Sunday, July 10, 2022

Let’s Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, Before They Eliminate Us


 Facebook

Photo: Applause after the adoption of the political declaration and action plan as 1MSPTPNW ended on June 23 in Vienna. Credit: United Nations Vie

When UN Secretary-General António Guterres congratulated States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) on the successful conclusion of their first meeting in Vienna, his warning was dead on target.

“Let’s eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us,” he said pointing out that nuclear weapons are a deadly reminder of countries’ inability to solve problems through dialogue and collaboration.

“These weapons offer false promises of security and deterrence—while guaranteeing only destruction, death, and endless brinksmanship,” he declared, in a video message to the conference, which concluded on June 23 in the Austrian capital.

Guterres welcomed the adoption of the Political Declaration and Action Plan, which will help set the course for the Treaty’s implementation—and are “important steps toward our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons”.

Alice Slater, who serves on the boards of World Beyond War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told IDN : “On the heels of a precedent-shattering First Meeting (1MSP) of the States Parties to the new Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Vienna, the dark clouds of war and strife continue to plague the world.”

“We are enduring continued violence in Ukraine, new nuclear threats issued by Russia including a possibility of sharing nuclear weapons with Belarus, in the context of tens of billions of dollars in armaments being poured into Ukraine by the US, and a brutal and careless rush to expand the boundaries of NATO to include Finland and Sweden despite promises given to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand east of Germany, when the wall came down and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved.”

She said the news in the Western Media has been unrelentingly critical of Putin and has barely mentioned the new treaty to ban the bomb, despite the stunning Declaration issued in Vienna.

The States Parties, she pointed out, proposed thoughtful plans to move forward on establishing various bodies to deal with the many promises of the treaty including steps for monitoring and verifying the total elimination of nuclear weapons under a limited time frame, with full cognizance of the relationship between the TPNW and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“They provide for the development of unprecedented victims assistance for the dreadful suffering and radiation poisoning visited upon so many poor and indigenous communities during the long, horrible and devastating era of nuclear testing, weapons development, waste pollution and more”, said Slater who is also the UN Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Graduate Program Director, MPPGA, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IDN the meeting of the States parties to the TPNW offers one of the few positive ways forward from the dangerous nuclear situation that the world is confronting.

“Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its nuclear threats have served as reminders of the fact that as long as nuclear weapons exist, they can be used, albeit under rare circumstances.”

As famed truth teller/whistle blower Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out over the decades, nuclear weapons can be used in two senses: one of exploding them over an enemy target (as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and the other sense of threatening to explode them if the adversary did something that was not acceptable to the possessor of the nuclear arsenal, Dr Ramana said.

“This is akin to someone pointing a gun to force someone to do something that they would not want to do under normal circumstances. In the latter sense, nuclear weapons have been used repeatedly by states that possess these weapons of mass destruction,” he added.

It is, therefore, a welcome development that the States parties to the TPNW have promised not to rest until “the last warhead has been dismantled and destroyed and nuclear weapons have been totally eliminated from the Earth”.

That is a goal all countries should work towards, and work with urgency, declared Dr Ramana.

Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), an anti-nuclear activist group which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, said: “This meeting has really been a reflection of the ideals of the TPNW itself: decisive action to eliminate nuclear weapons based on their catastrophic humanitarian consequences and the unacceptable risks of their use.”

The States Parties, in partnership with survivors, impacted communities and civil society, have worked extremely hard over the past three days to agree on a wide range of specific, practical actions to take forward every aspect of the implementation of this crucial treaty, she pointed out, at the conclusion of the meeting.

“This is how we are building a powerful norm against nuclear weapons: not through lofty statements or empty promises, but through hands-on, focused action involving a truly global community of governments and civil society.”

According to ICAN, the Vienna meeting also took a number of decisions on practical aspects of moving forward with implementation of the Treaty which was adopted on June 23, 2022.

These included:

* Establishment of a Scientific Advisory Group, to advance research on nuclear weapon risks, their humanitarian consequences, and nuclear disarmament, and to address the scientific and technical challenges involved in effectively implementing the Treaty and provide advice to states parties.

* Deadlines for the destruction of nuclear weapons by nuclear-armed states joining the treaty: no more than 10 years, with the possibility of an extension of up to five years. States parties hosting nuclear weapons belonging to other states will have 90 days to remove them.

* Establishment of a program of intersessional work to follow the meeting, including a coordinating committee and informal working groups on universalization; victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation and assistance; and work related to the designation of a competent international authority to oversee the destruction of nuclear weapons.

On the eve of the meeting, Cabo Verde, Grenada, and Timor-Leste deposited their instruments of ratification, which will bring the number of TPNW states parties to 65.

Eight states told the meeting they were in the process of ratifying the treaty: Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Mozambique, Nepal and Niger.

The TPNW entered into force and became international law on January 22, 2021, 90 days after it reached the requisite 50 ratifications/accessions

Elaborating further on the outcome of the meeting, Slater said: “If we are to realize these new promises, we need a lot more truth telling. It is dishonest for our most respected media outlets to constantly harp on Putin’s “unprovoked” attack on Ukraine”.

She quoted the famed Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, scientist, and social critic, as saying: that it is de rigueur to refer to Putin’s criminal aggression in Ukraine as his “unprovoked invasion of Ukraine”.

