The UNRWA case reveals a much larger problem with humanitarian aid

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

The global consensus that humanitarian work is essential too easily surrenders the moral high ground, often with devastating consequences. It is time to recover that ground, Ambassador Mark Wallace and Dr Hans-Jakob Schindler write.

ADVERTISEMENT

Evidence implicating UNRWA employees in the 7 October terrorist attacks should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the activities of the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees closely. 

Allegations that some UNRWA workers were in fact Hamas operatives are merely the latest iteration of a much larger problem plaguing the international aid sector. 

A stunning lack of oversight and regulation of humanitarian funds over the past several decades has allowed untold billions in taxpayer money to make their way into terrorists’ coffers.

While aid agencies may baulk at what they perceive as burdensome “red tape”, strict oversight and transparency are in fact fundamental to humanitarian work: they ensure that aid is delivered to those who need it, not diverted to extremist and terrorist groups.

Claims of no knowledge increasingly strain credulity

For years, UNRWA has played host to bad actors uninterested in a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

According to a dossier presented by Israeli intelligence, one in ten staff are terrorist “operatives”. 

Some 23% of male UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), compared to 15% of male Gazans as a whole. And 49% are alleged to have “close relatives” also tied to either Hamas or PIJ. 

Claims by UNRWA that it had no knowledge of the vast network of Hamas tunnels under schools and hospitals, funded by billions of dollars of diverted aid, increasingly strain credulity.

Several UNRWA personnel over the years have been discovered to be terrorists or officials of terrorist organisations, including PIJ rocket-maker Awad al-Qiq, former Hamas interior minister Said Siam, and Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a suicide bomber who killed seven CIA employees in Afghanistan in 2009.

On 7 October, 12 UNRWA personnel helped Hamas execute the massacre, or aided the group in the wake of the attack. 

According to the dossier, one of the agency staffers took a woman hostage, another dispensed ammunition, and a third took part in mass murder at an Israeli kibbutz.

This case is no exception

How did humanitarian workers come to play a role in the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? 

The reality is that UNRWA is by no means the exception when it comes to humanitarian terror financing. In the world of international aid, it’s an occupational hazard.

Throughout the 1990s, the Taliban regularly harassed and robbed aid agencies. The current Taliban regime likewise uses a network of sham local organisations to divert aid money. 

In the early 2000s, reports emerged that in Somalia, the al-Qaida affiliate al-Shabaab had siphoned off so much international aid that it established a “Humanitarian Coordination Office”, charging aid groups to “register”. 

Several years later, al-Shabaab continued to extort aid deliveries via roadblocks and so-called “taxes”.

In 2018, a partial audit of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) found that some $700 million (€649m) of US taxpayer-funded programming in Iraq and Syria had been improperly vetted. 

That same year, several dozen individuals and organisations who had received USAID funding in the region were blacklisted, and over $200m (€185.5m) in funds were frozen.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Houthi rebel group in Yemen stifles almost all movement of international aid through the areas they control; they have set up a “humanitarian” agency, the Supreme Council for the Management and Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and International Cooperation (SCMCHA), for the express purpose of re-directing aid toward their own militant ends. The results have been catastrophic for the Yemeni people.

Decisions that didn’t age well

Regulating aid is not simply about alleviating security concerns. On the ground, any dime relinquished to a militant group is unlikely to achieve its stated aims and, as in the case of UNRWA, in fact, exacerbates the conflict it is trying to alleviate.

Just two years ago, the Biden administration began funding UNRWA again on the basis that the organisation had made commitments to “transparency, accountability, and neutrality”. 

Several European governments, including Germany, even increased UNRWA funding in the wake of the October attacks.

Those decisions have obviously not aged well. But they are the result of a steady flow of arguments from humanitarian workers and aid groups who claim that regulations and sanctions, even with humanitarian exemptions, do little more than hamper their work. 

