Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Climate activists denounce COP28 president

Climate activists demonstrate in Bonn, Germany -https://www.africanews.com/embed/2296474
 
Copyright © africanewsHenning Kaiser/(c) Copyright 2023, dpa (www.dpa.de). Alle Rechte vorbehalten
By Africanews

Kenyan climate campaigner, Eric Njuguna, and Swedish climate activist, Greta Thunberg, participated in the Climate Change Conference in Germany.

The event takes place ahead of the COP28 meeting later this year in Dubai.

Speaking to the press, Kenyan climate campaigner Eric Njuguna denounced the choice of an oil giant boss to preside over the COP28 climate summit.

"And I think history records will show that in 2033 for COP 28, metaphorically speaking, we let a mosquito lead the fight against malaria. It's a stab in the back for communities bearing the brunt of the climate crisis, but also the future generations who will be affected adversely by the climate crisis", said Kenyan climate campaigner, Eric Njuguna.

Sultan al-Jaber, head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, is to lead the Dubai climate negotiations.

Last week, Al-Jaber acknowledged that a reduction in the use of fossil fuels was "inevitable".

Scientists and climate activists are pleading for a more rapid expansion of renewables, and a phase out of oil, coal and gas, given the significant proportion of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions produced by these energy sources.

Climate activists want world leaders to agree to phase out fossil fuels at the UN climate negotiations in Dubai (COP28, Ed.) in late 2023, after failing at their summit in Glasgow in 2021 and again in Sharm-El-Sheikh in 2022.

But major oil and gas exporters are keen to shift the focus further downstream, arguing the world can reduce carbon emissions without ditching the fossil fuels that generate them.

Former ANC secretary-general Ace Magashule expelled from the party

Former ANC secretary-general Ace Magashule - 

Copyright © africanewsAP/

South Africa's ruling party, ANC, announced on Monday that former secretary-general Ace Magashule had been expelled from the party.

Magashule faces accusations of misconduct and other breaches of party rules while also facing charges of corruption in a criminal case.


In 2021, Magashule was suspended from his position as secretary-general of the ANC after being charged with multiple counts of corruption, money laundering and fraud.

The former ANC official responded by suspending South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa from his duties.

Magashule is also seen as close to Ramaphosa’s political rival, former President Jacob Zuma, but his suspension led to him being side-lined from the ANC's conference in December, when Ramaphosa was re-elected as party leader.
GLOBAL FLOW OF WORKERS WAGES
Remittances remain resilient but risks of slowdown ahead

DILIP RATHA|JUNE 13, 2023
WORLD BANK BLOG
Tajikistan

Remittances to Low-Middle Income Countries (LMIC) are expected to grow by 1.4 percent to reach $656 billion in 2023, following a very strong 8 percent growth in 2022 and 10.6 percent in 2021. As a result, remittances are now even larger than FDI and ODA and, excluding China, larger than the sum of FDI and ODA.

This remarkable, consecutive year-on-year growth was supported by several factors such as strong oil prices in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, which increased migrants’ incomes; large money transfers from the Russian Federation to countries in Central Asia; and the strong labor market in the United States and other advanced migrant destination economies. By region, remittance inflows grew by 0.7% in East Asia and the Pacific, 19% in Europe and Central Asia, 11.3% in Latin America and the Caribbean, 12.2% in South Asia, and 6.1% in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2022. In the same period, remittance inflows declined by 3.8% for the Middle East and North Africa region.

In 2023, however, slower growth in remittances is expected in all regions, notably in Europe and Central Asia (1 percent) and South Asia (0.3 percent). In Europe and Central Asia, remittances are slowing down because of lower Russian demand for their workers in Russia from that region, and the weakening of the ruble against the U.S. dollar. In South Asia, growth in remittances is expected to slow due to worldwide layoffs in the information technology IT sector globally and the possible diversion of remittance flows to informal channels as domestic economic uncertainties worsen in some recipient countries.

By contrast, the growth rate of remittances is expected to remain relatively remain strong in Latin America and the Caribbean region (3.3 percent). Most of the senders of remittances to this region are based in the United States, where both the employment levels and wages of Hispanics and foreign-born workers and their wages have been strong. Growth rates of remittance flows are expected to be 1.5 percent in the Middle East and North Africa, 1 percent in East Asia and the Pacific region, and 1.3 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The top five recipient countries for remittances in 2022 were India (receiving $111 billion), Mexico ($61 billion), China ($51 billion), the Philippines ($38 billion), and Pakistan ($30 billion). Economies where remittance inflows represent large shares of GDP—highlighting the importance of remittances for funding current account and fiscal shortfalls— include Tajikistan (51% of GDP), Tonga (44%), Lebanon (36%), Samoa (34%) and the Kyrgyz Republic (31%).

