NYT: Israeli senior generals want Gaza ceasefire

[03/July/2024]

NEW YORK July 03. 2024 (Saba) -Israel's top generals want to begin a cease-fire in Gaza even if it keeps Hamas in power for the time being, The New York Times (NYT) said late on Tuesday, "widening a rift between the military and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has opposed a truce that would allow Hamas to survive the war.

The generals think that a truce would be the best way of freeing the roughly 120 Israelis still held, both dead and alive, in Gaza, according to six current and former security officials interviewed by the paper.

Underequipped for further fighting after Israel's longest war in decades, the generals also think their forces need time to recuperate in case a land war breaks out against Hezbollah.

A truce with Hamas could also make it easier to reach a deal with Hezbollah, according to the officials, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security matters.
Hezbollah has said it will continue to strike northern Israel until Israel stops fighting in the Gaza Strip.

"The military is in full support of a hostage deal and a cease-fire," said Eyal Hulata, who served as Israel's national security adviser until early last year, and who speaks regularly with senior military officials.

"They believe that they can always go back and engage Hamas militarily in the future," Mr. Hulata said. "They understand that a pause in Gaza makes de-escalation more likely in Lebanon. And they have less munitions, less spare parts, less energy than they did before — so they also think a pause in Gaza gives us more time to prepare in case a bigger war does break out with Hezbollah."

Fewer reservists are reporting for duty, according to four military officials. And officers are increasingly distrustful of their commanders, amid a crisis of confidence in the military leadership propelled in part by its failure to prevent the Hamas-led attack in October, according to five officers.

At least some tanks in Gaza are not loaded with the full capacity of the shells that they usually carry, as the military tries to conserve its stocks in case a bigger war with Hezbollah does break out, according to two officers. Five officials and officers confirmed that the army was running low on shells. The army also lacks spare parts for its tanks, military bulldozers and armored vehicles, according to several of those officials.


K.N

 

Navigating The Future Of Supply Chains: Government's Role In Promoting Resilience

Thursday, 4 July 2024
Press Release: APEC

Governments play an indispensable role in facilitating the resilience of firms and supply chains.

During the peak of disruptions due to the COVID-19 epidemic, consumers struggled to fulfil their basic daily needs such as eggs and vegetables. Manufacturers also faced difficulties in securing materials for production. Scarcity of chips or semiconductors, the fourth most-traded product globally, disrupted supply chains in various sectors, including automotive, smartphones and computers—demonstrating the far-reaching consequences of disruptions in just one component. A car may require 1,400-1,500 semiconductor chips, whereas a smartphone may utilize eight different high-performing semiconductors.

The logistics and transportation sectors also experienced serious bottlenecks in fulfilling deliveries to their customers. Lockdown and quarantine measures created a shortage of truck drivers and seafarers, further exacerbating pressures and chokepoints on connecting suppliers and traders across the globe.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, highlighting their critical role in our daily lives. While supply chains are ubiquitous, few people fully understand how they actually work. We only become acutely aware of supply chains when they aren't working, feeling the direct impact of disruptions on goods availability and inflation. Otherwise, the operations of supply chains often remain unnoticed in the background.

What are supply chains?

In its simplest form, a supply chain involves just two parties: the buyer and the seller. The seller ensures that goods are successfully delivered to customers, which necessitates a transportation and logistics function to guarantee connectivity and successful delivery.

A broader concept of supply chain incorporates the production process of a product, such as cars or smartphones. This involves a complex network of suppliers (for raw materials, parts and components) collaborating to manufacture and produce commercial goods.

In summary, a supply chain is a dynamic and complex network of organizations, people, activities, information, and resources involved in creating and distributing a product or service.

In search of a resilient supply chain

The COVID-19 disruptions have raised questions regarding supply chain resilience. Critics argue that business supply chains need a complete overhaul to become more resilient and avoid future disruptions from similar events or other 'black swan' risks.

A recent APEC study suggests there's a compelling reason to improve supply chains to better handle risks and global disruptive events to avoid devastating impacts not only on customers but also on businesses, trade and the global economy. Disruptions not only cause supply chain failures in fulfilling basic needs but also have broader economic consequences, such as higher inflation and lower economic growth.

On the other hand, it's important to acknowledge differing perspectives on supply chain performance during the pandemic. Some argue that supply chains functioned relatively well, pointing to the quick recovery in global value chain participation, from 43 percent during the pandemic's peak in 2020 to 48-49 percent in 2022, as measured by the share of intermediate (or value-added) trade in gross export. Top trading hubs like Singapore, China and the US are experiencing a significant recovery and improvement in global value chain participation. The relatively quick recovery in global value chain participation signifies a significant degree of resiliency within the current supply chain and production network, showing its ability to rebound.

