Saturday, January 04, 2025

Why has the EU stripped Hungary of €1 billion? The latest confrontation explained

Viktor Orbàn just lost €1 billion in European funding. EPA/Stephanie LeCocq

THE CONVERSATION
Published: January 3, 2025 

The European Commission has stripped €1.04 billion in aid from Hungary in the latest phase of an ongoing political struggle with its errant member state.

The amount of money lost is a blow for Hungary, but the decision also has wider economic and geopolitical implications. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán has consistently flouted EU standards and democratic principles. The question now is whether he has run out of options.

The European Union mobilises and redistributes a vast amount of collective funding to its poorer countries and regions. Since the 1970s, a complex set of funding instruments has emerged under the banner of “cohesion policy”.

For the 2021-27 budgetary period, the EU has allocated €392 billion for cohesion policy, supplemented by €750 billion in grants and cheap loans from the Next Generation EU programme. These funds can be used for the development of infrastructure, environmental protection and support for the private sector (in particular for the green economy).

No other regional institution does anything like this. For poorer countries, these funds can amount to a significant proportion of GDP, and distributing such a large pot of money gives latent power to the European Commission.

The EU is also noteworthy as an institution in that it makes support for democratic values and the rule of law a prerequisite for membership to its club. It considers itself a bulwark of liberal values and constitutionalism: there is not supposed to be any room at the table for authoritarians.

However, the EU was slack in enforcing this rule with Orbán. After he came to power in 2010, the Hungarian prime minister began to institute various repressive and cronyist measures that boosted his personal power and that of his governing party (Fidesz).

Orbán was even accused of directly using EU funds for these purposes. He was protected for some time by membership of the powerful European People’s Party (EPP) in the European parliament and developed his own form of populist Euroscepticism, while raking in money from Brussels.

Eventually, he went too far and alienated his erstwhile allies (leaving the EPP group in 2021), as the commission began to take measures against him.

In 2020, the European Commission introduced the rule of law conditionality mechanism, which made it much easier to suspend or withdraw funds from member states if there are concerns about their commitments to democracy. This was used against Poland and Hungary in 2022. Just to give an idea of the stakes, the former had a total of €136 billion unblocked when its new government agreed to Brussels’ terms.

Hungary also had over €30 billion frozen over the same period. A game of cat and mouse continued, with Orbán threatening and occasionally using his national veto to frustrate European Union action in support of Ukraine. In December 2023, €10.2 billion of cohesion funds were unfrozen, in a rather tortuously worded decision, just before a crucial vote on Ukraine aid and accession. Another €20 billion plus was still withheld, however.

Orbán with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa. EPA

A commission report on the rule of law in Hungary in July 2024 noted that Orbán’s government had made some reforms (under pressure) but still noted systemic problems around issues such as judicial and media independence.

At that time, Hungary also held the EU presidency (which rotates every six months). Orbán was using this position to promote himself on the world stage, visiting Moscow and Beijing to sell a different “European” view and further annoying the EU leadership.
Next moves

It should be noted that the decision to strip Hungary of its €1.04 billion is in some sense a technical issue. Funds are automatically withdrawn two years after the suspension starts. But it is nevertheless highly significant as it implies that the status quo will not continue. Without change, Hungary could lose the rest of the funds permanently.

The implications of this are manifold. The EU had been accused of tolerating authoritarians in its midst, but this is clearly changing. However, it is changing at a time when more and more nativist populists are coming to power in the EU.

Can the commission maintain its rigorous approach or will pressure from governments soften it up? Donald Trump is a warm ally of Orbán, but it’s not certain that he would be willing or able to help Hungary in this form of dispute. If he does try, that would be a sign that there is some substance to the idea of a global nativist populist alliance.

Orbán himself has reacted angrily to this loss of funds and has threatened to use his national veto more aggressively – which he has threatened to do in the past. Hungary is in an economically fragile position so it is not clear how much of a confrontation he can afford.

Meanwhile, opposition to Orbán is growing within Hungary and the rising opposition leader, Peter Magyar, has declared that he can “unlock” the billions of EU funds still due. This could be a potent election slogan (the next ones are due in 2026). It would also amount to the EU entering Hungary’s domestic political sphere in a very tangible way.



Author
Patrick Holden
Leader of the Online Masters in International Relations : Security and Development, University of Plymouth
Meta’s powerful policy boss Nick Clegg is out as Zuckerberg prepares for Trump 2.0


Alexei Oreskovic
 Fri, January 3, 2025 


Nick Clegg, Meta’s powerful head of policy and government affairs, is leaving the internet company as it prepares for a major shift in Washington, D.C., as Trump returns to the White House.

Clegg, a former U.K. deputy prime minister who joined the company in 2018, will be replaced by Joel Kaplan, a veteran Republican party operative who served as former U.S. President George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff.

The news, first reported by Semafor, represents a major shakeup on Meta’s senior leadership team and reflects the company’s efforts to adapt to a radically changed political landscape. Meta cofounder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who previously had a strained relationship with Trump, has reportedly met with the President-elect in Florida, and Meta has recently pledged to donate $1 million to Trump’s inauguration.

“As a new year begins, I have come to the view that this is the right time for me to move on from my role as President, Global Affairs at Meta,” Clegg said in a string of posts on X on Thursday.

“My time at the company coincided with a significant resetting of the relationship between 'big tech' and the societal pressures manifested in new laws, institutions and norms affecting the sector. I hope I have played some role in seeking to bridge the very different worlds of tech and politics—worlds that will continue to interact in unpredictable ways across the globe,” Clegg wrote.