Besides economic growth and the employment levels of foreign workers, the other two variables that affect remittance flows are oil prices (especially in the Russian Federation and the GCC countries member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council), and exchange rates of local currencies with respect to the U.S. dollar. In many remittance-recipient countries facing balance of payments difficulties and the emergence of gaps between the official and the market exchange rate, remittance flows may shift to informal channels, which can potentially underestimate the true size of official data on remittance flows.

With the stock of migrants likely to increase globally due to income gap, demographic change, and climate change, remittances will continue to grow in a counter-cyclical manner. Also, there is no doubt that during a crisis, remittances have emerged as a dependable financial lifeline in many economies through the pandemic and will continue to remain so. The need is to devise policies that can employ remittance flows for the development outcomes of the global south and north. The World Bank has stepped up collaborations with source and recipient countries to improve data and remittances to mobilize private sector capital through diaspora bonds and globally improved sovereign ratings.

To read more on the developments in migration and remittance flows, please download the latest Migration and Development Brief here.



Authors
Trump Indictment: Scholar of Fascism Says GOP Has Become an “Autocratic Party” Led by a “Cult Leader”






JUNE 13, 2023
This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.
DONATE


GUEST
Ruth Ben-Ghiat
expert on fascism and authoritarianism, author and publisher of the Lucid newsletter.


Donald Trump is set to surrender today at the federal courthouse in Miami to face charges for retaining and mishandling classified documents, including top-secret information about U.S. nuclear weapons programs. Trump’s supporters, including many prominent members of the Republican Party, have threatened violence and suggested revolt in response to what they see as a politically motivated targeting of the former president, while Trump himself has claimed to reporters that he is innocent of wrongdoing. His capture of the Republican base is the work of a “cult leader,” argues Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on fascism and authoritarianism, adding that today’s GOP is an “autocratic party operating inside a democracy.” Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University, also discusses the death this week of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who she says helped to mainstream far-right extremism in Italian politics.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: Authorities in Miami are ramping up security near the federal courthouse, where President Donald Trump will surrender today to face charges for retaining and mishandling classified documents, including top-secret information about U.S. nuclear weapons. On Friday, the Justice Department unsealed a historic 37-count indictment against Trump, who’s running for the White House again.

In recent days, Trump and many of his supporters have condemned the charges using inflammatory language. Andy Biggs, a far-right member of Congress from Arizona, wrote on social media, quote, “We have now reached a war phase. Eye for an eye.” Louisiana Republican Congressman Clay Higgins wrote a cryptic tweet that many viewed as a call for insurrection. Former Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake directly threatened violence.

KARI LAKE: I have a message tonight for Merrick Garland and Jack Smith and Joe Biden — and the guys back there in the fake news media, you should listen up, as well, this one’s for you: If you want to get to President Trump, you’re going to have to go through me, and you’re going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me. And I’m gonna tell you, yep, most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA. That’s not a threat; that’s a public service announcement.

AMY GOODMAN: Kari Lake’s comments were widely criticized. Ruben Gallego, a Democrat running for Senate in Arizona, responded by saying, quote, “This language isn’t just hyperbole — it’s dangerous and it threatens the very core of our democracy,” unquote.

Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked special counsel Jack Smith, calling him a “deranged lunatic” and a “thug.” On Saturday, Trump spoke in Columbus, Georgia, about what he called “the final battle.”

DONALD TRUMP: Now the Marxist left is once again using the same corrupt DOJ and the same corrupt FBI and the attorney general and the local district attorneys to interfere in our elections at a level that our country and few countries have ever seen before. They’re cheating. They’re crooked. They’re corrupt. These criminals cannot be rewarded. They must be defeated. You have to defeat them.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on fascism and authoritarianism, author of Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, professor of history and Italian studies at New York University. She also publishes the newsletter Lucid, on threats to democracy.