ADVERTISEMENT

This attitude is dangerously dismissive, as former UNRWA General Counsel James Lindsay wrote in a 2009 report: “UNRWA has taken very few steps to detect and eliminate terrorists from [its] ranks…and no steps at all to prevent members of terrorist organisations, such as Hamas, from joining.”

We can’t keep surrendering the moral high ground

Brutal terror groups and extremist regimes will always see humanitarian funds as quasi-piggy banks for enhancing their own power. 

Effective oversight, budget transparency, complete reporting requirements, as well as internal and external controls are indispensable elements to ensure that any developing problems are caught early, aid diversion is mitigated, and guardrails are in place to prevent international aid workers from being involved in terror groups or attacks.

Despite criticism from the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, several European countries, in addition to the US, have now suspended payments to UNRWA. This is a step in the right direction. 

The global consensus that humanitarian work is essential too easily surrenders the moral high ground, often with devastating consequences. 

ADVERTISEMENT

It is time to recover that ground, which has for too long provided cover for the worst acts of terrorism. 

Ambassador Mark Wallace serves as CEO and Dr Hans-Jakob Schindler is Senior Director at the Counter Extremism Project.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#UNRWA #case #reveals #larger #problem #humanitarian #aid

The unexpected upside of Russia’s liberal candidate who was not to be

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Boris Nadezhdin’s role was to be a certified loser. Yet, as hopeless and uninspiring of a candidate he was, he unwittingly gave Russian liberals hope, Aleksandar Đokić writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

After a week of what could be described as peak cheap court drama at its finest, the last liberal potential candidate for the Russian presidential election, Boris Nadezhdin, has been finally rejected by the country’s Central Electoral Commission.

In a tense administrative showdown of the opening week of February, Nadezhdin first submitted 104,700 signatures necessary for his candidature to be approved, since he isn’t running as a representative of a parliamentary political party. 

The Central Electoral Commission, the bureaucratic body which formally decides whether aspiring candidates fulfil the criteria to run in the elections or not, then went on to scrap 9,147 of those, or more than the legally allowed 5% of invalid signatures. 

Nadezhdin appealed the decision, but the bureaucrats ultimately rejected his complaint on Thursday.

In the end, there will be just four candidates running for the post of Russia’s supreme leader, all of them representatives of parliamentary parties, which are eligible to run by default. 

All other candidates, except Vladimir Putin himself, had their hopes dashed by the Central Electoral Commission. 

Putin’s official rivals for the 17 March election will be LDPR’s Leonid Slutsky, Nikolay Kharitonov of the Communist Party, and New People’s Vladislav Davankov.

All of them constitute what is known as loyal opposition; in other words, they’re window dressing, as Putin can’t be the only candidate, it’s against the Constitution and the optics are rather bad. 

The message out of the Kremlin to Russians is, the bare bones of democratic pretence must be maintained.

Hardly the leader we need

On the other hand, Boris Nadezhdin himself was not what one would call a leader of the liberal or any kind of opposition by any means at all. 

Over the years, he has repeatedly participated in political talk shows broadcast on Russian federal TV channels, as a handpicked representative of what was supposed to be “liberal opposition”. 

He was on the infamous Vladimir Solovyov’s show more than once, whose rants can only be compared to those of Hans Fritzsche, the Nazi star radio host, later convicted of war crimes by the Nuremberg tribunal. 

Nadezhdin also frequently took part in other federal TV talk shows such as Pyotr Tolstoy’s “Time Will Tell” and was a guest on Yevgeny Popov’s and Olga Skabeeva’s “60 Minutes” program. 

All of the “journalists” mentioned above went on to join Putin’s United Russia party and renounced any semblance of journalist integrity. The democratic world has also sanctioned them in the meantime.

Nadezhdin’s political background is in line with his previous, but more successful colleagues from the ranks of Putin’s technocratic elite of today, such as the influential post-Soviet mainstay Sergey Kiriyenko, known as one of Boris Yeltsin’s former prime ministers. 

Nadezhdin was also a member of Boris Nemtsov’s team at the end of the 1990s when the liberal wing of Russia’s political system had its last hurrah. 