Clegg joined the company in 2018, when it was still called Facebook and was reelling from backlash over a string of user privacy mishaps and its role sharing misinformation during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Clegg helped launch the company’s oversight board, a panel of experts that makes decisions and advises Zuckerberg on Meta policies around content moderation, privacy, and other issues.

In 2022, Clegg was promoted to president of global affairs, a role that Zuckerberg said at the time elevated the former U.K. politician to the same level as his own, while freeing Zuckerberg to focus on products and strategy.

With Trump set to return to the White House in a few weeks, Meta is facing a very different political environment. The President-elect, who once threatened to have Zuckerberg jailed, and his entourage of right-wing supporters are far more concerned about issues of free speech and alleged censorship on social media platforms than they are with curbing misinformation.

Clegg said on Thursday that he would leave Meta in the "next few months," after handing over the reins to Kaplan, who he described as "quite clearly the right person for the right job at the right time."

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com


Nick Clegg exits Facebook as big tech bows to Trump

James Titcomb
Thu, January 2, 2025
THE DAILY BEAST 

As Silicon Valley’s big tech companies seek to align themselves with the incoming Republican administration, the former Liberal Democrat leader said it was “the right time” to leave.

Sir Nick, who spent more than six years at Meta on a reported salary of more than £10m, will be replaced by Joel Kaplan, a Meta lobbyist with deep links in the Republican party. In a nod to the incoming US administration, Sir Nick said Mr Kaplan was “clearly the right person for the right job at the right time”.

Mark Zuckerberg is promoting Joel Kaplan, a lobbyist with close ties to Republicans, to take over as Meta’s president of global affairs - 

The former Liberal Democrat leader joined Facebook in 2018 as president of global affairs, the most prominent position at Meta after Mr Zuckerberg. His arrival came as the company was barraged by claims it had helped Mr Trump win the White House by allowing fake news and exposing personal data.

Sir Nick, who once said he would march against Mr Trump, was closely involved in the decision to ban the then-president from Facebook and Instagram in 2021 over claims the Republican used the platforms to incite a mob attack on the Capitol in Washington.

Although Mr Trump was later reinstated on Meta’s platforms, he is believed to have remained furious at the slight and last year he threatened to imprison Mr Zuckerberg if he used his position to interfere in November’s election.

Sir Nick, meanwhile, has attacked Mr Trump’s close ally Elon Musk, saying he has become a “political puppet master” and turned X, formerly known as Twitter, into a “one-man hyper-partisan hobby horse”.

His exit from Meta comes as Silicon Valley leaders seek to court Mr Trump ahead of his inauguration.

Since the election victory, Mr Zuckerberg has travelled to Mar-a-Lago to dine with Mr Trump, donated to his inauguration fund, and expressed an interest in influencing the administration’s policies.

Mr Zuckerberg said he was “grateful” to Sir Nick for “everything you’ve done for Meta and the world these past seven years.”

He added: “I’m excited for Joel to step into this role next given his deep experience and insight leading our policy work for many years.”

Announcing his resignation, Sir Nick said: “As a new year begins, I have come to the view that this is the right time for me to move on from my role as president, global affairs at Meta. It truly has been an adventure of a lifetime!

“My time at the company coincided with a significant resetting of the relationship between ‘big tech’ and the societal pressures manifested in new laws, institutions and norms affecting the sector.

“I hope I have played some role in seeking to bridge the very different worlds of tech and politics – worlds that will continue to interact in unpredictable ways across the globe.

He added: “I am simply thrilled that my deputy, Joel Kaplan, will now become Meta’s chief global affairs officer… He is quite clearly the right person for the right job at the right time!”

Sir Nick said he would “move on to new adventures” after leaving Meta. He said he would spend the next few months “handing over the reins” to Mr Kaplan, who worked in the Bush administration as the White House deputy chief of staff.

Sir Nick moved to Silicon Valley but returned to London in 2022 after being promoted, and had been seen by insiders as likely to have less influence in a Republican-dominated Washington.


Meta Taps GOP Figure and Brett Kavanaugh’s Pal to Key Company Role


Zachary Folk
Thu, January 2, 2025 

Meta has tapped Joel Kaplan, a former deputy chief of staff for George W. Bush and a friend of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as the company’s global head of policy—promoting one of the social media company’s most prominent Republicans just as Silicon Valley leaders pursue closer ties with the incoming Trump administration.

In a public announcement on Facebook, Nick Clegg, Meta’s president for global affairs, announced he would step down in the upcoming year, and confirmed that Kaplan, the company’s vice president for global public policy, would take his place.

“Joel is quite clearly the right person for the right job at the right time - ideally placed to shape the company’s strategy as societal and political expectations around technology continue to evolve,” Clegg wrote.

Kaplan, a Harvard Law School graduate and marine veteran who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, was first brought on at the company in 2011 to work on policy in Washington, according to a 2022 profile in Wired.

But Kaplan found himself at the center of a controversy after he was spotted sitting behind Kavanaugh during one of his confirmation hearings, showing support for his fellow Bush administration alumnus as he faced allegations of sexual assault from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Joel Kaplan courted controversy when he was spotted sitting directly behind Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his contentious confirmation hearings. 

Kaplan’s prominent position behind his friend sparked outrage among hundreds of Facebook employees, prompting the company to host a town hall meeting to discuss the incident.

“I’ve talked to Joel about why I think it was a mistake for him to attend given his role in the company,” former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg said in an internal post to employees.

Kaplan later apologized in his own note circulated to employees, The New York Times reported in 2018. In other posts obtained by the paper, Kaplan said he was standing by his friend and took a personal day to attend the hearing.