While the pandemic highlighted vulnerabilities, the recovery in participation suggests a level of adaptability within the supply chain network. The supply chain disruptions during the pandemic highlight necessary adaptations as supply chains adjust to a new normal. The global disruption occurred because of the 'network' characteristics of supply chains, with their hub-and-spoke structure. While a long, global network of supply chains allows disruption to spread wide and quickly, the same network also allows for swift regrouping and recovery once chokepoints are resolved, and the system adapts.

Of course, ongoing efforts are needed to strengthen resilience and address lingering issues. Several strategies have been suggested to improve the structure and operation of global supply chains, including de-risking the supply chain, re-shoring and plus-one sourcing.

It is clear that supply chains must become more aware of new risks and seek innovative ways to manage them utilizing available technologies. There's no one-size-fits-all solution for supply chain design. Essentially, companies must carefully consider the possible trade-off between achieving low operating costs and delivering a superior customer experience that enhances competitiveness.

Future supply chains could achieve stronger resilience by using available innovative digital technologies such as RFID, blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to improve end-to-end supply chain visibility in an online and real-time manner. A higher degree of supply chain visibility will enable mutual collaboration and trust among stakeholders, leading to rapid adoption of innovative and well-rounded solutions.

Government's role in building resilience

While the private sector has been grappling with issues of resilience on a daily basis, and understandably holds valuable experience in managing and mitigating risks (motivated by profit and survival), governments play an indispensable role in facilitating the resilience of firms and supply chains. Their roles as regulators and providers of essential infrastructures are critical.

In principle, governments should maintain their public role by investing in trade facilitation and logistics infrastructure to address supply bottlenecks. For example, modernizing and digitalizing customs and port processes enables faster trade flow even during sudden regulatory changes, like those during the pandemic.

Additionally, governments should focus their efforts on preventing supply chain disruptions for risky and essential products. In such cases, governments can play a more direct role, intervening to ensure continuity of supply when a failure would have critical or severe consequences for the public interest.

Governments should also promote investment in technological innovation. Greater digitalization of supply chains will empower firms to strike a better balance between efficiency and resilience. Technologies like cloud-based solutions, AI and blockchain offer firms the ability to monitor their suppliers in real-time, gathering more detailed data and insights to prevent and adapt when disruptions occur. Such innovation will create value for firms in the pursuit of resilience.

To foster trust and confidence in digitalizing the supply chain, governments must act as frontrunners. This includes strategically investing in the digitalization of their own systems, particularly customs processes. Customs operations can benefit from using artificial intelligence for container scanning, implementing container track-and-trace services, and leveraging blockchain to consolidate data from multiple parties. By digitizing these processes, governments can encourage wider adoption and demonstrate the efficiency and security of digital solutions.

Finally, governments should strengthen policy coordination and regional cooperation when adopting economic resiliency policies. Policies that aim to increase economic resilience by re-shoring production, promoting self-sufficiency, and unwinding trade integration can yield the opposite effect. This is because risk reduction measures and resilience policies in one economy may create negative spillovers in others

 

Abortion-rights advocates in Arizona submit needed signatures to put the issue on November ballot

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona abortion-rights supporters on Wednesday turned in more than double the signatures needed to put the issue on November’s ballot in the key swing state.

Walter Berry And Anita Snow, The Associated Press

FILE - Volunteer signature gatherers Judy Robbins, left, and Lara Cerri, center, collect Grace Harders' signature on a petition to enshrine the right to abortion in Arizona's consitution, April 10, 2024, in Phoenix. Abortion rights advocates are set to deliver about 800,000 petition signatures Wednesday, July 3, 2024, in hopes of getting abortion rights on the November general election ballot. (AP Photo/Anita Snow, File)

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona abortion-rights supporters on Wednesday turned in more than double the signatures needed to put the issue on November’s ballot in the key swing state.

Organizers say they submitted far above the 383,923 required from registered voters. The measure would add an amendment to the state constitution providing a fundamental right to an abortion if voters approve it.

County election officials have until Aug. 22 to verify whether enough of the petition signatures are valid and provide results to the Arizona secretary of state’s office.

Activists in two other states — Nebraska and Arkansas — also are planning to submit signatures this week for ballot measures on abortion.

Activists in two other states — Nebraska and Arkansas — also are planning to submit signatures this week for ballot measures about abortion. If successful, those states and Arizona will join five others where the issue is set to go before voters this year: Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nevada and South Dakota.

The issue is a key part of Democratic campaigns in this year's elections. Opponents of the proposed amendment say it goes too far and could lead to unlimited and unregulated abortions in Arizona. Supporters say a change in the state’s constitution is necessary to ensure that abortion rights cannot be easily erased by a high court decision or legislative vote.

The proposed constitutional amendment would allow abortions in Arizona until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks, with exceptions to save the parent’s life or to protect her physical or mental health. It would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure.

