascent candidacy. The share saying they don’t know enough about her to have an opinion has halved, from 12% in June to 6% now.

The latest measurement is in line with how Americans viewed Harris in early 2021, when she and Biden first took office. It suggests renewed positivity toward Harris — the share of Americans who have a “very favorable” opinion of her has also increased over the same period — but she risks hitting a ceiling as she approaches her previous highest rating.

Potential strengths for Harris

Since June, Harris’ favorability has slightly risen among some groups that generally already favor the Democratic Party. She’s seen slight increases in favorability among Democrats, independents, women and young adults under age 30. There’s been no significant movement from Black adults or Hispanic adults — other constituencies Harris will likely need the support of in November.

Half of adults under 30 have a very or somewhat favorable view of Harris in the latest poll, up from 34% in June. That comes as more young adults have formed an opinion about her, with the share of adults who say they don’t know enough to say shrinking from about 2 in 10 to roughly 1 in 10. The number of young adults with an unfavorable view of her has not changed significantly.

Harris has relatively high levels of favorability among Black adults, though it’s been relatively steady over the last month. Around two-thirds of Black adults have a very or somewhat positive view of Harris. That includes around 4 in 10 who say their opinion of her is “very favorable.” Black adults are more likely than Americans overall to have a favorable impression of Harris. About 6 in 10 nonwhite men and women have a positive view of Harris.

Johnita Johnson, a 45-year-old Black woman living in North Carolina, said she plans to vote for Harris in November, but she wants the campaign to be honest and realistic about what it can promise. She has a problem with politicians, generally, who overpromise what they will be able to accomplish in office.

“If (Harris) was able to do exactly what she wants to do and what she says she would do, she would do an awesome job,” Johnson said. “Well, we all know that is not going to go like that. She may get to do some of the things that she wanted to do. Will she do everything? I can’t say that she will. And she can’t promise me that.”

Johnson noted that while Harris is a historic candidate because of her race and sex, it’s not something that’s factoring into her support.

“It wouldn't matter who it was. ... As long as they are good, and good to us, that's what matters to me,” Johnson said. “Yes, of course, to a lot of people, it's exciting because she’s Black and she's the first woman. But I'm not looking at it."

Possible weaknesses for Harris

To win in November, Harris’ team will trying to limit the extent to which Trump can run up his vote totals among white and male voters, groups that have leaned toward Republicans in recent elections. Currently, about half of men have a negative view of Harris. About 6 in 10 white men have an unfavorable view of her. White men without a college degree, a group that has traditionally made up Trump’s strong base of support, are especially likely to say they have an unfavorable view.

Harris is seen more positively by white women, particularly those with a college degree. About 6 in 10 white women with a college degree view her favorably, compared to about 4 in 10 without one. Overall, white women are split on her: 49% have a favorable opinion and 46% have a negative one.

Views of Harris have been fairly steady among older adults. About half of adults older than 60 have a positive view of her. That’s generally in line with the 46% she had with this group in June.

Brian Mowrer, a newly retired 64-year-old in Mishicot, Wisconsin, who was a staunch Republican until voting for President Barack Obama in 2012, plans to vote for Harris in November. He likes Biden and had felt he could do the job for another term, but he was ultimately glad Biden withdrew from the race when it became clear his electability was shrinking.

“I think it's great that Biden stepped down and that they chose Kamala Harris,” he said. “Well, I would probably support any Democrat at this point.”

Mowrer is motivated by ensuring Trump does not have an opportunity to nominate more conservative justices to the Supreme Court, as he worries about further losing the separation between church and state in the U.S. He also cares about electing someone who will defend access to abortion, which he sees as a personal freedom issue. He believes Harris will focus on both issues.

“I think she’s very good. She presents very well. I think she’s very authentic,” he said. “The policies, or at least the things she's talking about wanting to do, that is along the lines of what I’ve been thinking needs to be done.”

___

The poll of 1,164 adults was conducted August 8-12, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Linley Sanders, The Associated Press

SPACE

Why Hasn’t Starliner Returned?