A Google search for this phrase finds “About 2,430,000 results” Out of curiosity, [a]search for “unprovoked invasion of Iraq.” yields “About 11,700 results”—apparently from antiwar sources. [i]

“We are at a turning point in history. Here, in the United States, it has been revealed for all to see that we aren’t really an “exceptional” democracy,” she argued.

Besides the shocking events of an insurrection in our capital on January 6, 2020, and the incomprehensible reactions to those events, splitting our body politic into bloody parts, our history is catching up with us as we examine the continuing oppression of our black citizens, the renewed racial stereotyping and outrageous injuries to our Asian citizens as we rachet up Obama’s pivot to Asia, demonizing China as well as Russia, noted Slater.

“Add to that the continued mistreatment of our indigenous natives who survived the slaughter of the colonialist patriarchy, the denial of citizenship to women, a battle we thought we had won which has to be fought all over again now as the patriarchy rears its ugly head stripping us of the illusion of democracy we thought we had.”

The US government, she said, empowered by corrupt corporate marauders is protected by a judicial system, media, and government that offers no vision or path forward out of perpetual wars and towards cooperative and meaningful actions to avoid the cataclysm of nuclear war or catastrophic climate collapse, not to mention the spreading plague that we seem so inept at dealing with because of corporate greed and misplaced priorities.

“It seems America got rid of a king only to wind up with a tyrannical cabal of what Ray McGovern, a former CIA briefer for Presidents Bush and Clinton who quit in disgust and founded the Veterans Intelligence Professional for Sanity (VIPS) refers to as the MICIMATT: the Military, Industrial, Congressional, Intelligence, Media, Academia, Think Tank complex.”

This ongoing insanity, she pointed out, has led to our relentless expansion of NATO which met this month to address global challenges with Indo-Pacific partners Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea participating together in a NATO Summit for the first time, demonizing China, making commitments to continue the fight against terrorism, and to address threats and challenges from the Middle East, North Africa and Sahel.

There is a rising tide of grassroots actions. A peace wave went around the world to celebrate the need to end wars in June. Many people showed up to demonstrate against the NATO summit in Spain and locally around the world.

“The new treaty to ban the bomb, while not supported by the nuclear weapons states, has growing numbers of parliamentarians and city councils around the world urging its nuclear nations to join the treaty and make the promised efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.”

And three NATO states, under the US nuclear umbrella, came to the first TPNW Meeting of States Parties as observers: Norway, Germany and the Netherlands. There are also grassroots actions in NATO countries that share US nuclear weapons, Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy, to remove the US nuclear weapons that are kept in those countries.

A good message to send to Russia which is thinking of putting nuclear weapons in Belarus. Giving peace a chance, declared Slater.

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to share, remix, tweak and build upon it non-commercially. Please give due credit

This article was produced as a part of the joint media project between The Non-profit International Press Syndicate Group and Soka Gakkai International in Consultative Status with ECOSOC on 06 July 2022.

 

US Private Sector Employment Passes Pre-Pandemic Level, Wage Growth Moderates


 Facebook

Wage growth continues to moderate, alleviating concerns about a wage-price spiral.

The June employment report showed the economy created 372,000 jobs last month, with the private sector adding 381,000. Private sector employment is now 140,000 jobs above its pre-pandemic level. Total employment is still down 524,000, as local government employment is 599,000 below pre-pandemic levels, and state government employment is 57,000 below pre-pandemic levels. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.6 percent for the fourth consecutive month.

Wage Growth Moderates Further

Perhaps the best news in this report is further evidence of moderating wage growth. The annualized rate of wage growth, comparing the last three months (April, May, June) with the prior three months (January, February, March), was 4.3 percent. That is down from an annualized rate of 6.1 percent, comparing the winter (November, December, January) to the fall (August, September, October).

This is a huge deal because the Fed’s plans for aggressive rate hikes was based on a concern for a 1970s-type wage-price spiral. It is impossible to have a wage-price spiral when wage growth is slowing. As it is, the 4.3 percent annualized rate of wage growth is only a 0.9 percentage point higher than the 3.4 percent rate in 2019 when inflation was comfortably below the Fed’s 2.0 percent target.

Construction Again Adds Jobs, Manufacturing Employment Above Pre-Pandemic Levels

Construction added 13,000 jobs in June, with gains elsewhere offsetting a small decline in residential building. Overall employment in the sector is now 0.6 percent above pre-pandemic level. Lower housing starts will be a drag on employment in the sector, although this will be at least partially offset by easing supply chain problems, which is allowing for more completions. Manufacturing added 29,000 jobs, pushing employment in the sector slightly above its pre-pandemic level.

Air Transportation and Retail Add Jobs

Air transportation added 7,500 jobs in June. Employment in the sector is now 7.9 percent above the pre-pandemic level. The retail sector added 15,400 jobs, putting employment now 1.2 percent above the pre-pandemic level.

Healthy, but More Normal Job Growth in Hotels and Restaurants

Hotels added 14,800 jobs in June, while restaurants added 40,800 jobs. These are strong numbers but not out of line with what might be expected in a normal month with good job growth. These sectors were among the hardest hit by the pandemic.

Employment in hotels is still down 18.0 percent from its pre-pandemic level. Restaurant employment is 5.9 percent lower. It is likely that with a permanent decline in business travel, hotels will not recover their pre-pandemic employment levels. The same is likely the case with restaurants, where real sales are already well above pre-pandemic levels.