Arizona currently has a 15-week abortion ban in place.

Officials with Arizona for Abortion Access, a coalition that includes the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and Planned Parenthood of Arizona, will turn in hundreds of boxes of signed petitions to the Arizona secretary of state's office Wednesday morning.

Arizona for Abortion Access spokesperson Dawn Penich said it was the most signatures ever submitted for a citizens initiative in state history.

“That was our goal from the get-go,” Penich said. “We started collecting signatures in September and October 2023 and saw how passionate people are about this issue.”

Arizona's current abortion ban was signed into law in 2022 and includes exceptions in cases of medical emergencies and has restrictions on medication abortion. It also requires an ultrasound before an abortion is done, as well as parental consent for minors.

Two months ago, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a 1864 abortion ban that permitted abortions only to save the mother's life and provided no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest, but the Republican-controlled Legislature voted for a repeal of the Civil War-era ban, and Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs quickly signed. The 19th century law had been blocked in Arizona since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion nationwide.

In Nebraska, organizers of a petition to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution have expressed confidence that they’ve gathered enough signatures to get it on the November ballot.

Allie Berry, campaign manager for Protect Our Rights, and organizers of a competing petition effort to codify Nebraska’s 12-week abortion ban in the state constitution would not say how many signatures they had gathered ahead of Wednesday’s deadline.

Both efforts, as well as a third that would ban abortion at all stages by deeming embryos as people, must turn in around 123,000 valid signatures — or 10% of registered voters in the state — to qualify for the ballot.

The total abortion ban effort in Nebraska started eight weeks ago and is unlikely to gather the signatures it needs. The 12-week ban proposal — which kicked off in March thanks to a $500,000 donation from Nebraska Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts — has made a furious 11th-hour push to gather signatures but has telegraphed that it might not meet the threshold.

Supporters of an Arkansas proposal to scale back the state’s abortion ban face a Friday deadline to submit petitions to qualify for the November ballot.

The group behind the measure, Arkansans for Limited Government, said on Facebook and Instagram on Tuesday it still needed 8,200 signatures. The group must submit at least 90,704 valid signatures from registered voters to qualify.

The proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the state from banning abortion within the first 18 weeks of pregnancy. The proposal includes exemptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies and to protect the mother's life. It would also exempt abortions performed to protect the mother from a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury.

Arkansas banned nearly all abortions under a law that took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Arkansas’ ban currently exempts abortions only to protect the mother’s life in a medical emergency.

___

Associated Press reporters Margery A. Beck in Omaha, Nebraska, and Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas, contributed to this report.

Walter Berry And Anita Snow, The Associated Press

US has ‘undeniable complicity’ in Gaza war killings, say former US officials

In a joint statement, the 12 former government officials said the administration was violating U.S. laws through its support for Israel and finding loopholes to continue shipping weapons to its ally. — Reuters pic

Wednesday, 03 Jul 2024 

WASHINGTON, July 3 — A dozen former U.S. government officials who quit over U.S. support for Israel's war in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday accused President Joe Biden's administration of "undeniable complicity" in the killing of Palestinians in the enclave.In a joint statement, the 12 former government officials said the administration was violating U.S. laws through its support for Israel and finding loopholes to continue shipping weapons to its ally.Both the White House and the State Department had no immediate comment on the statement.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANTThere has been mounting international criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza and of U.S. military and diplomatic support for its ally in a war that has so far killed nearly 38,000 people and created a humanitarian crisis.The resignations of the 12 U.S. officials reflects some dissent within the government over its support for Israel. Washington has pushed for the protection of civilians in Gaza and has called on Israel to improve aid access.Among the people who signed the joint statement were former members of the State Department, Education Department, Interior Department, White House and the military

.KEY QUOTES"America's diplomatic cover for, and continuous flow of arms to, Israel has ensured our undeniable complicity in the killings and forced starvation of a besieged Palestinian population in Gaza," the former officials said in the statement.They urged the U.S. government to use its "necessary and available leverage" to bring the war to an end and to ensure the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza and Palestinian prisoners in Israel. They also demanded that the U.S. government support Palestinian self-determination and fund an "immediate expansion of humanitarian assistance" in Gaza.

CONTEXTNearly 38,000 people have been killed during the war in Gaza, the local health ministry says, with many more feared buried in rubble as nearly the entire enclave has been flattened and most of its 2.3 million population displaced. There is also widespread hunger in Gaza. The war has led to genocide allegations that Israel denies.Israel's assault on Gaza began after Palestinian Islamist group Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing 1,200 people and abducting 250 hostages to the Hamas-governed enclave, according to Israeli tallies. 