Nemtsov was assassinated late into Putin’s era, refusing to submit to autocratic rule, like many of his peers did. 

Nadezhdin went on to change several mainstream liberal parties in Russia while Putin was already in power. 

ADVERTISEMENT

He worked with Putin’s former Minister of Finance Alexey Kudrin and took part in the primaries of Putin’s United Russia party in 2015 but was defeated. Then, in 2021, he unsuccessfully ran in the parliamentary elections as the representative of the Just Russia party, which was by then an openly alt-right political organisation completely loyal to Putin.

Supporting the platform, not the face on the posters

In essence, Nadezhdin as a political figure bears no importance. Putin’s administration could’ve picked anyone out of several other characters ready to perfectly fill his shoes as representatives of the loyal liberal opposition. 

What matters for Russian society and bears mentioning is the effect which Nadezhin’s failed candidacy achieved — an effect which even Nadezhdin himself couldn’t have hoped for.

In another twist of cynical irony, his last name happens to contain the word “hope”. And all of a sudden, traces of hope appeared, albeit briefly.

For the first time since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian liberal public dared to show its collective face on the streets of the big cities. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Long queues of people who wanted to give their signatures and show support for his candidacy could be seen as early as the beginning of this year.

This was mainly achieved by the real liberal opposition, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Alexey Navalny’s associates, unexpectedly standing behind his candidacy. 

From then on, it didn’t matter in the slightest whether Nadezhdin was coopted by Putin’s administration or not; he still ran on the anti-war and pro-democracy platform and the large number of people supporting him did so because of the issues and not out of affection for him as a political leader. 

Maybe hope does die last after all

What came to be was the next best thing to protest in Russia’s middle-class circles. 

For the first time, in the middle of totalitarian Russia, liberals took to the streets, stood next to each other, likely conversed on political issues and no force could scare them away. This is a big deal for Russia’s atomised big-city segment of society.

ADVERTISEMENT

Liberal support for Nadezhdin grew so much, that he was realistically seen as a runner-up in the coming elections, an outcome Putin’s administration did not want to see happening. 

Nadezhdin’s role was to be a certified loser, garnering no more than 1-2% of votes, thus demonstrating to fragmented and disenchanted Russian liberals that they were isolated and few in numbers. 

The snowball effect of grassroots support for Nadezhdin annihilated the premise of Putin’s team, so when the first independent polling results came out, giving Nadezhdin a projected share of no less than 10%, it was clear that his project was to be cancelled and his candidacy refused. 

By then, however, it was already too late to erase the positive social effect Nadezhdin’s candidacy had caused. 

The decision of the Russian liberal opposition turned out to be the right one, for a change. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Nadezhdin had achieved what they could not. He brought Russian liberals out of their kitchens, where serious matters in Russian society are commonly discussed, and into the open. 

And as hopeless and uninspiring of a candidate as he was, he unwittingly gave Russian liberals hope.

Aleksandar Đokić is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. He was formerly a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#unexpected #upside #Russias #liberal #candidate

Heading into the presidential election, America is angry and worried

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Donald Trump leads confidently in the swing states, but the November presidential election still holds serious challenges, John McLaughlin writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

In swing states, Donald Trump’s advantage is currently five percentage points: 48% would vote for him, and 43% for Joe Biden.

If the former Democrat, now running as an independent, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is also on the ballot, Trump’s advantage is even greater, rising to eight points: 42% support Trump, 34% support Biden, and 11% support Kennedy.

However, the day when a decision must be made is still far away.

What do the numbers say?

McLaughlin & Associates conducted a survey among 1,600 likely general election voters in 17 election battleground states between 16-21 January.

We found that a vast majority of American voters, 73%, believe that things are going in the wrong direction in the country, while only 27% believe that things are going well. 

This is especially true concerning the economy: half of those living in swing states reported that their lives got worse since Joe Biden became president, 33% said their situation had not changed based on their admission, and only 17% reported that their standard of living had improved.