Nursing Homes and Childcare Centers Add Jobs, but Employment Still Far Below Pre-Pandemic Levels

Both nursing homes and childcare sectors have had difficulty adding jobs in the recovery as low pay and difficult working conditions make these jobs relatively unattractive. Nursing homes and childcare added 5,400 and 10,600 jobs in June, respectively. This leaves employment in the sectors 14.4 percent and 9.6 percent below pre-pandemic levels.

Local Government Adds 5,000 Workers, Employment Still Down 599,000 from Pre-Pandemic Level

Like nursing homes and childcare centers, state and local governments have had difficulty attracting workers in the recovery. Employment in local government is still down by 4.1 percent from pre-pandemic levels. More than half the drop is in local government education. State government employment is down by 57,000, or 1.1 percent from pre-pandemic levels.

U-6 Measure of Labor Market Slack Hits Record Low

While the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.6 percent in June, a sharp drop in the number of people involuntarily working part-time lowered the U-6 measure of labor market slack to 6.7 percent, the lowest level on record.

Drop in Labor Force Participation Rates

The overall labor force participation rate (LFPR) fell by 0.1 percentage point to 62.2 percent. The LFPR for prime age (25 to 54) men dropped by 0.3 percentage point, while it fell 0.2 percentage point for prime age women. The June LFPR for men was 0.8 percentage point below its pre-pandemic peak, while it was 0.5 percentage point lower for women.

Length of Average Workweek Stable

The length of the average workweek was unchanged at 34.5 hours in June. For production and nonsupervisory workers, it was 34.0 hours, down from 34.3 hours last June. Employers that can’t find workers often increase workweeks. This does not seem to be a problem now.

Share of Unemployment Due to Voluntary Quits Rises, but Still Below Peaks

The percent of unemployment due to voluntary quits rose to 14.0 percent, still well below peaks of more than 15.0 percent hit in February of this year and peaks hit in 2000 and 2019. This is consistent with a strong, but healthy labor market.

Another Really Great Jobs Report

The June report showed considerably stronger job growth than was generally expected. It also showed a labor market that is looking more normal, although still very strong. We continue to see moderation in wage growth, which should alleviate concerns about a 1970s wage-price spiral. The unemployment rate remains near a 50-year low and the U-6 measure of labor market slack is the lowest on record. If the economy stays on this path, the second half of 2022 should look very good, as the supply chain issues get largely resolved and prices fall back to more normal levels in many areas.

This first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog. 

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. 

Canadians' Anger Over Rogers Outage May Complicate Its Merger Hopes


By Divya Rajagopal
07/10/22
The Rogers Building, the green-topped corporate campus of Canadian media conglomerate Rogers Communications is seen in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada July 9, 2022. Photo: Reuters / CHRIS HELGREN

Rogers Communications complicated its chances of getting antitrust approval for a C$20 billion telecom merger after Friday's massive outage highlighted the perils of Canada's effective telecom monopoly and sparked a backlash against its industry dominance.

The Rogers network outage disrupted nearly every aspect of daily life, cutting banking, transport and government access for millions, and hitting the country's cashless payments system and Air Canada's call center.

Consumers and opposition politicians called on the government to allow more competition and enact policy changes to curb telecom companies' power. Rogers, BCE Inc and Telus Corp control 90% of the market share in Canada.

Smaller internet and wireless providers rely on their infrastructure network to deliver their own services.

"The reality is in Canada there is a serious monopoly of our telecommunications," New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh said in a TikTok video as he launched a petition to halt Rogers' merger plans and "break up these monopolies".

"The impact of this outage makes it clear this monopoly cannot continue," he added.

Industry Minister Franc
ois-Philippe Champagne, calling the outage "unacceptable", said on Sunday that he would meet with Rogers CEO Tony Staffieri and other industry executives to discuss improving the "reliability of networks across Canada." High cellphone bills have been a hot-button issue in recent Canadian elections.

The disruption in internet access, cell phone and landline phone connections meant some callers could not reach emergency services via 911 calls, police across Canada said.

"Because of the Rogers outage, millions of Canadians couldn't call 911 yesterday. Hospitals couldn't call in staff. There was no way to call families so that they could say goodbye to their loved ones at end of life," tweeted Amit Arya, director-at-large at the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians.

Rogers, which blamed a router malfunction after maintenance for the disruption, said on Sunday it was aware that some customers were still facing disruptions. It did not comment on whether the outage could impact the merger proceedings.

Friday's outage came two days after Rogers held talks with Canada's antitrust authority to discuss possible remedies to its blocked C$20 billion ($15.34 billion) takeover of Shaw Communications.

Canada's competition bureau blocked the deal earlier this year, saying it would hamper competition in a country where telecom rates are some of the world's highest. The merger still awaits a final verdict.

The disruption could prompt the Competition Bureau, which generally assesses mergers based on their impact on price, to look more closely at other considerations such as quality and service, said consumer rights groups.

"It is a 'non-price effect' (argument) - that is, concentration of ownership and control of critical infrastructure making an ever more central point of failure to deliver basic services," said John Lawford, executive director of the Ottawa-based Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), which has argued against the merger at the Competition Bureau.

But Vass Bedner, Executive Director of the Public Policy program in McMaster University, said the outage was a separate issue from Rogers' merger plan.