— Reuters

UN humanitarians concerned over Israeli 

 order to evacuate one-third of Gaza


Xinhua, July 3, 2024

UN humanitarians on Tuesday expressed deep concern over the impact of Israel's order for tens of thousands of Gazans to evacuate 117 square kilometers in Khan Younis and Rafah governorates.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that over the last nine months, many of the Gazans affected by the latest evacuation order have repeatedly been displaced. Monday's order, covering about one-third of the Gaza Strip, is the most significant since the October order to evacuate northern Gaza.

OCHA said an evacuation of such a massive scale only heightens civilians' suffering and drives humanitarian needs even higher.

"People are left with the impossible choice of having to relocate, some most likely for the second or third time, to areas that have barely any spaces or services, or staying in areas where they know heavy fighting will take place," the humanitarians said.

Initial estimates by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, known as UNRWA, indicate that nearly 250,000 people may have resided in the areas subject to evacuation at the time of the order. The new evacuation order affects more than 90 schools, many of which host displaced people, as well as four medical points and the European Gaza Hospital area.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said that on Monday, 70 patients and medical staff reportedly self-evacuated, and more patients evacuated on Tuesday. WHO's representative for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Rik Peeperkorn, said only three patients remained at the European Gaza hospital and three at the International Committee of the Red Cross field hospital.

Peeperkorn reported that the WHO supported the transfer of valuable medical equipment and supplies out of the hospital, one of the few remaining critical referral hospitals in the south of Gaza, OCHA said. However, on Tuesday, Israeli authorities said the order does not apply to patients or staff at the hospital.

The humanitarian office reiterated that all parties must always respect international humanitarian law. "This means that civilians must be protected, and their essential needs -- including food, shelter, water and health -- must be met, wherever they are in Gaza."

Israel to approve 6,000+ new Zionist settlements in West Bank — watchdog

Israeli authorities are scheduled to approve or advance construction of thousands of new illegal settlement homes in occupied West Bank during meetings on Wednesday and Thursday, says Peace Now, an anti-settlement watchdog.



AP
July 3, 2024

Peace Now says 2023 was a record year for the promotion of building plans, with 12,349 units promoted in illegal settlements. / Photo: AP Archive

An anti-settlement watchdog group has said Israeli authorities are scheduled to approve or advance the construction of over 6,000 new illegal settlement homes in the occupied West Bank in the coming days.

Peace Now said on Tuesday the Higher Planning Committee, the Israeli body responsible for illegal settlement planning, is set to approve the construction at meetings on Wednesday and Thursday.

A spokesperson for COGAT, the Israeli body that oversees the committee, declined to comment.

According to Peace Now, the illegal settlements include over 1,000 units in the Gvaot settlement, which has about 60 units, and another one in the Yakir settlement.

Some 3,623 units are to be approved for depositing and 2,393 are to be validated, Peace Now said.

The watchdog noted that 2023 was a record year for the promotion of building plans, with 12,349 units promoted in illegal settlements.



Dismantling political solutions

Peace Now, which describes itself as the longest-standing public pressure movement for a two-state solution and ending the occupation, denounced the plan, saying such actions "diminish the hope for a better future."

"It is clear that the primary goal of the current government, from its decisions to its actions, is the dismantling of any possibility for a political solution between Israelis and Palestinians," Peace Now said in a statement.

The watchdog warned of disaster for Israel and the region if the construction is carried out amidst the war on besieged Gaza.

If the vote goes through, it could trigger new tensions with the United States at a time when relations between the two allies have been strained by the ongoing Israeli brutal carnage in besieged Gaza.

The United States and most of the international community consider Zionist settlements to be illegal or obstacles to peace, and past settlement announcements have drawn angry condemnations from the US.

Israel's extremist regime is dominated by occupied West Bank illegal settlers and their allies.

Over 500,000 Israeli Zionists live in illegal settlements in the West Bank, in addition to illegal 200,000 settlers in occupied East Jerusalem.

Expansion of illegal Zionist settlements was one of the reasons cited by Hamas resistance group behind its October 7 blitz on Israel as well as desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque, 16-year blockade of Gaza, Israeli raids inside occupied West Bank cities over the past year, and increasing attacks by settlers on innocent Palestinians.


SOURCE: TRTWORLD AND AGENCIES

SEAMLESS IMPERIALISM


Relearning lessons from the past: NATO and economic deterrence

There’s a growing need for the West to seamlessly integrate military deterrence with economic warfare once more.

NATO is a defensive alliance “committed to safeguarding the freedom and security of all Allies, against all threats, from all directions.” | Tobias Schwarz/Getty Images

OPINION
JULY 3, 2024
BY TOM KEATINGE
Tom Keatinge is the director of the Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI.

POLITICO UK

In her Mansion House speech in April 2022, then U.K. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss proposed “the G7 should act as an economic NATO, collectively defending our prosperity” and prepared to respond in unison, using its economic leverage if a partner faced economic threats from an aggressive regime.