Professor Ben-Ghiat, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. So, tomorrow we’ll spend more time, after the arraignment, talking about all of the counts. But today we’re focusing on the threats, on the violent threats. Can you respond?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: Yes. So, this could be seen as a — this reaction to Trump’s indictment and the appearance in Miami, it could be seen by his most fanatic followers as a kind of spark for a second wave of the insurrection. That’s certainly the tone of Kari Lake and Clay Higgins and these other — these other MAGA extremists.

But Trump has been preparing this in two ways for many years. First of all, since 2015, he used his rallies — so, back, we’re talking, you know, seven, eight years now — he used his rallies as radicalization sites. And over and over, he told his supporters at these rallies that violence was a good way to solve conflict. How many times did he say, “Oh, you know, in the good old days, we used to be able to punch people, and nothing happened”? So, that discourse of violence, which encouraged January 6th, is part of this.

The other is his victim cult. So, this won’t be a surrender for MAGA extremists. This will be an act of victimization. And all strongmen since Mussolini say they’re victims. And this is very compelling to their followers, because they feel protective of them, and this is part of their leader cult. And January 6th, of course, was he summoned the faithful to help him in his time of distress. So, that narrative is continuing now.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, but, Professor, how do you account for the — how few Republicans are standing up to this situation? Of course, Mitt Romney is one of the few. But most are not only lining up behind Trump, but those who are candidates are promising to pardon him if they’re elected.

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: This is because I see the GOP as a scholar of authoritarianism. It is an autocratic party operating inside a democracy, and it is a party in thrall to a cult leader. And Donald Trump — I’ve been studying cult leaders for a hundred years’ worth of them — he has all the signs. He is not a conventional politician of either the Democratic or Republican, you know, old school. He is a cult leader. And the GOP has long been, you know, submissive to him. He put them under an authoritarian discipline, and then he made them complicit. And this is what corrupt, violent authoritarians do. They make you part of their crimes. And so, the GOP is in damage control mode. And, you know, there’s fear. There’s fanaticism. And they don’t see a way to break away, because they’re cowards, because — or they’ve bought into this war, this battle that he’s waging.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you’ve said that if Trump gets back into power, he’ll never leave. What’s at stake in this upcoming election? And also, how do you place him in the context of growing right-wing movements in the industrialized West?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: Yeah, I said that he would never leave if he gets back in, because he’s saying that. The other day, when he said to his followers, “I’ll never leave,” on the one hand, he was — this was part of his cult leader devotional kind of homily to them, where he says, “I love you. I’ll always be there for you.” But it’s also telling them — and he always says what he’s going to do ahead of time — that if he gets back into power, he will not leave. And he’s already talked about, you know, massive purges, and he’s got a whole plan that he will pick up and finish the job of wrecking democracy that he couldn’t finish before.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Ben-Ghiat, I also want to ask you about the death of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, which has declared a national day of mourning for Wednesday. The billionaire media tycoon served four terms as prime minister of Italy, where he leveraged his unrivaled influence over public opinion in Italy, controlling the newspapers, magazines, three major TV channels. Throughout his career, Berlusconi faced multiple charges of money laundering, or at least of corruption, criminal charges including abuse of office, bribery, paying for sex with an underage girl. Most of the charges ended in dismissals after Berlusconi’s government passed laws shielding him from prosecution. But a tax fraud conviction in 2013 barred him from public office for six years. Can you talk about what Berlusconi represented?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: There’s lots of lessons for us today in the Berlusconi era. Two things I’ll mention. Berlusconi set off the whole normalization of the far right. Without him, it would have been a lot slower and harder. In 1994, it was just a brief government, but he brought neofascists into the government and made a center-right coalition with the xenophobic Northern League — now they’re called the League — and this neofascist party. So he broke a taboo.

And during his other two governments in the 2000s, the culture of neofascism, the culture of fascism itself, which he repeatedly whitewashed — he said to some British journalists, including Boris Johnson was one of them, back in 2003, that Mussolini never killed anyone. So, what we see today with the revival of neofascism and somebody like Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister, who says, “Oh, I’m a conservative,” that whitewashing comes straight out of Berlusconi. And by the way, he gave her her start.