Currently, 45% of voters feel anger or disappointment when they think about the state of the country, and 41% feel concern or fear. Their share has increased by six percentage points since last year. Only 14% feel pride, and their share has gone down by four points since 2023.

The details of the research also reveal that Donald Trump is the “leader of the angry” today. 

Among those who feel anger and disappointment, Trump’s advantage over Biden is nearly 30 points (in this round, Trump received 60% of the votes, with Biden scoring only 31%). 

However, among those who feel concern and fear, the competition is much closer: Biden leads by six points, 48/42. Yet, the proportion of the latter group among American voters is on the rise.

The situation is understandable in many ways. The explosion of inflation, the subsequent economic uncertainty, uncontrolled illegal immigration, the deterioration of public safety in American cities, or the significant increase in the number and risks of armed conflicts raging around the world all increase the concerns and fears of voters. 

The world seems increasingly unpredictable. We live in an anxious, uncertain age.

Winning over moderate voters is the path to victory

As the presidential election approaches, those moderate, middle-of-the-road voters, or voters who identify themselves as independent, who are otherwise not interested in politics, become more and more active in the political sense. But in this case, their opinion can be of decisive importance. 

In this segment, fears and worries make up the majority: 45% of “moderate” voters feel worried about the state of the country, 39% feel anger and dissatisfaction, and only 16% feel pride. 

By mobilizing those in the middle, the so-called “moderate” voters, the proportion and importance of those who are looking for protection and security in an increasingly uncertain world in economic and political terms can further increase. 

Winning over these voters is a political challenge for both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for example, faced similar challenges in 2010, before his re-election. 

At that time, Hungary was suffering from the consequences of the great global economic crisis of 2008, and voters were angry and desperate. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Then, Orbán’s campaign focused on “hearing, seeing, and feeling the economic fears and concerns of Hungarians”, and the way out was through the removal of the ruling left-wing government, to achieve a “strong Hungary”. 

Orbán won the election because, in addition to the angry right-wing voters, he also paid attention to those moderates who were worried, felt insecure, and feared for the future of their families.

A battle of characters ahead

The American presidential election is always a battle of characters.

Voters in battleground states see Joe Biden as a weak leader. According to 74%, he is a weak leader. He is considered too old and many question his mental health (82% of voters). 

However, it is also undeniable that many people see him as a kind of “grandparent, grandfather” figure who has seen, experienced, and understands a lot. He understands those who are afraid, afraid for the future of their family and the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

As the leader of “angry Americans”, Donald Trump is undeniably strong, charismatic, and unafraid to fight. However, it is important to whom you are fighting for and why. 

You can fight China, the corrupt bureaucracy in Washington, or even the radical left — all of this is far from the everyday life of many. 

We could also say that all this is just “politics about politics”. Those who are worried and anxious about the future need a strong leader who uses his power to protect them. American families, early risers, decent workers — the backbone of America.

Right now, however, Trump is an advocate for the angry. It will become clear during the campaign whether he will be able to appeal to those who fear for their own or their family’s future. 

Even a near-equal result with Biden in this group would tip the November elections in Trump’s direction.

ADVERTISEMENT

A strong leader to arise?

Donald Trump now needs productive fights where he can stand up to protect American families from crime, the risk of terrorism, and drug trafficking flowing in through open borders, while also making sure that those who work hard can also make a living, not only the corrupt elite in Washington. 

His fight would also consist of preventing the dollar from losing its purchasing power while making sure homes can run on affordable energy. 

These are struggles where moderate voters can feel that the strong leader not only defeats his political opponents, but is also useful to them, because he fights for them, protects them, and can create security.

For Trump, fighting such productive conflicts could lead to another victory by winning over moderate voters.

John McLaughlin is CEO of McLaughlin & Associates.

ADVERTISEMENT

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Heading #presidential #election #America #angry #worried

Will Zelenskyy’s four-star general become his main political opponent?