She continued promoting this idea through her stunningly brief period as prime minister and beyond — and was widely derided for it. Isn’t that what the U.N. Security Council does? Since most NATO members are also a part of the EU, doesn’t such an alliance already exist? Isn’t the G7 another mechanism for this kind of coordination? Plus, a perfectly good alliance on sanctions against Russia has been formed without the need for NATO’s intervention anyway.

But all that is far from perfect.

Truth is the U.N. Security Council is broken. And with its permanent members polarized and likely to continue wielding their vetoes on contentious matters, consensus — and thus internationally binding resolutions — are often a distant possibility. Moreover, while it’s true that an alliance against Russia has been formed, it was only formed as tanks rolled across Ukraine’s border — a proper alliance would have been fully prepared and communicating credible deterrence long before then. And yes, most EU members are also in NATO, but even a charitable assessment of the bloc’s performance on Russia sanctions wouldn’t suggest it’s been particularly agile, forceful or prompt.

Crucially, at the heart of all these alternatives lie diplomacy and diplomats — not defense. And at a time of heightened international insecurity and growing global threat of conflict, we should indeed be considering whether keeping the tools of economic deterrence outside the orbit of those we trust to guard our national and collective security is wise — or whether a more clearly integrated economic and military deterrence strategy is much more appropriate for our times.

For one, NATO is a defensive alliance “committed to safeguarding the freedom and security of all Allies, against all threats, from all directions.” Deterrence is a core element of its overall strategy, and it isn’t much of a stretch to envision economics within this purview.

For one, NATO is a defensive alliance “committed to safeguarding the freedom and security of all Allies, against all threats, from all directions.” | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Furthermore, deterrence by denial, “persuading an adversary not to attack by convincing it that an attack will not achieve its intended objectives,” is central to its mission — something political leaders and policymakers singularly failed to achieve with their threat of sanctions against Russia in the months leading up to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion.

Plus, it isn’t merely in the deterrence phase that an organization like NATO has a role to play. When conflict occurs, targeting an adversary’s economic resources is important. I recall a senior U.S. Treasury official steeped in the experience of combating terrorist financing noting that in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, the best advice he could give his Pentagon counterparts was to drop more bombs on the oil infrastructure that helped sustain their finances.

At this point, it’s also worth recalling some history: The Coordination Committee for Multilateral Export Controls — or CoCom — was set up in 1949 by NATO members as a response to the growing threat from the Soviet Union. And its goal was to control the availability of military-grade technology to Warsaw Pact countries.

Of course, much has changed since the Cold War and the dissolution of CoCom, but with the reemergence of global insecurity, Western allies would do well to revisit that history and assess the extent to which the post-Cold War approach to economic warfare remains fit for today’s geopolitical and international security purposes.

Over the past 20 years, the use of sanctions has — for most Western allies — been a messaging tool used to support foreign policy objectives. Thus, responsibility for their use has resided in ministries of foreign affairs. Only with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine have allies sought to use sanctions as, first, a tool of deterrence (which failed) and then a countermeasure to influence the course of the war and reduce Russia’s operational capacity to fight. These are two very different objectives, suited to two very different ways of thinking.

Connected to this shift in the desired outcome of sanctions use is the need for a fundamental attitude change in terms of the threat we face. Put simply, the West is at economic war with Russia. This isn’t an attempt to be alarmist — it’s a reality. For Russia, evading sanctions is an existential struggle. The country and its economy are on a war-footing and are responding to sanctions accordingly.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s allies continue to be tied up with more domestic concerns about the damage that sanctions and other economic measures might cause to their own economies. Their apparent lack of “war footing” when it comes to the application of sanctions has led to sluggish and delayed decision-making, leaving Russia to continue sourcing the critical components it needs for its military production.

As it celebrates three quarters of a century, our need for NATO and its doctrine of deterrence has never been more pressing. Yet, a key pillar of the West’s deterrence strategy remains in the hands of bureaucrats, and faced with the need to press harder on trade and economic restrictions, divisions are emerging across the EU.

It’s time for this to change. It’s time for NATO to relearn some lessons from the past, and to more seamlessly integrate military deterrence with economic warfare.

An American’s guide to the 2024 UK election

We can’t give you a felon and an old guy on July 4 — but we do have a gambling scandal. And Nigel Farage.

Despite the two bloodless technocrats we have running for high office, this is looking like a game-changing election that could sweep the Conservatives away after 14 years in power.

 | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

JULY 3, 2024
BY MATT HONEYCOMBE-FOSTER
POLITICO UK


LONDON — Greetings America … from your favorite offshore missile base.

Here in Britain, your snaggle-toothed former overlords are having an election this week. And no, it doesn’t involve Princes William and Harry tussling over who takes the crown from King Charles.