The other lesson is prosecution matters. Berlusconi was so able, as you said, he passed — he got the Parliament to pass laws. If he was accused of bribery, he got Parliament to pass a law saying that bribery wasn’t an offense you could be jailed for. And he did this over and over again, or he ran out the clock, very similar to Trump. But finally, two years after he left office, he was convicted. And he didn’t go to jail because of his age. But it was that conviction and being banned from politics that finally deflated his personality cult and made his party, which he had created, into a minor force in politics. So prosecution sends a message that no one is above the law.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you about how the media should deal with a figure such as Donald Trump. On the one hand, we have to cover some of the major events that happen related to him. On the other hand, the saturation coverage also provides him more and more free publicity and a platform. What’s the proper balance that journalists and the media should exercise, in your view?

RUTH BEN-GHIAT: Yeah, that’s been the question since 2016. However, after January 6th, I think that people who didn’t see the danger before perhaps see it now. And it’s been a little disheartening that some in the media have returned to the default position of treating him as a conventional candidate. Of course, there was the disastrous CNN town hall, where, you know, people were not allowed to criticize. They were only supposed to applaud. And that actually recreated an authoritarian plateau. It was perfect for him.

You know, other people, they don’t — for example, they don’t retweet, not only Trump, but these other MAGA extremists, because that extra engagement is figured into algorithms that promote these people. You can screenshot them.

But there is — we do need to cover it. And I speak about it all the time, because we can’t close our eyes to this danger. Every society that’s had a serious threat to democracy has gone into it with some denial, with some idea that it can’t happen here, including Germany in the early '30s, which was one of the most advanced scientific, graphic design, cultural societies in the world. And so, it's important to cover it, to not shy away from denouncing it, but also to frame it for what it really is.

AMY GOODMAN: Ruth Ben-Ghiat, we want to thank you for being with us, expert on fascism and authoritarianism, author of Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.


DEMOCRACY NOW!

“Peace for All Time”: JFK’s Historic 1963 Call for Peace Helped Lead to Nuke Treaty with Moscow


JUNE 13, 2023



GUEST
Katrina vanden Heuvel
publisher of The Nation magazine and a columnist for The Washington Post.

LINKS "What kind of peace do we seek? At 60, JFK’s speech never gets old"

President John F. Kennedy’s “peace speech” at American University 60 years ago was a searing critique of Cold War politics and laid out a hopeful vision for a world built on cooperation and empathy, even among rival countries. Kennedy called for “not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time.” We feature an extended excerpt of Kennedy’s remarks and speak with The Nation publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel about how the speech remains relevant today. The Biden administration “could certainly take a page” from Kennedy’s policies, she says, urging the U.S. to avoid needless escalation during this time of renewed hostility between the United States and Russia over the war in Ukraine.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

Sixty years ago this week, President John F. Kennedy gave an historic speech at the height of the Cold War calling for peace and a reevaluation of relations with the Soviet Union. Just weeks after Kennedy’s speech, Washington and Moscow signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This is part of what President Kennedy said June 10th, 1963, during a commencement address at American University in Washington, D.C.

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on Earth: peace. What kind of a peace do I mean, and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on Earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and build a better life for their children. Not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need them is essential to the keeping of peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles — which can only destroy and never create — is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary, rational end of rational men. I realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitudes, as individuals and as a nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward, by examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards the course of the Cold War and towards freedom and peace here at home. First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. …

And second, let us reexamine our attitude towards the Soviet Union. … No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant, as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture, in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including two-thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland — a loss equivalent to the destruction of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again, no matter how, our two countries will be the primary target. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the Cold War, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this nation’s closest allies, our two countries bear the heaviest burdens, for we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle, with suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons begetting counter-weapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union, as well as ours. And even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity, for in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.

Third, let us reexamine our attitude towards the Cold War, remembering we’re not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different. We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. And above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy or of a collective death wish for the world.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President John F. Kennedy, June 10th, 1963. Just weeks after his speech, Washington and Moscow signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Kennedy would be assassinated on November 22nd, 1963, less than six months later.

Joining us now is Katrina vanden Heuvel, publisher of The Nation magazine, columnist for The Washington Post, her new piece for Responsible Statecraft headlined “What kind of peace do we seek? At 60, JFK’s speech never gets old.”

First, Katrina, congratulations on receiving the Marcus Raskin Award for Civic and Intellectual Courage.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Thank you. Marc was someone who could not condone the madness of the arms race, which he was present at the creation of.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Katrina, I’d like to ask you about this extraordinary speech. Nikita Khrushchev called it the greatest speech by a U.S. president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And the timeliness of it, given the situation we’re facing now — of course, then, the United States was in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, but now it’s the Russian Federation, no longer communist, now an openly capitalist [inaudible], yet we still have a similar confrontation.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: You know, what interests me, Juan, is, when you listen to the speech, first of all, many people in this country would think President John F. Kennedy was a subversive. I’m not sure he’d be permitted on TV, or some of our TV. He might be demonized or slurred. “Peace” has become a subversive word in these last decades, and that is a tragedy.