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

The Zelenskyy-Zaluzhnyi beef is a reminder that the essence of politics lies in disagreement or divergence of group interests — especially when those interests involve the survival of the nation and its people, Aleksandar Đokić writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

As the war in Ukraine nears the two-year mark, global attention has radically shifted away from Russia’s ongoing act of aggression. Battlefield reports have become scarce, and the continued humanitarian crisis affecting tens of millions of Ukrainians barely makes the news any more.

Yet, the most recent bombshell out of Kyiv alleging a behind-the-scenes dispute between President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and army commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi brought Ukraine to the headlines of the media around the world once more. 

Rumours of Zaluzhnyi’s imminent dismissal as a consequence of an ever-widening rift between two key figures in wartime Ukraine of today are said to be tied to the fact that Zaluzhnyi — seen by many as a level-headed realist — has become increasingly more popular among Ukrainians than Zelenskyy himself.

While the Ukrainian president dismissed this as “not true”, fears over Zaluzhnyi’s rise in popularity in domestic politics would serve to prove that, while a nation’s unity in times of war might be strong, concord in politics tends to be very short-lived.

And if anything, the Zelenskyy-Zaluzhnyi beef is a reminder that the essence of politics lies in disagreement or divergence of group interests — especially when those interests involve the survival of the nation and its people.

What unites a country?

In fact, history has shown that the unity of the people and various political options is an unnatural state in the realm of politics. 

This coming together of an entire society is usually either a product of tyranny from within — where unity represents merely a false image of itself, as in the case of Vladimir Putin’s Russia — or forced from the outside by aggressive foreign powers threatening the sole existence of a nation. 

Going a mere decade back, Ukrainian society was, like any other, divided between conflicting interests of various groups, represented by political parties, with a meddling oligarchic element to boot. 

However, Ukrainians already had a unifying incentive, that many societies luckily don’t have — an increasingly aggressive and revanchist great power at its doorstep, attempting to capture Ukraine’s territory and reconfigure its national identity. 

The Ukrainian political class didn’t only face the cumbersome task of building democratic institutions and curbing oligarchic influence over the political sphere. It also had to do so while dealing with the military aggression of its now resurgent former imperial master. 

Enter Zelenskyy

Fast forward to the last presidential electoral cycle in Ukraine in 2019: the current president of the country, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, achieved a unifying effect never seen before in contemporary Ukrainian politics. 

In the runoff, he got both the west and the east of the country to support him, while replacing a string of oligarchs who preceded him, including Petro Poroshenko and Viktor Yanukovich.

Russia’s total war against Ukraine in 2022 changed the political landscape of both countries. 

Moscow slid into totalitarianism, while in Ukraine, the vast majority of the nation rallied around President Zelenskyy, a political figure only a few considered to be as resilient as he turned out to be. 

Zelenskyy, a man of charisma and a politician who understood how to appropriately communicate with a wide audience, helped the Ukrainian people beat back the main onslaught of Russian troops. 

Western aid, in terms of armaments and finances, came later. It was Zelenskyy’s voice, his presence, that instilled hope in the hearts of Ukrainians around the world. 

Even those who mocked him and thought he was incapable of holding the highest political office, came to respect his actions when they were needed the most, and Zelenskyy went on to become a globally recognised leader of a nation embroiled in a David vs Goliath-esque contest.

The nature of politics inevitably rears its head

However, after nearly two years of bloody war, the frontlines barely moving, and new wars and crises arising elsewhere, Ukraine lost its leading place in the world news reports. Zelenskyy’s aplomb just wasn’t enough any more. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Internally, the nature of politics began to show itself. By mid-2023, it was already clear that Zelenskyy would be facing renewed opposition. 

His controversial former advisor Oleksiy Arestovych immediately presented himself as a promising potential leader of the “stalemate” or “sober” party — claiming to be the actual realist in the room. 

He alone, nonetheless, didn’t stand much chance against Zelenskyy, having switched too many political camps in his career, and it became evident that not many of those who were a part of the pre-war opposition would back him. 