Photo: NASA


Critical Questions by Clayton Swope
Published August 19, 2024
Remote Visualization

On June 5, 2024, an Atlas V rocket launched Boeing’s Starliner on its first crewed mission to the International Space Station (ISS). Though it successfully docked with the station, Starliner exhibited anomalies related to its propulsion systems, raising concerns about whether the spacecraft could safely return astronauts to Earth. At the time of writing, NASA has yet to decide whether to send its two-person crew home on the capsule or another spacecraft.

Q1: How did NASA get here?

A1: In the 1990s, five nations agreed to collaborate on building the ISS, the first component of which was launched in 1998. Two years later, the first ISS crew members arrived on a Russian Soyuz capsule. For the next 11 years, Soyuz and the U.S. Space Shuttle ferried ISS crew members from the United States and Russia, as well as other international partners, between Earth and the station. Anticipating the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011, NASA sought to develop a new U.S. capability to transport astronauts to the station, establishing the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) to provide commercial transportation services.

In 2014, NASA certified two operators—SpaceX and Boeing—for crewed missions. SpaceX carried out the first crewed CCP flight to the ISS in 2020. Before this crewed mission, SpaceX had completed an uncrewed test flight of its Dragon capsule in 2019. To date, SpaceX has successfully conducted eight crewed missions to the station. Boeing’s first crewed Starliner capsule launched to the ISS on June 5, 2024, having previously conducted two uncrewed test flights—the second flight being necessary because the first was only a partial success.

Currently, the two astronauts and Starliner launched on June 5 remain at the space station, though the mission was originally planned to last around 10 days. Due to a number of technical issues, at least one of which was known while Starliner sat on the launch pad, NASA has repeatedly extended the mission as it has tried to gain a better understanding of the risk facing the astronauts and the spacecraft on Earth reentry.

Q2: What are the issues affecting Starliner?

A2: In late May 2024, while United Launch Alliance (ULA) addressed a malfunctioning valve in the Atlas V rocket intended to carry Starliner into space, Boeing discovered a helium leak in 1 of the 28 reaction control system (RCS) thrusters on Starliner’s service module. After additional analysis, NASA, Boeing, and ULA ultimately agreed to proceed with the launch, concluding that the leak did not pose an unacceptable risk to the mission. On June 5, Starliner successfully launched into orbit.

Once in space, engineers detected additional helium leaks in the service module’s RCS thruster system, bringing the total number of helium leaks to five. On top of the helium leaks, Starliner experienced other on-orbit propulsion anomalies, with 5 of the 28 service module’s RCS thrusters failing at various times as the spacecraft prepared to dock with the ISS. Eventually, engineers were able to reset and restart 4 of the 5 malfunctioning thrusters. With all but one of the service module’s RCS thrusters operational, NASA gave approval for Starliner to dock with the ISS on June 6.

Once docked with the station, per standard procedures for Starliner, engineers closed off the valves to the helium tanks, preventing further leaks. Since June 6, NASA and Boeing have attempted to isolate, replicate, and understand the issues affecting the thruster system, conducting ground testing with an RCS thruster at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility. Two separate rounds of on-orbit firings for Starliner’s 27 operational service module’s RCS thrusters, checking performance and helium leak rates, have also occurred since the spacecraft docked with the station.

Even with the leaks, NASA and Boeing assess that Starliner would have enough helium to return to Earth. Additionally, officials note that the 27 working RCS thrusters on the service module operated within expected parameters during the most recent on-orbit testing on July 27. However, NASA officials have yet to make a final decision on when—and how—Starliner’s astronauts will return home. NASA has stated that it is considering returning the crew as part of the next SpaceX Dragon mission to the ISS, which would likely not return until February 2025.

Q3: How do these malfunctioning components fit together?

A3: Starliner is made up of two main components: a crew module, which returns to Earth, and a service module, which is only used in space and burns up upon reentry into Earth’s atmosphere. The crew module has 12 RCS thrusters used for orientation during reentry. The service module has 28 RCS thrusters—a different model from the RCS thrusters used on the crew module—as well as 20 orbital maneuvering and attitude control (OMAC) thrusters and four launch abort engines.