There’s reference to 18 years before as he gives his speech, and that’s a reference to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and also the charged environment coming off of the Cuban missile crisis, where millions of Americans did feel hostage to the nuclear arms race. That has dimmed, in a sense. I mean, Amy, you remember, Juan, perhaps, a million people in Central Park in June 1982 fighting for a freeze of the intermediate nuclear range missiles. But with the waning of fear, there’s been a normalization in talk about using tactical nuclear weapons. And this is so dangerous.

I think what President Kennedy’s speech does — and you just did an extraordinary public service — in retrieving American history, there are parts so many don’t know, and that speech is vital for a roadmap, a guide, a primer for today. As I write in the Responsible Statecraft piece, the Biden administration could certainly take a page, because they are so far away from this thinking in terms of the belief that military might is what is needed to resolve the critical needs of our country and the world at this time.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you talk about Norman Cousins, who was an anti-nuclear and peace activist who had enormous influence on this speech? The historians have said that Kennedy did not at all alert either the CIA or the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he was about to make this speech.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: [inaudible] Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs, that he couldn’t rely on the military. And in that context, he brought together not only Norman Cousins — and that’s an interesting side story, because in previous administrations over time, people have been brought in as mediators, not officials, but, for example, in negotiating with Cuba years before. Norman Cousins was a very eminent editor of The Saturday Evening Post, and he also had relations with Kennedy. And Kennedy trusted him to speak to Khrushchev. And I think that kind of negotiation can be valuable when the officials are frozen. You know, where is — John Kerry is in the administration. But where is John Kerry, perhaps, negotiating, talking behind the scenes? I think we want more transparency in our foreign policy, but at the same time, negotiations often demand a level of behind the scenes.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Katrina, we’re speaking now as the largest NATO air deployment exercise in its history is going on in Germany, with over 10,000 participants, 250 aircraft from 25 nations. Japan and Sweden, not NATO allies, are also participating on this — in this. Can you talk about the significance of this at this time, and what you feel needs to happen?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, imagine, at this juncture, where there could be a track toward escalating negotiations, talk; instead, we have, as you noted, the largest air exercise, NATO air exercise, in history. And I think that is a measure of the mindset that President Kennedy warned of, the militarization of the mindset.

Now, I condemn the war, the brutal war. In addition to what we’re witnessing with NATO air exercises, Amy, Juan, we are witnessing probably the greatest environmental disaster in the modern history of Ukraine with the breach of the dam. So, there are costs that demand attention, and instead we’re getting all these military investors continuing to hawk, peddle their wares. And as President Kennedy said, this is not addressing the poverty, the disasters, the pandemics, the climate. This is addressing more and more wealth, money going to the arms race. And that is a tragedy, and one that President Kennedy alludes to in his great speech.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Katrina, could you talk about how this speech then, subsequently, led to a Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: Well, I mean, the idea of words leading to deeds was a part of the Cold War history, ironically. What we’ve witnessed in these last years, decades, is the rollback of the infrastructure of arms control. Now, some people are more abolitionist, but the prudentialists, let’s say, are witnessing more and more nuclear stockpiles. I believe the nuclear stockpiles, according to a Swedish institute last month, have grown. And what has not grown are the negotiations needed to curb the dangerous, perilous menace. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved its Doomsday Clock forward to alert people. But we seem to be sleepwalking, or, instead of sleepwalking, it’s all about the new lists of weapons.

So, you know, I don’t agree with Ambassador Michael McFaul on much, I’ll tell you, but there — Sam Charap, in a very good piece in Foreign Affairs, noted that there is like 300 military people, in a commission, are tasked with military equipment purchases. There is one — there is no conflict diplomatic figure tasked at this moment to trying to find a dual-track way to end this war, which is ravaging Ukraine and ravaging Russia. And those who are serving are the poor, the provincial men — they’re men. And the elites, which is what this dangerous figure, Prigozhin, is trying to make hay out of, are doing pretty well, many of the elites.