"I don't think this issue will impact the merger because I am not sure how the Competition Bureau can account for risk of bigger outage," Bedner said.

University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist, who focuses on the internet and e-commerce law, said the outage "must be a wake-up for a government that has been asleep on digital policy."

"The blame for Friday's outage may lie with Rogers, but the government and (Canadian telecommunications regulator) should be held accountable for a failure to respond," he wrote on his blog.

The outage, which began around 4:30 a.m. ET (0830 GMT) on Friday before service was fully restored on Saturday, knocked out a quarter of Canada's observable internet connectivity, said the NetBlocks monitoring group.

The interruption was Rogers' second in 15 months with an external software upgrade knocking out service primarily to consumer clients last year.

 

Echoes of a Tragedy

 Facebook

The death by a gunman of former Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is an eerie reminder of another tragic death in America, that of Robert Kennedy, whose consequences are felt even today. Both deaths demonstrate the fragility of democracy, and how only one person can alter the political landscape of a country.

The shots followed quickly: pat, pat, pat, pat! Seconds before it was a scene of jubilation: the crowd gathered at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles was celebrating Robert Kennedy’s victory in the California primary elections shouting: We want Bobby, we want Bobby! What had been an atmosphere of elation became suddenly a tragedy. It was exactly 10 minutes after midnight on June 5, 1968.

On the floor, holding a rosary of black beads with one hand while his other hand was held by Juan Romero, a hotel kitchen helper, lay the American Senator Robert Kennedy. He was the unquestionable star of the Democratic Party, with great chances of being next President of the United States. Sirhan Sirhan, a Jordanian with a gun still warm in his hand, was immediately arrested and charged with having shot Kennedy, killing him 25 hours later.

It was the end of Robert Kennedy’s life and the beginning of what remains a mystery: who really killed him. Almost 50 years later, in an unexpected turn of events, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said recently that he now doesn’t believe that Sirhan Sirhan murdered his father but there was probably a second gunman who did it. Although there is plenty of damning evidence against him, the hypothesis that Sirhan Sirhan was the murderer has many weaknesses.

On February 10, 2016, Paul Schrade, an official of United Automobile Workers (UAW) and personal friend of Bobby Kennedy who was next to him at the time of the shots that finished with his life, made new statements on the assassination of Kennedy in front of the Board of Prison Parole Richard J. Donovan in San Diego County, California.

Schrade’s testimony is fundamental because he seriously questions that Sirhan Sirhan has been the real murderer of Robert Kennedy, as is generally believed, and draws attention to the role of the CIA in that assassination. Moreover, Schrade believes that a second attacker is the true assassin of Kennedy.

In an emotional testimony, addressed both to Sirhan Sirhan, still in prison, and to the county authorities, Schrade said: “I was wounded when I was standing next to Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who had just won the Democrat primary California for the Presidency of the United States. Five of us survived our wounds. As history shows, Senator Kennedy was fatally wounded. The evidence clearly shows that you were not the murderer who killed Robert Kennedy. There is clear evidence that there was a second killer in the kitchen pantry that shot Kennedy. One of the shots -the fatal shot- hit Kennedy in the back of his neck. Two more shots hit him in the back. A fourth shot ran through the right sleeve of his coat and did no harm. I think those four shots were fired by a second killer behind Bob. You were never behind Bob, nor was his back exposed in your direction. Moreover, Sirhan, the evidence not only shows that you did not shoot Kennedy but you could not even do it … While Sirhan was in front of Bob Kennedy and his shots distracted attention, the other murderer secretly shot from behind and wounded him fatally. Bob died 25 hours later. ”

The same opinion that Sirhan Sirhan was in front of and not behind Kennedy – and therefore could not be the murderer since the lethal shots came from behind – was shared by Scott Enyart, a youth of then 15 years who was in the place of the murder by taking photos for the diary of his school. According to Enyart, he took three rolls of film. However, authorities said he only took a roll. In highly suspicious circumstances the Enyart rolls which were in the possession of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) disappeared or were stolen.

In his statement about the existence of a second assailant, Schrade cites the opinion of an audiology expert, Philip Van Praag, who heard the only recording of the time of the murder and concluded that two revolvers were fired at Kennedy. Van Praag also found a total of 13 shots on the tape despite the fact that Sirhan’s revolver had only eight bullets and that Sirhan had not been able to recharge his revolver. That opinion was later confirmed by other specialists in audiology.

To reinforce his version of the existence of a second attacker, Schrade cites the opinion of two kitchen helpers at the Ambassador Hotel: Karl Uecker and Edward Minasian, who were at the time near Kennedy. They stated that Sirhan was in front of him while the senator walked towards him and that Sirhan was still in front of Kennedy when he fired at him.

The Kennedy autopsy report also says that all the shots came from behind, a hypothesis supported by Thomas Noguchi, a Los Angeles County legal doctor. In addition, Schrade says, lawyers for the Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Police Departments knew two hours later that Kennedy was killed by a second person and that Sirhan was not and could not have been the killer.

If not Sirhan Sirhan, who was then the assassin of Robert Kennedy? In November 2006, the BBC news program presented an investigation by filmmaker Shane O ‘Sullivan where he claimed that several CIA officials were present the night of the bombing. Several former colleagues and associates of three men who appear in movies and photographs that night identified them as former CIA officers they had worked with in 1963 on JMWAVE anti-Castro radio station. Among them was David Morales, station’s Chief of Operations, known for his hatred of the family of assassinated President John Kennedy for what he considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs invasion.