“I have known Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh for 20 years,” Kaplan wrote. “They are my and my wife Laura’s closest friends in D.C. I was in their wedding; he was in ours. Our kids have grown up together.”

Despite the apologies, Kaplan and his wife still hosted a party for supporters after Kavanaugh was confirmed, Politico reported at the time.

The new appointment comes as Zuckerberg and other Silicon Valley leaders look to shore up support in the incoming Trump administration. The Meta founder made the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago in November, and reportedly donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund weeks later.

Clegg was Britain’s deputy prime minister from 2010 to 2015, when his Liberal Democrat Party formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. The coalition ended after the Liberal Democrats lost most of their support in the 2015 election, and Clegg lost his own seat in parliament in 2017.

In a post announcing his departure, Clegg said he was “simply thrilled” that Kaplan would be his successor.

Current and former Meta executives sounded off in the comments of Clegg’s post, praising his over-six-year tenure at the company and his chosen successor.

“Joel brings decades of experience both at Meta and in government to this job, as well as enormous talent, skill, vision and creativity,” wrote Sandberg, who has since left the company. “There is no one more capable of leading this team during this time of innovation and opportunity for Meta. Joel - congratulations and we all can’t wait to see what you do!”

“I am honored to follow in your footsteps and am grateful for your continued partnership as I ramp up,” Kaplan said in his own post praising his predecessor.

Meta taps its top Republican to oversee global affairs ahead of the Trump administration

William Gavin
Thu, January 2, 2025 
SEMAFOR

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms (META) has tapped Joel Kaplan to lead its global affairs team, putting the company’s most prominent Republican in a top job.

The move comes just weeks ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration later this month and as big tech companies prepare for a shift in federal policy. Several major CEOs, from Zuckerberg himself to Amazon’s (AMZN) Jeff Bezos and Google’s (GOOGL) Sundar Pichai, recently met with Trump to discuss his vision for his administration.

Kaplan, Meta’s current vice president of global policy, worked for Former President George W. Bush as the White House deputy chief of staff. Last month, he joined Vice President-elect J.D. Vance and Trump at the New York Stock Exchange, where Trump was being honored as Time magazine’s Person of the Year. In 2018, he attended the Senate confirmation hearing for his “friend” Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which sparked an internal backlash.

Semafor first reported the shakeup, which was confirmed on Facebook by Nick Clegg, Meta’s current president of global affairs. Clegg said he would continue representing the company throughout the first quarter of 2025.

“My time at the company coincided with a significant resetting of the relationship between ‘big tech’ and the societal pressures manifested in new laws, institutions and norms affecting the sector,” Clegg wrote. “I hope I have played some role in seeking to bridge the very different worlds of tech and politics – worlds that will continue to interact in unpredictable ways across the globe.”

Before joining Meta as vice president of global affairs in October 2018, Clegg was a major politico in the United Kingdom. He served as Prime Minister David Cameron’s deputy prime minister, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and a member of parliament.

During his tenure, Clegg represented Meta in both Washington D.C. and London, often speaking at events about the intersection of technology and democracy and Congressional hearings. He also helped guide Meta through the fallout from the scandal revolving around Cambridge Analytica, the British data firm that illegally used social media data to target Americans during the 2016 presidential election. Meta, then known as Facebook, paid a $5 billion fine to settle with the Federal Trade Commission.




Clegg spoke favorably of Kaplan, writing that he was “thrilled” with his appointment and calling him “quite clearly the right person for the right job at the right time.” Former Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin, who was nominated by Bush in April 2001, will become Meta’s vice president of global policy, Clegg wrote. Martin has been at Meta since 2015.

Nick Clegg leaves Meta ahead of Trump's return as US president

Vishala Sri-Pathma & Zoe Kleinman
Business reporter and Technology editor, BBC News

Former deputy prime minister Sir Nick Clegg is to step down from his current job as president of global affairs at social media giant Meta.

In a post on Meta's Facebook on Thursday, Sir Nick, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, said he was departing the company after nearly seven years.

He will be replaced by his current deputy and Republican Joel Kaplan, who previously served as deputy chief of staff in the White House during President George W Bush's administration, and is known for handling the company's relations with Republicans.

He added that he would spend "a few months handing over the reins" and representing Facebook at international gatherings before moving on to "new adventures".

Sir Nick's resignation comes just weeks before Donald Trump returns to the White House.

The president-elect has repeatedly accused Meta and other platforms of censorship and silencing conservative speech.

His relations with Mr Zuckerberg have been particularly strained, after Facebook and Instagram suspended the former president's accounts for two years in 2021, after they said he praised those engaged in violence at the Capitol on 6 January.

More recently, Trump threatened to imprison Mr Zuckerberg if he interfered in the 2024 election, and even called Facebook an "enemy of the people" in March.

However tensions appear to be thawing between the two, with the pair dining at Trump's Florida estate in Mar-a-Lago since the US election.

Mr Zuckerberg also congratulated him on his victory and donated $1m (£786,000) to an inauguration fund.


Sir Nick's departure is seen by some analysts as a nod to the changing of the guard in Washington.

He joined Facebook in 2018, after losing his seat as an MP in 2017. He was later promoted to president of global affairs, a prominent position at Meta.

In a statement announcing he would step down, Sir Nick said his successor Joel Kaplan is "quite clearly the right person for the right job at the right time".

Trump was photographed with Mr Kaplan at the New York Stock Exchange last month.

Social media industry analyst Jasmine Enberg said Mr Kaplan was "likely the right person for the job in this political moment".