So, this is a very difficult time internally, in addition to what’s happening this country, where the Russophobia is afflicting the mindset of cancel. You know, cancel Dostoevsky? Cancel Chekhov? I mean, I think this is madness. And President Kennedy’s words are those of a sober person, a president. I mean, if he gave that speech on the floor of the Capitol, he’d be run off, which is a measure of what we need to do to return to sanity and restraint and a diplomatic — you know, and war should be the very, very, very last resort, which is not the case.

AMY GOODMAN: Katrina vanden Heuvel, we thank you so much for being with us, publisher of The Nation magazine, columnist for The Washington Post. Her new piece for Responsible Statecraft, we’ll link to it, “What kind of peace do we seek? At 60, JFK’s speech never gets old.”


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.



DEMOCRACY NOW!
“Doing Journalism Is a Crime”: Guatemalan Publisher José Rubén Zamora Faces 40 Years Behind Bars

STORY
JUNE 13, 2023

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.
DONATE

GUEST
José Carlos Zamora
Guatemalan journalist based in Miami and the son of internationally renowned Guatemalan journalist s

Prominent Guatemalan journalist José Rubén Zamora faces 40 years in prison in his sentencing hearing Wednesday for what press freedom and human rights groups say are inflated charges of money laundering. Zamora is the founder and president of the investigative newspaper El Periódico and has long reported on Guatemalan government corruption. El Periódico was forced to shut down last month after months of intensifying harassment and persecution from President Alejandro Giammattei’s right-wing government. The government has held Zamora “as a hostage” for nearly a year as part of its wider crackdown on the press, says his son José Carlos Zamora, a journalist based in Miami who is advocating for his father’s release.

SPACE RACE 2.0
Ariane: Marking 50 years of European space conquest • FRANCE 24 English


Jun 13, 2023

Back in the 1960s, the Soviets and Americans were racing to the Moon. Europe did not want to be a bystander in the space race and embarked on the Ariane programme in 1973. We take a look back at how the Europeans launched their space programme. Today, the Ariane-6 rocket's inaugural flight is running three years behind schedule. The European Space Agency hopes it can take off by the end of 2023. FRANCE 24's Shirli Sitbon and Sylvain Rousseau report.


PEW RESEARCH
How people in 24 countries view same-sex marriage
A same-sex couple walks outside their home with their children in Bengaluru, India. (Manjunath Kiran/AFP via Getty Images)
A same-sex couple walks outside their home with their children in Bengaluru, India. (Manjunath Kiran/AFP via Getty Images)

Attitudes about same-sex marriage vary widely around the world, according to a new Pew Research Center survey fielded in 24 countries. Among the surveyed countries, support for legal same-sex marriage is highest in Sweden, where 92% of adults favor it, and lowest in Nigeria, where only 2% back it.

How we did this
A bar chart that shows views toward same-sex marriage across 24 countries.

In the United States, where the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationally in 2015, 63% of adults support it and 34% oppose it. But views are highly fractured along political and demographic lines.

For example, Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party are nearly twice as likely as Republicans and Republican leaners to support same-sex marriage rights (82% vs. 44%). Similarly, nearly three-quarters (73%) of Americans under the age of 40 say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally – 16 percentage points higher than the share of Americans 40 and older who agree (57%).

RelatedIn places where same-sex marriages are legal, how many married same-sex couples are there?

Below is a closer look at how attitudes about same-sex marriage differ around the world, based on the new survey. The analysis looks at how attitudes vary by geography, demographic factors, political ideology and religion, as well as how views have changed over time.

A map and bar chart that shows same-sex marriage attitudes and legality across 24 countries.

How attitudes about same-sex marriage vary geographically

Europe

People in Western Europe stand out as staunch supporters of same-sex marriage. At least eight-in-ten adults support it in Sweden (92%), the Netherlands (89%), Spain (87%), France (82%) and Germany (80%). In each of these countries, the practice is legal.

In Italy, where issues on LGBTQ+ rights are in the headlines, 74% of adults favor same-sex marriage rights, though it is not legal there.

Around three-quarters (73%) of adults in the United Kingdom also support same-sex marriage. The practice is legal in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, although those laws were approved at various times over the last decade.

At the other end of the spectrum in Europe, just 41% of adults in Poland and 31% in Hungary support same-sex marriage. In both countries, same-sex marriage is not legal, and LGBTQ+ rights are a political and social flashpoint.