Under normal operations, Starliner is designed to use both the service module’s RCS thrusters and OMAC engines at different phases of the undocking and maneuvering sequence to position the spacecraft on a trajectory for the crew module to reenter the atmosphere and safely return to Earth.

Only the service module’s RCS thrusters, used for maneuvering in orbit and during a high-altitude abort, have experienced anomalies during Starliner’s current mission. While it remains unclear how these thruster malfunctions relate to the helium leaks, both issues are specific to the service module, not the crew module. Coincidentally, two of the service module’s RCS thrusters as well as two OMAC engines and one of the crew module’s RCS thrusters malfunctioned during the second uncrewed test flight of Starliner in May 2022. NASA has stated that it worked with the RCS thruster manufacturer to develop a contingency plan requiring only four of the service module’s RCS thrusters for a successful reentry.

Q4: What options does NASA have for Starliner?

A4: Senior NASA officials do not currently agree on next steps, with some uncomfortable with the risks associated with sending astronauts home on Starliner. To date, NASA has had time to make its assessment and decision. The long-term performance of Starliner’s batteries was originally expected to limit the length of time the spacecraft could operate, but so far the batteries have been successfully recharged by the space station, buying more time for analysis. At this point, NASA has not made clear what else it can do to gain more confidence, as it has already spent weeks trying to replicate what’s happening on Starliner with the test RCS thrusters at the White Sands Test Facility. However, NASA has noted it will decide how to proceed by the end of August 2024 to prepare for upcoming missions to the ISS.

Ultimately, NASA’s decision will reflect its assessment of the safest way to return the two Starliner astronauts to Earth, though it will also take into account concerns about the ISS itself should the spacecraft experience certain thruster malfunctions as it moves away from the station. A number of officials who will make key decisions on Starliner, both at NASA and Boeing, had some role in the events leading up to the disintegration of Columbia and loss of her crew in 2003. As NASA contemplates how to send the two Starliner astronauts currently on the ISS, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, back home, those events in February 2003 likely cast a heavy shadow on decisionmakers. This leaves NASA with a difficult question: Should it send the astronauts home on Starliner or save two seats for them on the return flight of the next Dragon mission, scheduled to launch in September 2024 and return in February 2025?

If NASA decides to send Wilmore and Williams back on a SpaceX capsule, it could send Starliner home uncrewed, assuming Boeing is able to upload software to facilitate an autonomous undocking from the space station. This approach would allow NASA and Boeing to validate the results of their testing and assumptions made over the last two months, since they have been assessing Starliner’s leak and thruster issues. From a system-testing standpoint, a successful return of the capsule without a crew gets NASA and Boeing the same data it would get from a successful return with a crew. While inconvenient, an uncrewed Starliner return would minimize risk to human life, using the Dragon capsule—with an established safety record under its belt—to bring Wilmore and Williams safely home. But no option carries zero risk—the backup plan would leave the two astronauts for a few days without a way to evacuate the station in an emergency after Starliner undocks and before the next Dragon arrives.

In 1965, astronaut Gus Grissom, who lost his life in the Apollo 1 tragedy, said, “the conquest of space is worth the risk of life.” Today, however, there is no reason to take that risk. With Columbia, there was no viable backup option to transport the Space Shuttle crew home. The orbiter did not have enough fuel to reach the ISS. The dynamics are entirely different today with Starliner. Though no option is risk free, there is another way to send the two astronauts home, with the main downside being a possible reputational blemish to Starliner’s manufacturer, Boeing. Arguably, for the future successes of Starliner and American crewed spaceflight, as well as for Wilmore, Williams, and their families, that is a price worth paying.

Clayton Swope is the deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project and a senior fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.



Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2024 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

French left splits again after Mélenchon calls for Macron’s impeachment

Fresh spat in the left-wing New Popular Front alliance is good news for the Macron camp, which hopes to benefit from a fragmented opposition.


Contrary to Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s claim, the impeachment procedure has very little chance of succeeding. 

| Victoria Valdivia/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

August 19, 2024
By Giorgio Leali and Anthony Lattier

POLITICO EU

The French left is divided, again.