"Meta, like other tech companies, has been rushing to curry favour with the incoming Trump administration," she told the BBC.

Sir Nick leaving Meta, and increased political polarisation on social platforms, suggests the company may shift how it moderates political speech, she added.

Different worlds

During his time at Meta, Sir Nick established himself not only as a spokesperson but also a bridge between governments, regulators and the tech firm.

As new regulation and legislation began to force social media companies to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms and the consequences of it, that role became crucial.

He oversaw the creation of the Oversight Board, an independent body set up to oversee Meta's content moderation decisions.

He said recently, however, that the firm's actions had resulted in some people being "unfairly penalised" on its platforms too often.

Sir Nick has also been open about his views on Trump's close ally, Elon Musk, describing him as a political puppet master, claiming he has turned X, formerly Twitter, into a "one-man hyper-partisan hobby horse".

The former Liberal Democrat leader moved to Silicon Valley initially but returned to London in 2022.

He said he was moving on to "new adventures" with "immense gratitude and pride" at what he had been part of.

"My time at the company coincided with a significant resetting of the relationship between 'big tech' and the societal pressures manifested in new laws, institutions and norms affecting the sector," he said.

"I hope I have played some role in seeking to bridge the very different worlds of tech and politics – worlds that will continue to interact in unpredictable ways across the globe."

Friday, January 03, 2025

Moldovans Facing Gas Shortages Are Chopping Wood To Get Through Winter


January 03, 2025 
By RFE/RL's Moldovan Service,
Eugenia Apostu and Will Tizard

Some Moldovans are scrambling to find ways to heat their homes days after gas supplies from Russia were abruptly stopped. As of January 1, Ukraine refused to transit Russian gas, leaving the breakaway Transdniester region and some nearby Moldovan villages cut off. RFE/RL spoke to locals who are now firing up wood stoves, burning biomass, and hoarding gas cylinders.

Algeria and Russia seek to mend ties after tensions over 'Wagner attacks'

At the heart of Algeria's concerns lies the presence of Russian paramilitary Wagner Group in Libya and Mali—which orchestrated attacks near its border.


Basma El Atti
Rabat
03 January, 2025
THE NEW ARAB

On the Ukraine front, Algiers voted at the UN to condemn Russia's
 invasion, angering Moscow. [Getty]

Algeria and Russia, long-time allies, are scrambling to patch up ties after months of tension over the Sahel, Libya, and military presence in North Africa.

Vyacheslav Volodin, Speaker of Russia's State Duma, is scheduled to visit Algiers in the coming weeks, marking his second trip to the North African nation in six months, reported local media.

The visit comes after Wagner Group airstrikes near Algeria's southern border with Mali in April, which prompted Algeria to ask for the UN intervention.

Last month, the Algeria-Russia Friendship Parliamentary Group met in Algiers to discuss strengthening relations. "Our interests in Sudan, Syria, and energy overlap, but we need clearer dialogue," said Abdelsalam Bachagha.

This diplomatic push follows months of tensions, fuelled by Russia's military footprint in North Africa.


At the heart of Algeria's concerns lies the Wagner Group. Russia's paramilitary forces have become entrenched in Mali after French troops were ousted in 2022.

Last February, Algeria's permanent representative to the UN, called for international accountability for the parties responsible for a deadly a drone attack that struck civilians in the Tinzaouatene region of Mali, just meters from the Mali-Algeria border.

It was reportedly orchestrated by Malian army and Wagner Group against Tuareg "terrorists."

The Tuareg are an ethnic group who have been fighting for independence since 2012.

Algeria has been vocal in opposing Moscow's attempts to brand Tuareg political movements as "terrorists" warning that further military action in Mali would only destabilise the region.

"We told our Russian friends that we will not accept the rebranding of Tuareg political movements as terrorist groups to justify further military action in northern Mali," Foreign Minister Ahmed Attaf told state media.

"Military solutions have always failed," added Attaf stating his country's expertise in the Sahel.

The North African state is also worried about the escalating situation in Libya, its eastern neighbour—another country where Wagner is reportedly active.

Moscow is backing Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar, whose forces have targeted Algerian border crossings.

The Wagner Group has had a foothold in Libya since 2018.


Miloud Ould Essedik, a political analyst, suggests the tensions go deeper. "In addition to supporting Tuareg, Algeria's role in supplying natural gas to Europe amid the Ukraine war has irked Moscow," he said.

Historical accords and discord between Algeria and Russia

Algeria and Russia's cooperation dates back to the Soviet era, when the USSR supported Algeria's independence movement and became a major arms supplier. In 2001, they signed a "Strategic Partnership Agreement," Russia's first of its kind in the region.

However, cooperation has not been without its challenges. Competition over gas exports to Europe has created friction, and Algeria's refusal to join a Russia-led gas cartel proves that the North African state wanted to maintain its own autonomy instead of committing to one camp.

The Algerian "neutrality" diplomacy has often clashed with Russia's.

In Libya, the two countries are on opposing sides: Russia backs Haftar, while Algeria supports the UN-backed government in Tripoli. On the Ukraine front, Algiers voted at the UN to condemn Russia's invasion, angering Moscow.

Despite this, Algiers has remained resolute in its support for Russia, resisting Western pressure to isolate Moscow.

Meanwhile, arms trade and defence collaboration continue to serve as the cornerstone of their bilateral relations.

The two countries are set to sign a proposed $12-$17 billion arms deal, including advanced fighters, submarines, and air defence systems, according to local media.