On February 22, 2012, Sirhan’s attorneys, William Pepper and Laurie Dusek, filed a writ in the Los Angeles District Court saying a second person had shot Kennedy, fatally wounding him. It was the fourth time they had made that presentation. Strangely, Sirhan Sirhan always insisted that he did not remember anything of the event, which happened at a time when the CIA was carrying out numerous experiments of mental control.

An important hypothesis as to why the CIA might have been involved in this assassination is that, if elected president, Robert Kennedy had stated that he would thoroughly investigate the death of his brother John, and the CIA feared where those investigations might lead to.

As the political analyst Carlos Duguech says: “Magnicides are carefully prepared so that they will never be discovered.” In support of his assertion, the Los Angeles Police Department destroyed hundreds of documents which were important evidence to elucidate the case, further complicating the understanding of this tragedy. The death of Robert Kennedy opened a Pandora’s Box of possibilities, and a sweet illusion had come to a tragic end.

Dr. Cesar Chelala is a co-winner of the 1979 Overseas Press Club of America award for the article “Missing or Disappeared in Argentina: The Desperate Search for Thousands of Abducted Victims.”

No Time to Lose as Tunisia’s President Consolidates Authoritarian Turn

Europe Waits, Watches, Misses Opportunities

SWP Comment 2022/C 41, 
16.06.2022, 
6 Pages
German
doi:10.18449/2022C41Research Areas
North Africa and Middle East
PDF | 1.4 MB
EPUB | 633 KB
MOBI | 915 KB


LONG READ


In the space of just nine months, Tunisia’s President Kais Saied has centralised power and dismantled the institutions established by the young democracy since the revo­lu­tion of 2011. His new constitution establishing a “New Republic” will be put to a refer­endum on 25 July 2022. Saied’s plans have divided the nation, with growing resistance from political and civil society actors demanding the return to an inclusive and demo­cratic process. At the same time, the country is moving closer to default. Tunisia’s Euro­pean partners have invested heavily in democratisation and view the autocratic shift with concern. But they have failed to take meaningful action, and each new step by Saied makes it harder to reverse the path. In the interests of Tunisia’s stability, Europe should move decisively and employ the financial and diplomatic leverage it has due to Tunisia’s economic crisis.

There can no longer be any doubt that Tuni­sia’s President Kais Saied is leading his country back into authoritarianism. On 25 July 2021 – nearly two years after his elec­tion in October 2019 – he sacked the prime minister and suspended parliament; in September 2021 he also announced a partial suspension of the 2014 constitution. Since then he has ruled by decree. Saied has abolished the division of powers and brought central institutions of the fragile young democracy – such as the Supreme Judicial Council and the Independent High Authority for Elections (ISIE) – under his direct control. His assault on the judiciary is ongoing: In June 2022 he granted himself the power to dismiss judges summarily. Free­dom of expression remains relatively broad but is being successively rolled back; authoritarian traits are re-emerging, not only in the security apparatus. The president gives no press conferences and communi­cates principally via Facebook. His rhetoric is populist and divisive; political opponents are treated as traitors. Lacking a political base within the system Saied depends heavily on the security apparatus, and visited sev­eral military bases during Ramadan 2022. He also occasionally communicates impor­tant decisions from the interior ministry.

At the urging of external donors, Presi­dent Saied revealed his political roadmap in December 2021 after months of silence. It included an online survey on central politi­cal, social and economic topics that was conducted in early 2022. On the basis of its findings, hand-picked individuals and organisations are currently advising the president on the drafting of a new constitution, to be completed by the end of June. A referendum on 25 July 2022 will approve the new constitution. Parliamentary elec­tions have been announced for 17 December 2022. It is becoming apparent that Saied’s “democracy from below” will be a strongly presidential and authoritarian system. Political parties will be marginal­ised, for example by abolishing party lists in elec­tions. Saied has said he will not per­mit in­ter­national election observers for the ref­er­endum or for the parliamentary elec­tions.

Sketchy legitimacy – fragmented opposition

In an atmosphere of popular frustration with the political class, Saied’s measures initially met with enormous approval. The parliament was strongly fragmented and, by the time it was dissolved in March 2022, dysfunctional; the government was more or less paralysed, not least because the politi­cal parties were preoccupied with (internal) power struggles. Surveys published in Janu­ary 2021 found that a majority (61 percent) felt the parliament was superfluous and wanted a strong leader. An even larger majority (76 percent) believed their country needed “a leader that bends the rules if nec­essary to get things done”. Only 33 percent thought the country “should have a parlia­mentary political system where all parties compete freely”.

Surveys in spring 2022 continued to show strong approval for Saied, although trend­ing down. But his popularity has not trans­lated into mobilisation. Just 7.6 per­cent of the electorate participated in the digital survey on proposals for the referendum.

The low level of participation calls into question the legitimacy of Saied’s entire constitutional process. It is not unlikely that participation in the planned referendum will be modest, leaving the new sys­tem with weak legitimacy. The process could not be more different from the events of 2011 to 2014, when a constituent assem­bly approved the new democratic constitution – which was internationally regarded as exemplary – by a large majority. This time, the president and a small number of confidants are cooking up the new consti­tution behind closed doors.