Part of the French left is embarrassed by radical firebrand Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s call to impeach President Emmanuel Macron, showing that France’s left-wing alliance is not as solid as it pretends to be.

This new spat within the New Popular Front alliance, which came first in snap elections last month, is good news for the Macron camp, which hopes to benefit from a fragmented opposition.

Over the weekend, Mélenchon — founder of the France Unbowed movement — and his garde rapprochée once again urged Macron to appoint Lucie Castets as prime minister. Castets is the preferred candidate of the pan-left alliance that gathers Mélenchon’s party along with Socialists, Greens and Communists.

But this time they added a threat.

If Macron doesn’t give in to their demands, the parliament should launch an impeachment procedure as “the refusal to recognize a legislative election and the decision to ignore it constitute a reprehensible breach of the elementary requirements of the presidential mandate,” Mélenchon wrote in a piece published in La Tribune, which was co-signed by party heavyweights such as Manuel Bompard and Mathilde Panot.

Contrary to Mélenchon’s claim, the impeachment procedure has very little chance of succeeding, experts say, not least because it would need to be endorsed by two-thirds of MPs in both houses of the French parliament.

But the proposal has had at least one practical effect — of weakening the left wing and putting its divisions under the spotlight.

All the other parties were quick to dismiss Mélenchon’s call. Even the entourage of prime minister candidate Castets distanced themselves from the impeachment threat, telling POLITICO that it was “an initiative of the France Unbowed, not of Lucie.”

On Monday, which happened to be Mélenchon’s birthday, Greens leader Marine Tondelier dismissed the impeachment call and warned against the risk that the left-wing “polyphony should not become a cacophony.”

While Socialist leader Olivier Faure also distanced himself from Mélenchon’s impeachment call, some within his party are increasingly warning against the extreme positions of the France Unbowed movement.

The squabble over the impeachment proposal has re-ignited internal bickering after the three parties managed to find some unity as they rallied behind Castets as common candidate for prime minister. The three parties were set to go together as a joint political force to consultations that Macron will hold at the Elysée Palace on Friday to form a new government.

But that unity is now in danger. “If the Unbowed don’t abandon this idea, we can’t go to the Elysée together to see a president whose impeachment they are calling for,” said Hélène Geoffroy, which heads a minority group within the Socialists.

In the meantime, Macron’s allies are rubbing their hands, hoping to capitalize on divisions among their left-wing opponents.

“It doesn’t strengthen them” going into Friday’s Elysée meeting, said a person close to the French president who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “When you disagree on something as essential as the Constitution, how can you imagine governing together?”

In the past, Macron has implicitly dismissed the possibility that Castets could become prime minister and instead called for a broader alliance including his own camp.

French politics was put on hold during the Paris Olympics: the country still doesn’t have a government more than one month after outgoing Prime Minister Gabriel Attal and his ministers resigned. They remain as a caretaker administration. An outgoing minister predicted that the new government could be appointed after the Paralympic Games, which are taking place in Paris until Sept. 8.

Brit tech tycoon Mike Lynch 'missing' after superyacht Bayesian sank in ‘tornado’ off Sicily

19 August 2024

Tech mogul Mike Lynch is among those missing after a yacht sank off the coast of Sicily. Picture: Getty

By Asher McShane

@ashermcs

British tech tycoon Mike Lynch is among those missing after a luxury yacht sank off the coast of Sicily.

Four British tourists are feared dead after the £14million superyacht was hit by a tornado.

Mike Lynch was acquitted in the US earlier this year in a multi-billion pound fraud case.

The yacht was owned by Mr Lynch, according to reports.

His wife Angela Bacares was confirmed as having been rescued, it was reported.

In June he was cleared of all charges by a US jury related to the sale of his software company Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard in 2011.

Dr Michael Lynch, founder and chief executive officer of software firm Autonomy Corporation. Picture: Getty

So far, 15 people have been rescued by coast guards on patrol boats and firefighters, including a one-year-old baby.