Despite these frictions, both sides seem determined to repair their relationship. Diplomatic visits have increased, with Russian officials—including Deputy Defence Minister Alexander Fomin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov—visiting Algiers last year. Algeria has reciprocated with high-level trips to Moscow.


The two nations have also created a formal mechanism for quarterly consultations involving officials from both sides on foreign policy, security, and defence.

CHINA

Migrant workers' rights, urban renewal among key issues discussed in State Council executive meeting



CGTN


 


With the help of Xiangyang Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, migrant workers get delayed wage payments in Xiangyang, Hubei Province, November 19, 2024. /CFP

Chinese Premier Li Qiang on Friday was briefed about efforts to ensure wage payments of migrant workers as he presided over a State Council executive meeting.

The meeting focused on the study and promotion of urban renewal work and also deliberated and approved a draft regulation on the protection of both ancient and notable trees.

Ensuring the wage payments of migrant workers is a significant issue concerning people's well-being, the meeting noted.

It is important to earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of migrant workers, the meeting stressed, while also highlighting the necessity of strengthening data connectivity among relevant departments, including human resources and social security, as well as finance.

Urban renewal is crucial for enhancing the appearance and living quality of cities and serves as an important lever for expanding domestic demand, the meeting determined, while also calling for efforts to build resilient and smart cities that are desirable to live in.

The renovation of old residential communities, blocks, factory areas and urban villages in cities should be accelerated, and renovation of urban infrastructure should be strengthened, the meeting resolved.

In addition, the meeting stressed the need to remediate urban ecosystems and preserve urban history and culture.

Efforts should be made to bolster the supply of resources such as funds and land, as well as attract more private capital to participate in urban renewal initiatives, the meeting stated.

The meeting also vowed support for innovative efforts in accordance with local 

Traditional Conflicts and Dynamic Coali­tions at the World Climate Conference

COP28: New Room for Manoeuvre in International Climate Politics


SWP Comment 2024/C 03, 05.02.2024, 8 Pages
doi:10.18449/2024C03

Research Areas

PDF | 205 KB
EPUB | 638 KB
MOBI | 931 KB

The outcome of the 28th UN Climate Change Conference shows that international co­operation remains possible despite today’s challenging geopolitical situation. Instead of the feared blockade, an agreement was reached for the first time – some three decades after the start of the COP process – to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Overall, the steps agreed in Dubai are a compromise that sends a political signal short of what is necessary from a scientific perspective. On the one hand, inter­national climate cooperation continues to be characterized by traditional conflicts between developing countries and industrialized nations (issues of global justice, financial commitments), with new trade tensions and what at times amounted to an obstructionist attitude among a handful of countries compounding the difficulties. On the other hand, dynamic North-South coalitions have formed in the negotiation tracks on “loss and damage” and the global energy transition. These must be further strengthened as the starting point for lasting alliances against fossil fuel interests. German climate foreign policy can make an important contribution by undertaking consistent diplomatic efforts to implement structural reforms of the international financial system and by offering attractive partnerships.
Turkey sentenced 58 journalists to prison, arrested 26 in 2024: report


ByTurkish Minute
January 3, 2025

Turkish authorities sentenced 58 journalists to a total of 135 years in prison, detained 112 and arrested 26 in 2024, according to a report released by an opposition lawmaker, the Stockholm Center for Freedom reported.

Zeynep Oduncu Kutevi, a member of the pro-Kurdish People’s Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), presented the findings in a report titled “2024 Press Freedom Report Card: The Anatomy of Silencing the Truth.” The report accuses President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party of intensifying efforts to stifle independent journalism and suppress dissent.

“These are not just numbers — they reflect lives disrupted, voices silenced and a society deprived of its right to know the truth,” Kutevi said during a press conference. She accused President Erdoğan of weaponizing the legal system to intimidate journalists and control public narratives.

The report also documented 60 investigations launched against journalists, 33 new court cases and the prosecution of 872 media workers. Financial penalties totaling 261,820 Turkish lira ($7,413) were imposed on journalists, as well as 240 documented incidents of threats, attacks or obstruction.

“Silencing journalists means silencing society,” Kutevi said. “It leaves the public uninformed and injustices unchallenged. The government’s message is clear — only its version of the truth matters.”

Calling for reforms to protect journalists and restore media independence, Kutevi pledged her party’s commitment to defending press freedom. She said democracy cannot survive without critical voices and transparency, adding that the struggle for press freedom is essential not just for journalists, but for the public’s right to information.

Turkey, which became the world’s biggest prison for journalists in 2018 during a state of emergency imposed after a coup attempt, was ranked 158th of 180 countries in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders.

How Will Mexico’s New President Deal with Trump, Migration, and Drug Cartels?

Laura Carlsen discusses how Claudia Sheinbaum will navigate a series of domestic challenges and a changing U.S.-Mexico relationship.


January 3, 2025
Source: FPIF


US – Mexico Border Fence by Tony Webster is licensed under CC BY 2.0 / Flickr

In June 2024, Mexicans elected a female president, Claudia Sheinbaum to replace Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Arguably, Mexico is Washington’s most significant foreign policy partner, playing a central role in two issues that Donald Trump manipulated to win the 2024 presidential election: migration and drugs.

Laura Carlsen, one of Mexico’s most distinguished progressive journalists and political analysts, takes stock of President Sheinbaum’s performance so far and how she plans to deal with Trump. Carlsen is based in Mexico City, where she directs the international relations think tank, Mira: Feminisms and Democracies. She also coordinates knowledge and global solidarity with Just Associates, JASS. Holding graduate degrees from Stanford, she is a dual Mexican-US citizen.