Americas

In North America, around eight-in-ten Canadians (79%) support same-sex marriage, as do 63% in both the U.S. and Mexico. Same-sex marriage is legal in all three countries.

RelatedAbout six-in-ten Americans say legalization of same-sex marriage is good for society

In South America, 67% of Argentinians and 52% of Brazilians support the right of gay and lesbian people to marry. Both countries have also legalized the practice.

Asia-Pacific

Around three-quarters of adults in Australia and Japan favor legal same-sex marriage (75% and 74%, respectively). But while many Australians who favor same-sex marriage say they strongly support it (52%), support is weaker in Japan, where a 57% majority of adults somewhat favor legal same-sex marriage. Australia has legalized same-sex marriage, but Japan has not.

In India53% of adults say same-sex marriage should be legal, while 43% oppose it. The Indian Supreme Court is currently deciding a case on whether to legalize same-sex marriage.

In South Korea, same-sex marriage is not legal and the debate is making headlines. Among South Koreans, 40% favor legal same-sex marriage and 59% oppose it.

Indonesians are highly opposed to same-sex marriage legalization. Roughly nine-in-ten in Indonesia oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry, including 88% who say they strongly oppose it. Just 5% of Indonesians support same-sex marriage.

Africa and Middle East

South Africa remains the only country in Africa where same-sex marriage is legal, having codified it in 2006. Nevertheless, 58% of South Africans oppose the practice.

Nigerians and Kenyans are the least supportive of same-sex marriage rights among the African countries surveyed. In Nigeria, where homosexuality is illegal, only 2% adults say they support the right of gays and lesbians to marry. And in Kenya, just 9% favor it.

In the Middle East, Israelis are also opposed to making same-sex marriage legal, with 56% opposed. Religious affiliation and political leanings heavily shape views on the issue of same-sex marriage rights in Israel.

How attitudes about same-sex marriage vary by demographic factors

Age
A dot plot showing that younger adults are more likely than older adults to support same-sex marriage in many countries.

In 12 of the countries surveyed, adults under 40 are more likely than their older counterparts to say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. In the other countries surveyed, there are not significant differences by age in support of same-sex marriage.

The age gap is greatest in Poland, where about six-in-ten of those under 40 express support for same-sex marriage, compared with three-in-ten among those 40 and older.

Gender

In 14 of the surveyed countries, women are more likely than men to say they support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

A dot plot showing that women are often more likely than men to favor allowing same-sex marriage in their country.

For example, in Australia, 83% of women favor it, compared with 67% of men.

There are similar gender differences in Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Argentina, Greece and Germany.

Education and income

In 17 of the surveyed countries, people with more formal education are more likely than those with less education to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Similarly, in 13 of the countries, people with incomes over the national average are much more likely to support same-sex marriage than those with incomes below the country median.

How attitudes about same-sex marriage vary by political ideology

A dot plot that shows support for same-sex marriage tends to be much higher on the ideological left, especially in the U.S.

Views on same-sex marriage are related to political ideology in 16 of the 18 countries where the Center asked about respondents’ ideology this year. In these countries, those on the ideological left are significantly more likely than those on the right to favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally.

The ideological difference is greatest in the U.S., where liberals are 54 points more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage (90% vs. 36%). Still, in nine surveyed countries, majorities of those on both the right and left say they support same-sex marriage.

How attitudes about same-sex marriage vary by religion

Support for legal same-sex marriage tends to be lower in countries where more people say religion is somewhat or very important in their lives. Support is higher in countries where fewer people consider religion important.

A scatter plot showing that support for same-sex marriage is lower in more religious countries.

In Nigeria, 99% of adults say religion is at least somewhat important in their lives but only 2% favor legal same-sex marriage. In Sweden, by comparison, just 20% of adults consider religion important to them and 92% favor allowing gay and lesbian people to wed.

Similarly, people who are not affiliated with a religion are much more likely to say they support same-sex marriage. In Australia, for example, 89% of religiously unaffiliated adults say they favor same-sex marriage, compared with 64% of adults with a religious affiliation.