The child's mother, Charlotte, said her daughter is now being treated in the Di Cristina hospital in Palermo.Recounting how she protected her baby as the vessel sunk, Charlotte said: “I held her afloat with all my strength, my arms stretched upwards to keep her from drowning.

“It was all dark. In the water I couldn’t keep my eyes open. I screamed for help but all I could hear around me was the screams of others.”

Read more: 'I held her with all my strength': Brit mother reveals how she saved her baby as superyacht sank in tornado off Sicily

Read more: Ukrainian officials order evacuation of families with children from Pokrovsk

Speaking to local news website la Repubblica, she added that her husband, James, had suffered minor injuries and was taken to Civico hospital in Palermo. 

Charlotte said she had reassured her husband that their child was ok and the pair promised to hug each other again soon.

Fifteen people were rescued from the 49-metre sailboat. Picture: Facebook/BAIA Santa Nicolicchia

Filippo Tripoli, the mayor of Bagheria in Sicily, said: "This morning, off the coast of Santa Flavia, a foreign boat sunk due to bad weather, 15 people recovered and seven missing.

"Already all the police forces and emergency services are operational and our Red Cross volunteers are present.

"CCTV from Monday morning showed the fierce storm, including water spouts, that battered the area.Umbrellas, plant pots, tables and chairs were sent flying in the strong winds.

The owners of local restaurant Baia Santa Nicolicchia said: "We have no memory of anything like this in our area."

The British-flagged, 56-metre Bayesian had a crew of 10 people and 12 passengers, representing British, American and Canadian nationalities, the Italian coast guard said.

A carabinieri vehicle parked near the harbor where search continues for missing passengers after a yacht capsized. Picture: Getty

Commentary


The Risk of Bringing AI Discussions Into High-Level Nuclear Dialogues

Overly generalized discussions on the emerging technology may be unproductive or even undermine consensus to reduce nuclear risks at a time when such consensus is desperately needed.


by Lindsay Rand
Published on August 19, 2024
CARNIGIE FOUNDATION

program
Nuclear Policy
The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy

.Learn More

Last month, nuclear policymakers and experts convened in Geneva to prepare for a major conference to review the implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). At the meeting, calls for greater focus on the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for nuclear policy pervaded diverse discussions. This echoes many recent pushes from within the nuclear policy community to consider emerging technologies in nuclear security–focused dialogues. However, diplomats should hesitate before trying to tackle the AI-nuclear convergence. Doing so in official, multilateral nuclear security dialogues risks being unproductive or even undermining consensus to reduce nuclear risks at a time when such consensus is desperately needed.

The less-than-catchy official title of the Geneva meeting was the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. There are three preparatory committee meetings in the leadup to the NPT Review Conference, which occurs every five years. The intended goal of preparatory committee meetings is to discuss disagreements that are likely to occur at the NPT Review Conference in hopes of facilitating consensus on a final document. However, recent preparatory committee meetings have grown more contentious, stifling productive dialogue between state policymakers and nuclear security experts.

This precedent for animosity at preparatory committee meetings makes the seemingly unanimous call for increased dialogue on AI striking. Generally, proponents of increased dialogue framed AI as a potential catalyst for re-energizing diplomatic dialogue. They suggested that shared interests in mitigating AI-related risks could foster cooperation among nations with conflicting positions on other nuclear policy issues.

The level of interest in AI at the preparatory committee meeting isn’t surprising, given how much attention is being paid to the implications of AI for nuclear security and international security more broadly. Concerns range from increased speed of engagement, which could reduce human decisionmaking time, to automated target detection that could increase apprehension over second-strike survivability, or even increase propensity for escalation. In the United States, the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board recently published a report that examines AI’s potential impacts on arms control, nonproliferation, and verification, highlighting the lack of consensus around definitions and regulations to govern Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS). Internationally, there have also been calls for the five nuclear weapon states (P5) to discuss AI in nuclear command and control at the P5 Process, a forum where the P5 discuss how to make progress toward meeting their obligations under the NPT. Observers have called for the P5 to issue a joint statement on the importance of preserving human responsibility in nuclear decisionmaking processes.