How is the Mexican government taking Trump’s threat of mass deportations?

The Mexican government estimates there are 4.8 million Mexicans in the United States without papers and 11.5 currently with some form of legal residence, so the demographic implications could be enormous. President Claudia Sheinbaum and her cabinet have taken a dual approach to Trump’s threat to immediately begin a campaign of mass deportation after taking office. On the one hand, the government—along with many analysts in the United States—has questioned how far Trump will actually go, pointing out that the U.S. economy would suffer, experiencing labor scarcity, loss of tax revenues, inflation, and deceleration if Trump carries out the threat. Mexico is preparing facts-based studies to discuss the real impact on the U.S. economy and society with Trump’s team and find other solutions.

That doesn’t mean that the Mexican government isn’t taking it seriously though. Several days ago, Sheinbaum warned Mexicans in the United States that they are facing “a new reality” as of January 20. On this side of the border, Mexico is actively preparing for the possibility of mass deportation. Although we don’t yet have all the details, the government is working on plans to receive returning Mexicans, including reducing paperwork and obstacles to reincorporation in schools and employment, and some sort of support. The Secretary of Foreign Relations Juan Ramon de la Fuente announced measures for Mexicans residing in the United States, including a “panic button” to alert the nearest consulate and relatives if apprehended for deportation, and know-your-rights campaigns. Consulates have already registered a spike in queries and widespread fear in immigrant communities. With Tom Homan as border czar—founder of the family separation policies that stripped children from their parents with many still not reunited after years of searching—concerns run deep. The government has also been talking to Central American countries to develop plans for safe return to other countries of origin. The threat to apply a 25 percent tariff on all Mexican exports to the US (80 percent of Mexico’s trade) has increased pressure to accept and accommodate deportees even from other countries.

In 2016 after Trump’s first election, we organized a “caravan against fear” along the border on the U.S. side to register reactions in immigrant communities. Families were literally afraid to leave their homes and mixed-status families faced the disintegration of the home. Daily routines fell apart and the stress was palpable. This time around threatens to be worse and no matter how fast deportation proceeds or how deep it goes, millions of lives—especially children’s—will be irreparably traumatized.

Do you think the results of this policy will depart significantly from that of Obama and Biden?

It is a fact that Biden continued Trump’s hardline immigration policies and by the end of his administration had surpassed the first Trump administration in deportations. A new report states there were 271,000 deportations in fiscal year 2024, more than Trump’s peak year of 2019 and only less than Obama in 2014. That the highest levels of deportation have occurred under Democrats reveals the paradox of Trump’s accusing Biden of “open borders.” This line, repeated over and over and often embellished with outright lies due to ignorance or indifference to the truth, seems to have swayed millions of voters to vote for Trump.

Biden did not significantly change Trump immigration policy, although he quickly reversed some Trump measures including child separation, safe third-country agreements and the Muslim ban and increased legal immigration and refugee resettlement. Since his administration continued detention policies, his actions had little or nothing to do with high migratory flows to the US during his administration. Corporate extractivism, the profound inequality and poverty caused by neoliberal policies in the Global South, violence, and displacement caused by climate change are among the primary causes of increased immigration to the US. They are structural causes inherent in the global system and as such will not reverse, although there may be temporary fluctuations.

Although there have been more apprehensions at the border, many are repeat attempts, and the numbers are neither unprecedented nor in any way threatening. The “backlash” against immigration evident in the 2024 campaign was almost completely a result of the fomentation of racist and nativist fears. It is interesting to note that districts with the highest Trump vote often correlated with very low immigration, meaning that these voters have little direct contact or impact from immigration in their daily lives and yet were convinced that immigrants pose a threat to the American “way of life.”

Since at least Bill Clinton, the Democrats made a strategic decision to abandon the defense of human mobility and human rights in migration and embrace the Republicans’ national security framework that presents immigration as a threat. Although both parties now employ similar anti-immigrant arguments and policies and in the last election tried to outdo each other in terms of restriction and repression, there is reason to believe that Trump will institute more hardline policies that will further endanger and disrupt the lives of immigrants. Homan has announced a return to family separation, and anti-immigrant mastermind Stephen Miller is expected to find more ways to cut off rights to asylum, family reunification, and legal residence.

How would you describe AMLO’s approach to the drug cartels? Was it successful or merely a confession that Mexico had lost the war on the cartels? Some say that unless it is able to control the cartels, the Mexican government’s other initiatives at reducing poverty and promoting development will have little positive impact. In other words, the cartels pose a real existential crisis to the future of the Mexican state.

Mexico has always been forced to follow U.S. policy in the war on drugs. Since Richard Nixon announced the war on drugs in the United States in 1971, the policy has been imposed on Mexico through trade sanctions, military strong-arming, and even temporary border closure. The Bush administration’s Merida Initiative, funded by Congress during the Obama administration, tied Mexico to the DEA strategy of drug seizures and arrests or killing of drug lords, known as the kingpin strategy. The Mexican president at the time, Felipe Calderon, agreed to an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement as part of his own war on drugs.

By 2018 it had become clear that the strategy was a disaster for Mexico. Homicide rates shot up, disappearances became a tragic reality for thousands of families, and cartels that had previously restricted activities to drug trafficking to the U.S. market, had been fragmented, causing more violent turf wars between cartels and a diversification into other criminal activities including extortion, human trafficking, and territorial control. AMLO campaigned with the promise to end the war on drugs and address root causes.