And while we may not be able to offer you a memory-challenged octogenarian duking it out with a perma-tanned convicted felon, Britain’s big vote is still an important moment


Despite the two bloodless technocrats we have running for high office, this is looking like a game-changing election that could sweep the Conservatives away after 14 years in power and put the Labour Party back at the top.

Along the way we’ve had more twists and turns than a season of “The Crown” — and with a far uglier cast.

We’re even having the vote on July 4, in celebration of the day we finally shed the trappings of empire.

So here’s everything you need to know about the U.K. election … shorn of the kind of sophisticated British humor that would, of course, be lost on you guys.
When, where, who, how?

Polls open at 7 a.m. Thursday U.K. time and close at 10 p.m. Rather than directly electing a president, Brits pick 650 new members of parliament — known as MPs — to represent their local area, kind of like you do for the House of Representatives. The prime minister is the dude who can command a majority in the House of Commons, the U.K. parliament’s lower chamber, by getting the most MPs elected from the party they lead.

The first results are usually in by around 11:30 p.m. U.K. time, with a big rush of results between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m Friday morning. Around this point, the losing party leader usually concedes.


But but but … the winner doesn’t officially become PM until they’ve kissed hands with the king. Yes, really. Britain gonna Britain, right?

So the winner is expected to head to Buckingham Palace Friday morning to see King Charles and tell him they are confident they can form a new government. Then they’ll go on to No. 10 Downing Street, for decades the official residence of Britain’s premiers.

the winner doesn’t officially become PM until they’ve kissed hands with the king. 

| Aaron Chown/Getty Images

Which means that unlike in the States — where you have that whole post-election ‘transition’ thing — a defeated prime minister loses their home, as well as their job, overnight. There will literally be removal vans at the ready come Friday morning. Life sure is tough at the top.

Sorry — didn’t Britain just have like 12 elections?

Not quite … but boy have we cycled through prime ministers of late.

In short, the 2016 Brexit referendum kicked off a wild time in British politics. The governing Conservative Party, also known as the Tories, has not been able to stop knifing its leaders ever since, in the largely futile hopes of a better one eventually coming along.

Theresa May couldn’t get Brexit done and was swiftly shown the door. A botched handling of the Covid-19 pandemic — and a host of damaging scandals — did it in for Boris Johnson’s administration two years ago. He was followed by Tory grassroots favorite Liz Truss, whose tax-slashing, debt-fueled administration imploded within weeks and put Conservative poll ratings into freefall.

Her old rival, Rishi Sunak, stepped up to the plate in October 2022 and has been PM ever since, locked on a seemingly doomed quest to turn the Tory ship around and get the economy firing again. It’s not gone brilliantly, and pretty much everyone, including most of his own MPs, were shocked when he called a snap election.
Wait, what? Your leaders can call an election when they feel like it?

Yep. Well, kinda. There’s a five-year time limit on any administration.

But, within that period, a prime minister can call an election whenever they like — even just for fun! Or more aptly, at the exact moment it will most favor them and their party, and most screw up the opposition.

Again, they do this by having a chat with the king. That’s a very normal thing to do and monarchy is actually the best form of government. Your little American revolution was an act of folly.

God save the king! Tell me more about this Rishi Sunak guy.

That’s President Rashee Sanook to you.

Sunak, the 44-year-old incumbent prime minister, is quite short and very rich. He’s married to an Indian IT heiress, and the couple is, combined, wealthier than King Charles III

Sunak first rose to national prominence as top finance minister during the pandemic, when he sprung up a massive Covid-19 scheme to avert economic disaster by paying Brits’ wages while they sheltered at home. He quit Boris Johnson’s scandal-hit government in 2022, a move that dealt Johnson a mortal blow and triggered a Tory leadership race.

He lost that battle to Truss … but took over when she imploded after just a few weeks.

So who’s the Labour guy?

Keir Starmer. This guy has had the same haircut for about 30 years and never stops talking about his dad’s job as a toolmaker.

He’s 61 years old, is pretty buttoned-up, and used to be Britain’s top public prosecutor. He served under hard-left leader Jeremy Corbyn, who took the party to its crushing 2019 defeat, but now insists he always knew the guy was a dud and that he’s changed Labour for good.

'SIR' Keir Starmer party certainly has a commanding lead in the polls, apparently putting it on course for a landslide win. | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

His party certainly has a commanding lead in the polls, apparently putting it on course for a landslide win. He’s dragged Labour to the perceived center ground on a host of issues including immigration, economic competence and running public services. He even booted Corbyn out of the party to show he really means it.
How’s the campaign going?

It’s been … fun. We guess?

Neither party seems to be really addressing any of the big issues bedeviling Britain, including mounting debt, crumbling public services, and a stagnant economy.