However, injecting AI into nuclear policy discussions at the diplomatic level presents potential pitfalls. The P5 process and NPT forums, such as preparatory committee meetings and the NPT Review Conference, are already fraught with challenges. Introducing the complexities of AI may divert attention from other critical nuclear policy issues, or even become linked to outstanding areas of disagreement in a way that further entrenches diplomatic roadblocks.

Before introducing discussions about AI into official nuclear security dialogues, policymakers should address the following questions:In which forums could discussions about AI be productive?
What specific topics could realistically foster more productive dialogue?
Who should facilitate and participate in these discussions?
Forum Selection

Although leveraging AI discussions to overcome other diplomatic roadblocks is appealing in theory, it raises a number of practical concerns. When discussed in existing diplomatic forums, AI risks becoming linked with other nuclear policy disagreements. Issue linkage has already forestalled dialogue on other arms control and risk reduction efforts. For example, the ongoing war in Ukraine has been linked to U.S.-Russian arms control efforts, with Russia repeatedly refusing participation in arms control negotiations on the basis that it cannot compartmentalize issues integral to strategic stability. In the context of AI, premature attempts to incorporate the evolving technology into official dialogue could result in states refusing to address command and control issues unless they receive security guarantees that may have lower political appetite, like reductions of certain types of delivery vehicles that undermine second strike without faster (potentially AI-enhanced) decisionmaking. This would have the net effect of making it even more difficult to reduce AI-related risks and overcome the preexisting nuclear policy disagreements.

Instead, new dedicated spaces for conversations on AI could yield more focused, technically grounded approaches. This could be modeled after the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Emerging Technologies in the Area of LAWS, which was established based on a recommendation at a regular Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Review Conference. Insights generated from these focused discussions could then be integrated into broader nuclear policy forums, and hopefully even those at the diplomatic level, such as the preparatory committee meetings and the P5 process. They may also foster an environment conducive to unilateral risk reduction efforts outside of formal agreements.
Topic Selection

Specificity in discussions will enhance the productivity of the new forum. A lot of hype, or unrealistic expectations, already exists around the magnitude and ubiquity of AI implications. Overly vague discussions about risks that make AI seem more revolutionary could be counterproductive by promoting hype that may increase apprehension and feed into arms racing dynamics. Moreover, unfocused dialogues could lead to cross pollination of rhetoric around a so-called AI arms race that has gained traction outside of the nuclear policy realm. Given that states are already devising national strategies to establish leadership on AI technologies, overly generalized discussions that are seen as restricting AI innovation would reduce incentives to cooperate.

Instead, discussions should focus on specific use cases of AI for national security purposes. If the goal of the discussion is to catalyze cooperation, then creativity in topic selection is important. Initial discussions may benefit from focusing on clearly defined, technically grounded topics—such as the use of AI in satellite imagery analysis for verification, or dispute mechanisms for issues that may arise from such applications—rather than more contentious and amorphous issues like AI in nuclear command and control systems.

Discussions would be more productive still if they are based on mutually agreed-upon definitions and metrics for evaluation—but this is easier said than done. Given that groups such as the GGE established for LAWS have still failed to reach agreement on definitions for high-level applications such as autonomous weapons systems, focusing on more narrow terms would be more productive, at least in the short term. Developing a shared technical vocabulary and establishing consensus on standards and procedures to evaluate AI capabilities for specific use cases would not only provide greater clarity on research and development status, but could also help create a more common understanding of risks related to AI, thereby reducing hype.
Participants

Although some nuclear policy experts and diplomats may have in-depth knowledge of AI, it is not a prerequisite for participation in nuclear security forums. Greater care should be given to ensure that policymakers receive foundational information before discussing AI in formal forums that are closed to external participants who have deeper topical expertise. Including AI technical experts, along with strategists and policymakers focused on AI-nuclear convergences, may enhance the dialogue’s quality and depth. A more interdisciplinary approach would better address the complexity of the technology and could slowly improve the quality of the dialogue.