Resistance to Saied’s course is mounting in civil society and the political class, with growing calls to boycott the referendum. But the organised opposition is fragmented. A National Salvation Front emerged in April 2022, encompassing the “Citizens Against the Coup” movement and a string of parties including the Islamist Ennahdha. The latter plays a strongly polarising role and is the president’s favourite bête noire. The objec­tive of the National Salvation Front is to reinstate the democratic process. That aim is shared by social democratic actors, such as the Attayar Party, that have refrained from joining, presumably in order to avoid association with Ennahdha.

The Parti destourien libre (PDL), founded by members of the former ruling party of deposed President Ben Ali, consistently leads the polls. The PDL criticises Saied’s actions, such as appointing an election commission that party leader Abir Moussi rightly regards as subservient to the president. But Moussi herself is no unconditional democrat, pro­posing a political system that excludes even moderate Islamists.

The most important counterweight to Saied is Noureddine Taboubi, secretary-general of the trade union confederation UGTT (Union Générale Tunisienne du Tra­vail), with more than one million members. On top of its mobilisation potential the UGTT possesses a political veto, because the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has made any new loan conditional on the UGTT and the employers’ organisation UTICA approv­ing the government’s reform agenda.

While UTICA holds its counsel, Taboubi has repeatedly criticised Saied’s “unilateralism” and demands an inclusive national dialogue. In response to pressure from the UGTT, Saied established the High National Advisory Committee for the New Republic chaired by a trusted constitutional law pro­fessor. The Advisory Committee is tasked with synthesising the findings of the eco­nomic / social affairs and legal advisory committees and the national dialogue. But the consultations involve only a handful of actors chosen by the president. Political parties are excluded, and it can be safely assumed that the discussions will have little if any influence on the constitution. The UGTT decided at the end of May 2022 to boycott the national dialogue, on the grounds that it was not inclusive and its outcomes had been decided in advance.

If the UGTT applies its full political weight to reviving democratic processes and structures that will have a great bearing on the process. That is the hope of the Tuni­sian opposition and external partners. But there are indications that the unions might instead choose to focus more on achieving socio-economic objectives: One central demand of its general strike in mid-June is to get the government to negotiate pay rises. Eventually, the UGTT could find itself in the same camp as Saied – and opposing the government and the IMF – on key (socio-)economic questions.

Economic assistance as leverage

The internal political escalation coincides with an economic crisis. Without a new IMF loan soon, Tunisia could face default and in the worst case – as the governor of its central bank has warned – a Lebanese or Venezuelan scenario.

Tunisia says it needs to borrow US$7 billion in 2022. According to the central bank, the rapidly rising prices for energy and cereals caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine leave Tunisia needing more than US$1.5 billion on top. Ratings agency Moody’s downgraded Tunisia from B3 to Caa1 in October 2021; Fitch followed suit in March 2022, from B- to CCC.

Financial assistance from the Gulf states, which Saied and his government have been allud­ing to since July 2021, has failed to materialise. It appears that Washington pressed them to hold off in order to avoid strengthening Saied’s position. The United States has also very rapidly reduced its own support, announcing a halving of its mili­tary assistance in April 2022. Washington has also sent clear diplomatic signals, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken omitting Tunisia from his Maghreb trip at the end of March 2022. Germany will not be providing macro-economic support until an IMF pro­gramme is in place.

The European Union (EU) on the other hand paid out €300 million of macro-finan­cial assistance at the end of May 2022. The new, considerably more generous, seven-year programme does not come up for approval until autumn 2022. Tunisia’s neigh­bour Algeria has also been supplying significant budget support.

The Tunisian government has drafted an economic reform programme, to which the IMF has responded positively. But official nego­tiations have yet to begin: The UGTT has already declared that it will not sign any agreement with the current government as required by the IMF.

It is also questionable whether the presi­dent unequivocally supports the government’s reform plan. He has repeatedly spoken out against austerity measures. In his presidency to date Saied has demonstrated little interest in or knowledge of economic matters. His decrees in this area have been anachronistic and centralistic: cam­paigns against so-called speculators, amnesties in corruption cases, promotion of cooperatives. But he has not come for­ward with any steps to prevent Tunisia from edging toward default.

Ultimately, Tunisia’s economic difficulties offer the only real leverage for Euro­pean partners. The members of the IMF Executive Board, which must approve all credits, include the US, Germany and France. This creates an opportunity to exercise bilateral pressure on Tunisia’s decision maker(s) – especially where an IMF agreement would normally trigger additional funding from partners like Germany.

Europa holds off: Conflicts of goals and wishful thinking

The EU and its member states have ex­pressed their concern over developments since 25 July 2021. But they have not shown any sign that they see themselves as parties that could take action.

The reasons for their reserve include firstly concern that, given the president’s initial strong public support, external inter­vention could provoke accusations of neo-colonial­ism. Or that the Union would expose itself to accusations of double standards: punishing Tunisia for its progress and criticising Saied more strongly than the incomparably more repressive Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al‑Sisi.

But the EU and its member states are also risking their reputation with their “hands off” approach. Firstly with all the Tunisian actors with whom they cooperated closely for a decade in the name of democratisation. But also with the region’s civil soci­eties, which saw Tunisia as a ray of hope. Tunisia is not the only place where Europe’s different treatment of refugees from the Global South and Ukraine provokes talk of double standards. Non-action on Tunisia’s authoritarian turn risks strengthening the impression that value-based policy and defence of freedom apply only within Europe and only to “white” neighbours.