Some of the social programs for youth did address some of the root causes, but the kingpin strategy and U.S. control of Mexican security policy continued. The “hugs not bullets” strategy, continuously mocked by conservatives and the macho press, could have been a solid conceptual approach, but due in large part to U.S. pressure it was never really applied. The vicious cycles set in motion by the drug war’s militarized response to cartel crime continued and even deepened. Although the last years showed some reduction in the homicide rate, the AMLO administration registered the highest homicide rate on record, with more than 115,000 disappearances and high rates of injury and gender violence compounding the problem.

The binational effort to defeat cartels militarily in Mexico instead of addressing the economic roots of black-market smuggling and sale of prohibited substances—mostly found within the borders of the United States–led to massive bloodshed in Mexico. It also stimulated more economic gain for the U.S. arms industry and opened the country up to much more expansive U.S. presence in Mexican security. It reinforced social and patriarchal control by emphasizing macho militarist models of domination and militarizing regions where indigenous peoples, rural populations, and urban poor carry out defense of land and resources.

The cartels have historically been a violent and economically powerful corrupting force in the country, but they focused primarily on the lucrative business of trafficking drugs to the U.S. black market. Now they are entrenched in battles for territorial control between rival cartels and with state armed forces. This means that the violence has permeated civic life much more than before.

It can’t be conceived of as a criminal versus state battle because the lines are so blurred. State actors at all levels, including the armed forces, often act with and for the cartels. The war on drugs shifts allegiances and balances of power between cartels, but never advances in terms of common-sense objectives such as abating the flow of illegal drugs, reducing the power of cartels, or increasing rule of law, and it causes more, not less, violence. The last kingpin capture orchestrated by the U.S. government, of El Chapito, Joaquin Guzman López, and Ismael Zambada, is just the latest in a series of hits against specific cartels that trigger inter-cartel battles and end up favoring the first cartel’s rivals.

Can you describe the other key challenges that face the Scheinbaum government and how it plans to tackle them? Aside from the cartels and the undocumented migrants issue, I would imagine the list would include the transgenic corn issue, agrarian reform, climate change, corruption, and gender inequality.

That’s a big question. Her political platform of “100 steps toward Transformation” in reference to the continuation of what AMLO dubbed the Fourth Transformation of Mexico—after Independence, the Reform Period, and the Revolution—includes: A “moral economy” with fiscal control and pension reform; development with well-being and regional perspective and broad infrastructure plans; streamlined policy-making and enforcement; social rights and welfare and reducing inequality, health rights; reducing violence against women and assuring equality; Indigenous and Afromexicans; energy sovereignty, rural development; environment, water and natural resources; science and culture and democracy. Among these, some challenges are more acute than others. Mexico has to make the space to determine its own development and security policy, but continues to be under the U.S. thumb. The policies of immigration repression that Trump demands of Mexico is at heart a tool to keep the Global South under control as capitalism intensifies at an even more predatory and brutal stage. Mexico is under pressure to serve up key natural resources including oil, water, and labor. U.S. policies such as the drug war and Trump’s climate change denial run counter to the stated aims of the new government. Finding ways to stand up to pressure without provoking economic reprisals from a volatile and unpredictable U.S. president with an America First—or rather America Only—view on U.S. domination will be a constant challenge.

Specifically, several controversies are on the horizon. President Sheinbaum has reaffirmed that Mexico has the right to limit the import and prohibit the cultivation of U.S. genetically modified corn to protect native landraces, indigenous rights, health and food sovereignty. Mexico just lost in a NAFTA court on the question of import restrictions. A powerful civil society movement has been working for decades to defend Mexico’s right to make its own decisions on GM corn. Now they will be forced to abide by the decision while continuing to try to protect native corn and customs. There will be more legal and political run-ins on this and related issues, with powerful transnationals such as Bayer/Monsanto seeing Mexico’s bid for food sovereignty as a dangerous global precedent.

Sheinbaum also faces a major challenge in ending discrimination and reducing violence against women, and repairing the relationship with feminist and women’s rights organizations in the country. While declaring support for women’s equality, Sheinbaum inherits the conflicted relationship established by AMLO, who accused women’s groups that protested against violence as being pawns of the conservative opposition and tended to see women’s equality solely in terms of parity in formal representation. The femicide rate continued to be very high throughout his term and yet the government minimized the crisis of gender violence.

Now several feminist leaders form part of the government and Sheinbaum’s platform includes the goal of reducing femicide and preventing gender violence, although without many details on how. In the economic sphere, most of the emphasis is on continuing with existing social programs, which have reduced female poverty somewhat but have not addressed structural discrimination and inequality or patriarchal relations.

In this area, as in most areas, a huge obstacle is that the “Fourth Transformation” under AMLO largely froze out the movements responsible for demanding and making social gains and for electing MORENA. Without the active participation of women’s groups—and indigenous, campesino, urban, environmental, etc. organizations—top-down measures cannot be effective and lasting.

What foreign policy initiatives should we expect from the new administration? Will it provide progressive leadership for the rest of Latin America as well as the Global South? How will it wade into the transnational conflict that now pits Lula and the left and Milei and the right?

AMLO took a leading role in reinvigorating regional South-South ties explicitly with the aim of reducing U.S. hegemony in the region and taking advantage of newly elected left to center-left governments. Later, in his term however, this work declined as the focus shifted back to the United States. Sheinbaum has specifically promised to ”recuperate CELAC” (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) and strengthen regional ties, work with CELAC on an initiative to provide needed medicines, and work together on a new model for immigration that kind of keeps getting launched and never quite takes off. The relationship with the United States is also listed as a priority. Controlling illegal gun smuggling from the United States to Mexico is a critical issue for Mexico and will continue to be. The new government emphasizes multilateralism and in print anyway wants to strengthen Mexico’s role. This could be positive, but actual efforts have been sporadic and it’s not clear how much emphasis and resources will be devoted to it. Nor is it clear to what degree the new Mexican government, keen on preserving U.S. investment as key to the neoliberal model still very much in place, will buck U.S. hegemony.