The survey shows some additional patterns by religion:

  • Religiously unaffiliated Americans (85%) – especially atheists (96%) – are the most likely to favor same-sex marriage legality. White, non-Hispanic evangelical Protestants are the least likely religious group to say they favor it (30%). Around two-thirds of American Catholics (65%) favor same-sex marriage, as do 70% of White non-evangelical Protestants.
  • In Brazil, Catholics (56%) are more likely than Protestants (32%) to support same-sex marriage.
  • In Israel, Jewish adults (41%) are more likely than Muslims (8%) to support same-sex marriage. Among Israeli Jews, 4% of those who are Haredi (“ultra-Orthodox”) or Dati (“religious”) support legal same-sex marriage, compared with 29% of Masorti (“traditional”) Jews. Around three-quarters of Hiloni (“secular”) Jews support this policy.
  • Christians and Muslims in Nigeria are equally likely to oppose same-sex marriage (97% and 98%, respectively).

How attitudes about same-sex marriage have changed over time

It is difficult to make direct comparisons between these new survey findings and past surveys on whether people favor or oppose same-sex marriage. Earlier Center surveys focused more on religion and its influence in society, rather than political attitudes and international affairs. And in some countries, the mode of the survey (e.g., face-to-face versus phone versus web) has changed over time.

However, a comparison with surveys conducted in Latin America in 2013-2014, in Europe in 2015-2017, and the long-term trend in the U.S. generally shows increased public support for the legalization of same-sex marriage over the last decade.

Note: Here are the questions used for the analysis, along with responses, and the survey methodology.

Jacob Poushter  is an associate director focusing on 
global attitudes at Pew Research Center.
Sneha Gubbala  is a research assistant focusing on 
global attitudes research at Pew Research Center.
Christine Huang  is a research analyst focusing on 
global attitudes at Pew Research Center.

In places where same-sex marriages are legal, how many married same-sex couples are there?

Couples wait to get married in a collective wedding held to celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month in the esplanade of the Civil Registry in Mexico City on June 24, 2022. (Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images)
Couples wait to get married in a collective wedding held to celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month in the esplanade of the Civil Registry in Mexico City on June 24, 2022. (Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images)

Same-sex marriage is now legal in more than 30 countries and territories around the world, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis. In 24 of these places where detailed statistics are available, same-sex marriages in recent years have ranged from less than 1% to 3.4% of all marriages.

How we did this
A map that shows in places where same-sex marriages are legal, they make up no more than 3.4% of all marriages.

In Spain, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, 3.4% of the 148,588 marriages registered in 2021 were same-sex – the highest share among the countries and territories for which data is available. (The latest year available is 2020, 2021 or 2022, depending on the jurisdiction.)

The lowest rate of same-sex marriage was in Ecuador, where the Constitutional Court legalized it in a 2019 ruling. In 2021, only 250 out of 56,921 marriages registered in the country, or 0.4%, were between same-sex couples.

Related: How people in 24 countries view same-sex marriage

The United Kingdom had the second-highest share of same-sex marriages among the countries with data available, at 3.3%. However, in the UK, data is reported for three subnational jurisdictions – England and Wales together, Scotland and Northern Ireland – rather than for the country as a whole.

In 2020, the most recent year figures are available for all three units, same-sex marriages accounted for 3.3% of all marriages in England and Wales, 3.5% in Scotland, and 4.2% in Northern Ireland – making the same-sex marriage share 3.3% for the entire UK. Scotland and Northern Ireland have since published marriage data for 2021, with same-sex marriage rates that year of 3.4% and 5.0%, respectively, but the Office for National Statistics for England and Wales has yet to do so.

A bar chart that shows in most places where same-sex marriages are legal, a majority of them are between two women

Twenty of the jurisdictions that had data on same-sex marriages distinguished marriages between women from those between men. In 16 of these places, a majority of same-sex marriages were between two women. The biggest disparity was in Taiwan, where 1,794 of the 2,493 same-sex marriages recorded in 2022, or 72.0%, were between two women. The highest share of marriages between men was in Costa Rica, where they comprised 370 of the 677 same-sex marriages (54.7%) recorded in 2022.

Directly comparable figures for the United States aren’t available because marriage registrations are kept at the state and local levels rather than nationally, and not all jurisdictions keep separate counts of same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. However, the Census Bureau estimates that as of 2021, 711,129 of the nation’s 61.3 million married-couple households, or 1.2%, involved same-sex married couples. As in many other countries, households with two married women were more prevalent than households with two married men in the U.S., accounting for 52.6% of all same-sex married-couple households.

Overall, Gallup estimates that as of 2022, 7.2% of American adults identify as “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or something other than straight or heterosexual.”

Drew DeSilver  is a senior writer at Pew Research Center.