Secondly, European reservations over con­ditioning or cutting financial assistance are partly rooted in fears that the Tunisian president could turn instead to non-West­ern actors such as China, the Gulf states, Turkey, Russia or even Iran. Indeed, Saied demonstrates little sympathy for the West. His Western partners had to work hard to persuade him to support the UN resolution condemning Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

In fact, Tunisia is unlikely to turn away from Europe. It is improbable that Iran, Russia or Turkey would be willing or able to provide the kind of short-term financial resources Tunisia needs. Chinese funds tend to flow into infrastructure projects rather than directly into the state budget, with high rates of interest exacerbating the debt situation. Importantly, aid from most non-European actors is highly controversial domestically, and comes with its own price and conditions. While the Gulf states do not demand democracy or freedoms, they do want social and religious influence in return. For example the United Arab Emirates openly support Abir Moussi, who seeks a ban on Ennahdha. According to for­mer Tunisian officials, they also pressured Saied to dissolve Ennahdha and have its leadership arrested. Ultimately the eco­nomic situation is so dire that Tunisia will continue to need Western aid whether or not it receives support from the Gulf states.

Thirdly, Europe initially hoped that Saied’s popularity and determination would lead to more effective governance and fa­cili­tate overdue economic and administrative reforms. That turned out to be wishful think­ing. The underlying assumption, of a conflict of goals between democratisation and stability, is superficial. A non-inclusive and polarising political process is highly unlikely to create political and social sta­bility after ten years of democratisation. Instead the president’s aggressive rhetoric against political opponents deepens the divisions. And it has become quite clear that Saied cannot lead Tunisia out of its economic crisis, especially in the current difficult international environment. He is unlikely to tolerate a government pursuing an independent economic policy. Consequently the president’s policies are no basis for lasting stability.

If Saied’s popularity declines, an intervention by the armed forces cannot be excluded. It is an open question whether the objective would then be to restore the democratic order or – breaking with the tradition of the Tunisian military – a greater political role for the security forces. Saied’s demolition of democratic structures is especially problematic in relation to such a scenario.

No time to lose

The EU and its member states would be well advised to prepare for the president’s next moves. To date they have tended to respond spontaneously if at all. That needs to change, while remaining realistic about the possibilities. Ultimately the Tunisians themselves will have to agree on their future system. Nevertheless European actors need to develop a conception of how they wish to support inclusive processes and democracy-oriented dynamics.

One thing is certain: If Saied is able to force through his referendum – which must be assumed – it will be difficult to get rid of the new and likely strongly authoritarian system. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, of which Tunisia is a member, reported at the end of May 2022 that important (legal) preconditions for the constitutional process, and in particular for the referendum, remain unfulfilled. In the interest of greater demo­cratic legitimacy it suggests postponing the referendum and reinstating the old elec­toral commission. Saied responded imme­diately by threatening to suspend Tunisia’s membership.

Nevertheless, the EU and its member states should send decisive signals before the referendum is held and plan for the time thereafter. Specifically they should:

Coordinate the expectations of the most important partners – Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Washington and the (remaining) G7 – without delay. What do they wish to communicate about legitimacy in the run-up to the referendum, and how publicly do they wish to do so? What consequences do the partners wish to float for the likely eventuality that the process lacks inclusion, transparency and/or legitimacy?


Intensify and consolidate channels of communication with the UGTT as a central actor. And continue to practice inclusiveness by engaging with as broad a spectrum of political and civil society actors as possible.


Avoid gestures that benefit Saied. It was right and important for the EU to swiftly provide €20 million to address rapidly rising prices of basic foodstuffs. But such measures should no longer be announc­ed in meetings with the president.


Critically review whether cooperation plays into the president’s authoritarian leanings. For example, in view of expanding surveillance and expansive plans to gather data via a digital identity card, support for digitalisation of public administration should be reconsidered.


Consider suspending all macro-financial support and cooperation with state entities (excepting critical infrastructure and green energy) if domestic political tensions escalate. Such a scenario could occur if Saied used the security appara­tus to impose his plans against resist­ance, or if the military took power.


Prepare instruments for worst-case sce­narios – such as massive internal unrest and/or humanitarian crisis – through which local NGOs and/or international organisations could supply assistance directly to the growing number of Tunisians in need. It would also make sense to involve dynamic private-sector actors more closely and give them greater sup­port.


A joint Tunisia trip by the foreign minis­ters of important partner states – for example Germany and France together with the US – would be conceivable. Its clear message should be that it is naturally up to the Tunisians to decide what kind of system they wish to live in. If the path Tunisians agree on among themselves turns out to be one of inclusion and freedom again they can continue to count on (potentially even more gener­ous) support and the prospect of expand­ing the availability of work visas. Such a message could counteract the accusation that Europe applies double standards and interferes in internal affairs, while having the potential to positively influence political dynamics in Tunisia.

Introspection warranted

Europe’s failure to respond decisively to Saied’s authoritarian turn raises fundamental questions concerning European policy towards Tunisia and other democratising states.

The first would be why over-optimistic scenarios are so frequently assumed. For instance, after Saied took office the attitude was to give him the benefit of the doubt. In future, it would make sense to pay greater heed to worst-case scenarios and think through the options in good time.