How would you compare President Scheinbaum to the other dominant female leader in Latin America, Cristina Fernandez Kirchner of Argentina, in terms of their ability to navigate a culture of male political leadership?

Sheinbaum’s response to Trump’s vow to enact 25 percent tariffs on Mexican exports “on Day One” if Mexico did not do enough to stop immigration and control cartels was firm. She underlined all that Mexico was already doing but also said the nation would develop its own policies and the United States should do the same. This is a departure from the chummy and often subordinate relationship with Trump that AMLO’s foreign secretary, Marcelo Ebrard, and Lopez Obrador projected.

Trump is a public misogynist and has little respect for women, even those who are world leaders (as shown in his treatment of Angela Merkel). Sheinbaum seems to be taking a practical approach in the relationship with Trump that takes into account the need to sustain the bilateral relationship but draws the line at sovereignty. Her best bet is to maintain as much distance as possible.

Globally, so far she looks solid as a leader. She has strong experience as former mayor of Mexico City, and while she is unlikely to be a feminist leader on the world stage, she seems to know how to hold her own. Some other leaders, notably Dilma Rousseff, have underestimated the power of patriarchy, old-boys networks, and misogynist memes with tragic results. The male vote, organized in online clubs and chats with explicitly anti-women’s rights positions that draw on insecurities and a particularly virulent form of modern-day misogyny, elected Donald Trump and Javier Milei. Now they feel vindicated and emboldened globally by these wins.

The irony is that the United States—self-proclaimed as beacon for democracy and progress—proved itself unready to accept a woman in the highest position of power while Mexico—constantly derided as macho– elected its first woman president in a landslide. Now Sheinbaum will have to prove her leadership on the world stage in an increasingly hostile environment for women leaders.




Laura Carlsen is director of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy and a member of the Mesoamerican Women Human Rights Defenders’ Initiative. Before joining the Americas Program, Carlsen worked in Equipo Pueblo, was a correspondent for Latin Trade magazine, editor of Business Mexico, and a freelance writer. She has been a gender and communications consultant with Just Associates (JASS) and the Nobel Women’s Initiative, and policy consultant and writer for the International Organization for Migrations.
Mexico Reaffirms Anti-Drug Cooperation with U.S., Asserting Sovereignty


By RT Staff Reporters
January 3, 2025
THE RIO TIMES

President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico restated her commitment to work with the United States in combating drug trafficking. She spoke at her first press conference of 2025, addressing recent statements by US President-elect Donald Trump.

Sheinbaum emphasized Mexico’s willingness to collaborate while maintaining its independence. She declared that Mexico would not accept any interference or subordination from the US. The president stressed that Mexicans would handle their own affairs.

The Mexican leader clarified that cooperation with the US stems from humanitarian concerns. She expressed readiness to assist in addressing the health crisis caused by drug-related deaths. However, Sheinbaum drew a clear line between cooperation and submission

.
Mexico Reaffirms Anti-Drug Cooperation with U.S., Asserting Sovereignty. (Photo Internet reproduction)

Sheinbaum challenged a recent New York Times article about fentanyl production in Sinaloa, Mexico. She questioned the scientific credibility of the report’s claims. The president pointed out inconsistencies in the portrayed manufacturing process.

The Mexican leader raised doubts about the lack of focus on fentanyl production within the US. She questioned the whereabouts of US drug cartels distributing fentanyl in American cities. Sheinbaum also wondered about the destination of profits from fentanyl sales in the US.

Sheinbaum’s statements reflect a balanced approach to US-Mexico relations on drug trafficking. She aims to maintain cooperation while asserting Mexico’s sovereignty. This stance aligns with her government’s commitment to addressing the drug issue independently.
Economist says mass deportations will cost Mexico tens of billions of dollars, a blow to its economy


by: Salvador Rivera
Posted: Jan 2, 2025 
BorderReport.com 

SAN DIEGO (Border Report) — Mass deportations proposed by President-elect Donald Trump will be a huge blow to Mexico’s economy, according to Ismael Plascencia López, specialist with the Northwest Mexico Federation of Economists.

“They’re talking about deporting 11 to 13 million undocumented migrants now in the United States, it seems like an impossible task,” said Plascencia López. “But, if only one to two million people get deported, it would still be a huge strike on the Mexican economy.”

He predicts Mexico will have to invest millions of dollars to care, feed, house and transport deported migrants, not to mention those from other nations.

“It’s going to be a blow just in terms of the number of people sent here, but what about all those countries that refuse to take in their own people, they will likely end up in Mexico, you have to care for them as well,” he said.

Plascencia López predicts the biggest loses will be due to the lack of money being sent home by migrants working north of the border, something Mexico’s economy is heavily dependent upon.

According to Banxico, Mexico’s National Bank, $63.3 billion dollars were sent to Mexico in 2023 by migrants in the U.S., and from January through October of this year, the figure was almost $55 billion.

“This is the result of a worldwide campaign to oust migrants from many countries, something promoted by President-Elect Donald Trump.”

“There are always extremes, some say it’s good Donald Trump won, there were some who opposed his initiatives before, but now with him having control of Congress and the Senate, there won’t be anyone to stop him, this will hurt Mexico.”