Labour insists it’s got a big plan to turbo-charge growth by spending a bit of money and doing things a bit more competently. The Conservatives say massive Labour tax hikes are coming. It’s all a little vague, to say the least.

The campaign has been most notable so far, though, for some spectacular own goals from Sunak’s Conservatives.

UK NATIONAL PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS

Jul 01, 2024

Con21 %

Lab41 %

Lib Dems11 %

Greens5 %

SNP3 %

Reform16 %

Plaid1 %

For more polling data from across Europe visit POLITICO Poll of Polls.

Sunak managed to — and we’re promising we didn’t just make this up — offend the entire country by leaving a somber commemoration with World War II D-Day veterans early to … do a TV interview. He later apologized for insulting war heroes, so at least he’s got that over Donald Trump.

Never to be outdone in the drama stakes, Sunak’s own party then caused him a massive headache when it emerged that Conservative insiders had placed suspicious-looking bets on the timing of the election date just days before it was called.

Sorry, what?!

Yes. The Tories had to drop their backing for two of their own candidates after Britain’s gambling regulator started probing suspicious bets laid with bookmakers in the run-up to Sunak calling the vote. Sunak’s police bodyguard was suspended and arrested over the row, too.

By contrast, Labour has been dull to fault. A week-long row about left-wing candidates being replaced with young, centrist Starmer loyalists faded pretty quickly, and the trickiest moments for the Labour leader have come from repeated questioning over his tax plans and past backing for Corbyn.

There’s also a lingering sense that voters aren’t exactly sold on Starmer himself and are more interested in punishing the Tories after 14 years in power.

That’s a dynamic Nigel Farage hopes to seize on as he tries to eclipse the Tories on the right.

Him again?

Yep. Donald Trump’s mate — and arguably the most effective force in British politics for decades — ain’t going anywhere.

Farage has never been a member of parliament, instead leading highly effective campaigning forces from the outside that have made the Conservatives squirm on migration and Europe.

Nigel Farage has taken over the leadership of Reform UK, a right-wing challenger party which, in some polls, is outpacing the centuries-old Conservatives. 

| Peter Byrne/AFP via Getty Images

But this time he’s a central player. The Brexiteer rabble-rouser initially insisted he was going to sit this election out, but decided to go all-in with a headline grabbling U-turn that put rocket boosters under the whole campaign.

Farage is running for a seat in parliament, which he looks set to win. He has taken over the leadership of Reform UK, a right-wing challenger party which, in some polls, is outpacing the centuries-old Conservatives.
So could Britain wake up to prime minister Farage on July 5?

Nah. Reform currently has just one MP. Polls predict its number of MPs after the election will still be in the single figures or low teens.

But there is a chance Reform actually gets a higher national vote share than the Conservatives and costs it a host of seats across the country by splitting the vote on the right.

That will hand Starmer an even bigger majority and could have major repercussions for any post-election Tory leadership contest, assuming Sunak resigns — and could even put Farage on a path to becoming the leader of the opposition within a decade.

Anything else we need to know before we get back to our real country?

Yes! The two guys vying for office here are watching the U.S. election closely, too.

Starmer is a social democrat and will be cheering Biden on in November if Labour wins. But his party has been forging links with Donald Trump’s team and key Republicans just in case.

Even Starmer’s foreign policy chief, David Lammy — who once called Trump a “neo-Nazi-sympathizing sociopath” — is sounding much warmer about the Republican firebrand now.

Brits cosying up to the Americans for influence? Surely not?

Look we just want to be you, OK? Is that a crime? Your teeth are better and you don’t put washing machines in the kitchen.

Even our prime minister is in on the act.

The Tory leader has been fawning over U.S. tech execs in office, and already owns a swanky house in California — so don’t be surprised if he crops up in Silicon Valley after an election defeat. Lucky you!

 

Australian coal mine battles three-day blaze

By

 AFP

July 3,2024

A major Australian coal mine battled on Wednesday to extinguish an underground gas fire that has been burning for three days following a “combustion event”.

The blaze erupted on Saturday when gas ignited at Anglo American’s Grosvenor Mine in the eastern state of Queensland, forcing the evacuation of all workers and a halt to production.

“The fire is still going and we are still working to safely seal up the last of the ventilation shafts using a variety of methods,” a spokeswoman for Anglo American told AFP.

“But we are very close.”

Anglo American said it was working with state health and safety authorities on the next steps to ensure a “safe restart” to the mine, which employs about 1,400 people.

The re-opening is likely to take “several months as a result of the likely damage underground”, it said in an earlier update.

The group said air quality had not been impacted.

“External health specialists have reassured us that, based on current information they have, there is no impact to community health,” it said.

DANGEROUS COAL SEAM FIRE

The fire started when a “localised ignition” occurred at a site where coal is extracted in a long slice along a broad wall of the coal face, Anglo American said. 