Given the myriad risks at the convergence of AI and nuclear weapons, the intersection of these two issues certainly merits thoughtful discussion in some international forum. However, introducing AI into nuclear policy dialogues at the diplomatic level that are already suffering from major political roadblocks is unlikely to be easy or productive unless treated very carefully. Before rushing to do so, policymakers should give extensive thought to the practicality of such discussions to ensure that they are thoughtful, focused, and technically informed—and thus ultimately productive—and do not further deepen the divides, complicating an already complex geopolitical landscape.

Lindsay Rand
Postdoctoral fellow, Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation

Modi to visit Ukraine this week, first Indian premier to do so in 30 years

India's Narendra Modi visited Russia in July for a two-day official visit

Ahmad Adil |19.08.2024 - 


NEW DELHI

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to visit Ukraine later this week, marking the first visit by an Indian premier to the country in 30 years. The visit comes amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which began with Russia's "special military operation" in February 2022.

Modi's official visit to Ukraine is scheduled for Friday, following an invitation from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, according to senior Foreign Ministry official Tanmaya Lal.

Officials have described the visit as "landmark," highlighting that it will build upon the recent high-level interactions between the two leaders. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is expected to be a significant focus of the discussions.

"India has consistently advocated for diplomacy and dialogue to reach a negotiated settlement," Lal stated.

Before his visit to Ukraine, Modi will stop in Poland for a two-day visit starting Wednesday, as confirmed by officials.

Modi visited Russia in July for a two-day official visit.

 

Ukrainian incursion into Kursk paralyses Russia’s railways

Russia has a fully digitised railway system, so once you access the system of any train station, no matter how small, you have access to the entire network. / bne IntelliNewsFacebook

TwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Ben Aris in Berlin August 19, 2024

Once the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) took its first Russian railway station inside Russia it was in the position to cause chaos and glean valuable troop movement intel.

“Russia has a fully digitised railway system, so once you access the system of any train station, no matter how small, you have access to the entire network,” Paul Con, a Ukraine observer, said in a social media post.

The AFU breakthrough has led to a severe disruption in railway operations, paralysing key routes across the country. The central office of Russian Railways (RZD) has urgently requested the Belarusian railway authorities to halt the dispatching of freight trains to Russia, as the system has become overloaded, according to a report by the Union of Belarusian Railroad Workers.

The main problem is that a reported 133,000 civilians are fleeing the region at the same time after the AFU crossed the border on August 6. And the situation may be getting worse after Ukrainian forces were seen in the Belgorod region to the north, which has now also declared a state of emergency.

The load has incapacitated RZD’s ability to receive trains from Belarus on the Moscow and Bryansk railway routes, which also abuts the Ukrainian border.

Official documents indicate that the request to stop incoming freight trains was issued on August 12, reflecting the critical situation on the ground. The ban is indefinite, as Russian authorities are uncertain when control over the affected railways will be restored, UA Wire reports.

Transport logistics between Russia and Belarus have reportedly collapsed, with numerous freight trains now stranded in dispatch areas. Russia’s Smolensk region in particular has become a bottleneck, with "abandoned" trains accumulating due to the halted traffic. A lack of locomotives has made the situation worse, UA Wire reports.

What remains unclear is if the AFU has been able to hack the RZD’s IT system to further disrupt the railways, however, once into the system they have been able to glean valuable information about Russia’s troop movements. RZD is reportedly now trying to lock the AFU out of the system.

“It seems that the Ukrainians managed to infiltrate the Russian railway system and were able to track the routes of arms shipments. Completely overhauling the system is currently causing significant headaches for IT specialists in Moscow,” added con.

Russia has been struggling to counter the AFU’s incursion. Other reports say that the expeditionary force has brought upgraded drones with them that use new frequencies that are impervious to Russian electronic warfare jamming, while the AFU has also upgraded their own jamming software which is now highly effective against Russian drones. Western reporters that made it to the Russian-Ukrainian border were surprised with the freedom of movement AFU forces have and the total absence of Russian drones. As bne IntelliNews reported, in the drone war, Russia has had the upper hand until recently.

The Kremlin has been bringing reinforcements up from Donbas to counter the AFU’s incursion, and also troops from as far away as Kaliningrad, but to move men and materiel over such long distances in Russia there are few alternatives to the railway.