With Zelenskyy at the helm of the determined resistance strain of Ukrainian politics, then who could be the face of the stalemate party, without him or her being labelled a defeatist or, even worse, Putin’s agent? 

The answer to that question was clear to the opposition veterans from the start — four-star general Valerii Zaluzhnyi definitely fits the bill. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Will the four-star general stand and be counted?

The general, already a war hero, is surely a strong-willed and determined individual, marked by the makings of a Macarthurian type of character. And more importantly, he has the overwhelming trust of the Ukrainian people on his side.

A December 2023 poll by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology showed that 88% of Ukrainians supported Zaluzhnyi, while Zelenskyy’s approval rating hovered at around 62%.

The same poll demonstrated that while the absolute majority of Ukrainians also do not favour the option of peace in lieu of giving up a part of their country’s territory — 74% are against it — a growing number of people now see the stalemate as a possibility, with 19% ready to accept it (up from 14% in October and 10% in May).

Zaluzhnyi’s words in a now-infamous interview in November 2023, where he expressed his reservation that Ukraine might be stuck in a long and costly war, have stung the ever-persistent Zelenskyy just as much as they have made the possible pact with the devil seem slightly more acceptable than the continued devastation of Ukraine.

At the same time, his outspoken and direct takes also piqued the interest of the nearly-inert Ukrainian opposition, already significantly weakened after the 2019 elections and following February 2022, when it lost almost all of its appeal. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet, the passage of time and lack of progress on the battlefield has made them once again engage in a political match against Zelenskyy, as can be gleaned from those from the Verkhovna Rada issuing accusatory statements aimed at him while supporting Zaluzhnyi to the Western press these days. 

All they need now is a respectable leader to stand and be counted.

Aleksandar Đokić is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. He was formerly a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Zelenskyys #fourstar #general #main #political #opponent

Islamophobia is surging throughout Europe. Here’s how we stop it

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

It’s crucial for leaders and everyday people to unite in a remarkable effort to confront the pervasive hatred in our communities. It’s not just minorities that are at risk, it’s the Western world too, and our shared values of freedom, justice and equality, Naz Shah writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier this month, a plot between AfD party officials and neo-Nazis to deport millions of ethnic minorities from Germany was uncovered. 

But this conspiracy is part of a sinister undercurrent sweeping Europe and the wider Western world – one that goes hand-in-hand with a relentless surge in Islamophobia.

Since the atrocities of 7 October and the ongoing onslaught against the people of Gaza, Islamophobia in the UK has surged 600%.

Yet the British government has responded by inflaming rhetoric rather than promoting messages of unity.

Recently, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak used an Islamophobic trope as a response to another Muslim MP, which I was forced to call out on the floor of the Commons.

Meanwhile, the Conservative government has spent their time and effort – not healing worsening social ties or resolving the conflict in the Middle East – but forcing through the controversial Rwanda asylum plan that is the epitome of institutionalised xenophobia.

But xenophobia is becoming more than normalised in the echelons of political power – it is becoming key to winning elections across Europe, and beyond.

It’s all down to the power of fear

From Sweden to Greece, far-right groups and populist leaders are not just participating in elections; they are winning, often in record numbers. 

Geert Wilders’ ascent in the Netherlands, fueled by decades-worth of anti-Muslim rhetoric, including the promise to ban mosques and the Qur’an, exemplifies how Europe is faced with a political trend not towards integration and acceptance, but hate and exclusion.

And it could get a lot worse.

Should Donald Trump be elected US President this November, the Western world will have turned a new disturbing corner, where minorities become scapegoats for the ills of Western society. 

For example, Trump recently said immigrants were “poisoning the blood [of America]” to raucous applause from crowds.

There is no doubt that his ascent to the White House would herald an even stronger far-right revival, emboldening new populists to emerge from other EU nations.

But why is this divisive rhetoric, key to electoral success, resonating with so many? The answer lies in the power of fear.

Working tirelessly to humanise the other

For example, the great replacement theory that so many far-right populists exhort asserts Western civilization is facing an existential threat in a culture war against Western values. 