This resulted in “an underground combustion event”.

The Grosvenor mine, near the town of Moranbah, had been expected to produce more than a fifth of Anglo American’s overall forecast of 15-17 million tonnes of steel-making coal in 2024, the company said.

Anglo American was already under pressure to execute a restructuring plan that involves selling the steel-making coal assets, said RBC Capital Markets’ London-based analyst Marina Calero.

“The downgrades to production will likely weigh on the stock and the potential sale of the division,” she said in a report.

London-headquartered Anglo American’s share price fell 4.3 percent in the first two trading days of the week to 2,392 pounds (US$3,034).

 

Japan’s top court to rule on forced sterilisations

By

 AFP

July 3, 2024

Japan’s top court will issue a ruling Wednesday on a defunct eugenics law under which the government forcibly sterilised around 16,500 people, causing decades of suffering for the victims.

The Supreme Court is hearing five appeal cases from victims seeking compensation and an apology after different decisions made by lower courts. Its ruling is due at 3 pm local time (0600 GMT).

Japan’s government acknowledges that around 16,500 people were forcibly sterilised under a eugenics law in place between 1948 and 1996.

The law allowed doctors to sterilise people with inheritable intellectual disabilities to “prevent the generation of poor quality descendants”.

Another 8,500 people were sterilised with their consent, according to authorities, although lawyers say even those cases were likely “de facto forced” because of the pressure individuals faced.

A 1953 government notice said physical restraint, anaesthesia and even “deception” could be used for the operations.

“I’ve spent an agonising 66 years because of the government surgery. I want my life back that I was robbed of,” said Saburo Kita, who uses a pseudonym.

Kita was convinced to undergo a vasectomy when he was 14 at a facility housing troubled children.

He couldn’t bring himself to tell his wife when he was married years later, only confiding in her shortly before she died in 2013.

“Only when the government faces up to what it did and takes responsibility will I be able to accept my life, even just a little,” Kita, now 81, told a news conference last year.

Apology –

The number of operations in Japan slowed to a trickle in the 1980s and 1990s before the law was scrapped in 1996.

That dark history was thrust back under the spotlight in 2018 when a woman in her 60s sued the government over a procedure she had undergone at age 15, opening the floodgates for similar lawsuits.

The government, for its part, “wholeheartedly” apologised after legislation was passed in 2019 stipulating a lump-sum payment of 3.2 million yen (around $20,000 today) per victim.

However, survivors say that is too little to match the severity of their suffering and have taken their fight to court. 

Apart from Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, several other cases are at different stages in lower courts.

Regional courts have mostly agreed in recent years that the eugenics law constituted a violation of Japan’s constitution.

However, judges have been divided on whether claims are valid beyond a 20-year statute of limitations.

Some have said that applying such limitations is extremely cruel and unfair, ordering the state to pay damages. But others have dismissed cases, saying the window for pursuing damages had closed.

“If the Supreme Court decides that the statute of limitations isn’t applicable at all, then basically all plaintiffs in subsequent cases, and victims who haven’t sued yet or aren’t even aware of damage they had suffered, can benefit,” Kita’s lawyer, Naoto Sekiya, told AFP.

Critics say the eugenics law laid the foundation for discriminatory attitudes against people with disabilities that linger still.

“The ruling will hopefully pave the way for active steps to be taken by the government to eliminate the kind of eugenic mentality that it created,” Sekiya said.

 

Brazil requires Meta to stop taking user data to train AI

By

 AFP

July 3, 2024

Brazil on Tuesday demanded Meta cease taking users’ data to train its generative AI models, a move the US tech giant called “a setback.”

The decision was issued by Brazil’s National Data Protection Authority, which warned it would impose a daily fine of $50,000 Brazilian reais (about $8,800) as long as the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp was out of compliance.

The agency cited the company’s new privacy policy, updated on June 26, which outlines terms regarding “the use of personal data for training purposes of generative AI systems,” according to a government statement announcing the move.

The authority called its ban a “preventative measure” that was made “due to the imminent risk of serious and irreparable or difficult to repair damage to the fundamental rights of the affected data subjects.”

A spokesperson for Meta said the company was disappointed in the decision.

“AI training is not something unique to our services and we are more transparent than many players in this industry who have used public content to train their models and products,” Meta said in a statement sent to AFP.

“This is a setback for innovation and competitiveness in AI development, and delays the arrival of AI benefits for people in Brazil,” it added.

Brazil has about 109 million active Facebook users and 113 million Instagram users, according to data firm Statista.

Recent advancements in generative AI have prompted warnings from some experts and academics who advocate for regulation of the emergent technology.

In June, Meta suspended its new AI-friendly privacy policy in the European Union after 11 countries complained.