Another relevant aspect is that within the EU the European External Action Ser­vice (EEAS) possesses the best knowledge about local circumstances and political developments on the ground. But in the Union’s internal practice the EEAS’s influ­ence is rather limited when it comes to the funding instrument of the Neighbourhood Policy (NDICI), which is administered by the Commission. Saied will have been encouraged by the EU’s decision to make the €300 million macro-financial assistance payment in May 2022. The need to disburse earmarked funds within a certain period may have played a role here, with the resulting con­straints sometimes taking precedence over political considerations. Resolving such intra-European structural problems would also serve the interests of a policy of “do no harm”.

Opinions on the question of political con­ditionality diverge widely among the EU member states. Germany, the Netherlands and the Nordic states are not averse, while states like France, Italy, Spain and Hungary (which provides the commissioner for neigh­bourhood and enlargement) lean towards incentive structures that imply more rather than less funding.

The response of Western states to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the power of a determined and united stance in defence of freedom. The European partners would therefore be well advised to find the lowest common denominator and agree a shared narrative on future cooperation with a Tunisia sliding back into authoritarianism.

If they fail to achieve so, the German gov­ernment cannot hide behind the EU. If Tunisia’s president continues to promote de-democratisation and prevent good gov­ernance, the German-Tunisian reform partnership – which presupposes highly reform-motivated governments – will also be superfluous. In that case, Germany’s cooperation with the Tunisian government and official agencies will need to be fun­damentally reconsidered.


Dr. Isabelle Werenfels is Senior Fellow in the Africa and Middle East Research Division.

© Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2022

All rights reserved

This Comment reflects the author’s views.

SWP Comments are subject to internal peer review, fact-checking and copy-editing. For further information on our quality control pro­cedures, please visit the SWP website: https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/about-swp/ quality-management-for-swp-publications/
Teck tests carbon capture use and storage at Canadian operations
Cecilia Jamasmie | June 28, 2022 r

Trail Operations is one of the world’s largest fully integrated zinc and lead smelting and refining complexes. (Image courtesy of Teck Resources.)

Teck Resources (TSX: TECK.A | TECK.B) (NYSE: TECK), Canada’s largest diversified miner, has set a carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) pilot project at its metallurgical complex in southern British Columbia.


The CCUS plant, which is expected to start operating in the second half of 2023, supports the firm’s net-zero climate change strategy, Teck said. This includes the company’s goal of reducing carbon intensity at its operations by 33% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

“The pilot also provides us with a technical platform to assist our steelmaking coal customers in materially reducing the carbon intensity of their steel production,” president and chief executive, Don Lindsay, said in the statement.

The plant will capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the acid plant flue gas at Teck’s Trail Operations at a rate of 3 tonnes per day. The project will also evaluate options for the utilization and/or storage of captured emissions at the smelting and refining complex.
The pilot carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) facility. 
(Image courtesy of Teck Resources.)

If successful, the facility could be scaled up to an industrial CCUS plant with the potential to capture over 100,000 tonnes of CO2 a year at Trail Operations, the equivalent emissions of more than 20,000 cars.

Part of the Vancouver-based company’s carbon reduction plan includes integrating electric, hybrid and hydrogen-fuelled vehicles into its operations. The diversified miner of copper, zinc, and metallurgical coal is also switching clean sources of energy to power its mining operations.

While its Canadian mines have access to low-carbon power – which reduces the carbon footprint of Teck’s B.C. operations, relative to other coal-producing mines – the firm’s assets in Chile still get much of their power from fossil fuels. By 2030, Teck aims to have its Chilean operations fully running on clean energy and expects to be halfway to that goal by 2025.
Rio Tinto, Corona Canada pilot country’s first specially-marked low carbon can

Staff Writer | June 29, 2022


Cheers. Image from Rio Tinto.

Rio Tinto announced, in partnership with Corona Canada, the launch of Canada’s first specially-marked, low carbon beverage can, manufactured by Ball Corporation.


The cans, now available through a pilot in Ontario, were made using aluminium from Rio Tinto and leveraging ELYSIS technology. As part of this limited release, 1.2 million cans were produced with a QR code to inspire consumers to learn more about the cans’ low carbon footprint.

This pilot is a step towards putting a fully traceable beverage can in the hands of consumers. In the future, Rio Tinto will leverage insights from its START initiative to allow consumers to use QR codes to see exactly how their products were made from mine to market – including sustainability data.

Currently, around 70% of the aluminium used in cans produced in North America is made with recycled aluminium. Pairing this recycled metal with Rio Tinto’s low-carbon aluminium – made with renewable hydropower – and metal produced using the direct greenhouse gas emissions free ELYSIS smelting technology reduces carbon emissions by more than 30%, the company said.

“Leveraging insights from START, we look forward to putting more information into the hands of consumers, so they can see how we are partnering with leading brands like Corona to help deliver more sustainable supply chains and products,” Rio Tinto’s Head of Sales and Marketing Tolga Egrilmezer said in a media statement.

“These specially-marked, low carbon beverage cans will showcase the responsibly produced aluminium Rio Tinto delivers, bringing together renewable hydropower and the innovation of zero carbon ELYSIS smelting technology.”

This launch builds on a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2020 between Rio Tinto and Corona Canada’s parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev, to work with supply chain partners to bring AB InBev products to market in cans made from aluminium that meets industry-leading sustainability standards.