That narrative, of the West fighting for survival against an imagined onslaught of Islamization, is designed to tap into deep-seated existential fears.

And to some degree, it’s working.

Europe is being pulled towards far-right ideologies at a scale reminiscent of the preludes to World War II. 

ADVERTISEMENT

It isn’t just a political trend; it’s a dangerous slide towards an era of division and hostility, one that will challenge the very foundations of our democratic values.

How then, do we address a trend that threatens to engulf Western Muslims, other minorities, and core Western values of empathy, tolerance, and mutual respect?

Well, for one, we must work tirelessly to humanise the other. History shows that escalating persecution and violence against minorities is always paired with their dehumanization.

A set of values against the far right’s divisive rhetoric

This is why education must play a pivotal role. Schools must incorporate curricula that foster a better understanding of Islamic culture through exposure and knowledge of those with different backgrounds.

But education in schools must complement wider education in society.

ADVERTISEMENT

That’s why my participation in the Conference of European and British Muslim Leaders this past year was a pivotal moment for the British Muslim community.

This gathering, orchestrated by the Muslim World League in London convened hundreds of the most influential Muslim figures in Britain. At the centre of the conference was the Charter of Makkah, a sweeping bill of Islamic rights and values backed by over 1,200 scholars from 139 countries which testifies to Islam’s commitment to modern ideals.

For example, the charter emphasizes environmental stewardship, religious tolerance, and women’s rights. 

But these values are more than abstract ideals; they are integral to the daily lives of British Muslims. Importantly, they go directly against the divisive rhetoric of far-right extremists.

It’s time to put out the fires of extremist ideologies

This matters immensely. Recognising the shared values between British Muslims and the wider society strikes at the root of extremism. And such appreciation strengthens the fabric of our society, bolstering its resilience against divisive forces.

ADVERTISEMENT

But resilience cannot only come from us. The media, society, and government also have important roles to play.

For example, policy interventions remain crucial. The political obsession with Islamophobia is distracting policymakers from addressing the increase in white nationalist terrorism, which has risen at least 320% in the past decade and increasingly targeting the young. 

Ironically, the narratives that far-right parties are spewing against Muslims are precisely the fuel that this extremist ideology depends upon.

This is why governments should develop information campaigns about the dangers of the far-right alongside legislation that protects communities from hate crimes and hate speech. 

This is particularly relevant to social media and the online world, where the far-right feels they have a free pass to spread hatred.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is also time for the UK government to adopt the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia. After all, how can you tackle something you cannot define or understand?

Ultimately, it’s crucial for leaders and everyday people to unite in a remarkable effort to confront the pervasive hatred in our communities. 

Because it’s not just minorities that are at risk, it’s the Western world too, and our shared values of freedom, justice and equality.

Naz Shah is a Member of the UK Parliament for Bradford West, serving as Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Muslim Women, and Vice Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Race and Community, British Muslims, and others. Shah has also served as Shadow Minister for Crime Reduction, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Source link

#Islamophobia #surging #Europe #Heres #stop

Disability rights in Ukraine are a litmus test for democracy

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

When Ukraine emerges from conflict, the country has the promise to rebuild itself as a model for a free, fair, and inclusive society. Ensuring that the rights of people with disabilities are respected will be a major test of how well it succeeds, Virginia Atkinson and Yuliia Sachuk write.

ADVERTISEMENT

Air raid sirens blare across Ukraine every day. The sound signals what has become a part of Ukrainians’ daily routine: run down the steps to the basement, shelter in place, and, as millions have, trek miles to shelter or to flee.

But for those with disabilities who can’t hear those signals, who can’t access bomb shelters, who can’t make it across the border or to a shelter — they continue to be left behind.

One woman’s family — all of whom are blind — never knew where the entrance to their apartment building’s basement was. 

When the building owner told residents to shelter there, they were dismissed when they asked for directions. 

This is just one scenario where people with disabilities could not access a shelter. In 2023, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry found that nearly 900 over 4,800 shelters were locked or in a state of disrepair; a majority of the remaining shelters are inaccessible to people with disabilities.

This past week, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy promoted a Ukrainian peace plan, urging his allies to remain committed to Ukraine “to build, to reconstruct, to restore our lives.” 

As towns in Ukraine rebuild at this very moment, it is important to recognise that for people with disabilities, a one-size-fits-all playbook to survive and recover from the war does not exist. 

When Ukraine emerges victorious, to thrive as an inclusive democracy, it must prioritise those being left behind right now.

Russia’s full-scale invasion made matters dire

Making the country work for its increased population of people with disabilities must not wait for the end of hostilities.

Around 2.7 million Ukrainians have disabilities, estimated by the State Statistics Service, though due to stigma and discrimination against self-identifying, this number is under-reported; a 2020 survey by Ukrainian disability rights NGO Fight for Right and the Kyiv International Institution of Sociology found that 16.8% of Ukrainians have a disability, a number that is rising daily during the conflict. 

Before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine began to reform its social services to promote independence and a more rights-based approach to disability. 

In 2021, the government adopted the Strategy for Barrier-Free Society, focusing on “empowering persons with disabilities to fully participate in society and ensure they can enjoy their fundamental rights.”

But when Russia went on a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, those efforts came to a screeching halt. 

Information disseminated to the public included crucial information, like curfews, where to seek shelter, and guidance on martial law. 

Oleksandr, a man with a visual disability, couldn’t find out where to buy bread during the first months of the invasion, with information largely being inaccessible due to a lack of resources in sign language, large fonts, or audio or visual formats.

As people evacuated, some left behind loved ones who were older or had a disability. According to an Amnesty International report, 4,000 older Ukrainians with disabilities have been forced into state institutions. 

As the Washington Post writes in a sobering report about internally displaced Ukrainians with disabilities, many of these institutions are in remote areas and violate international standards on access to independent decision-making for people with disabilities.

Children with disabilities are falling behind in their school lessons, with little to no support provided to families of children with disabilities.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even getting to the border is not a guarantee of being allowed to cross. According to Fight for Right’s estimates, thousands of men with disabilities have been refused passage across the border. 

The provisions of conscription state that persons with disabilities are not subject to conscription, but border guards are not sensitised to disability and often send men with disabilities away without any information on what documentation they need to cross.

International actors’ help needed

The challenges facing people with disabilities during the war point to the challenges that Ukraine will reckon with during reconstruction. 

The number of people with disabilities has already skyrocketed throughout the war, many of whom are wounded soldiers. As a recent AP report outlines, wounded veterans need to be given resources to independently navigate the world.

For many soldiers, children, and adults — wounded and non-wounded alike — the trauma of seeing these atrocities will undoubtedly impact their mental and emotional health for the rest of their lives.

ADVERTISEMENT

For Ukraine to thrive as an inclusive democracy, international actors need to prioritise identifying solutions to these issues. 

The upcoming Ukraine Recovery Conference in Berlin provides an opportunity to focus attention on ensuring people with disabilities are meaningfully involved in Ukraine’s recovery and reform.

Buildings should be rebuilt in an accessible manner, institutions should be abandoned in favour of strategies for people with disabilities to live independently in the community, new laws and policies developed as part of the EU accession process should align with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the elections held when martial law is lifted should be accessible to voters with disabilities.

Many of the accommodations that can be applied are ones that we already use in our everyday lives, whether it be voice-to-text software on our phones or ramps that make buildings more accessible to people with physical disabilities or for parents with young children.

Democracy is at stake

We at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and Fight for Right are committed to doing our part. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Ahead of the 2020 local elections in Ukraine, the IFES team supported the Central Election Commission and organisations of persons with disabilities to design a QR code that allowed people with a smartphone to consume written content in Ukrainian sign language and audio format. 

This voter education dissemination method was recognised with an Innovative Practice Award from the Zero Project at the UN in Vienna. The same can be done for any other piece of what could be life-saving information. 

As Ukraine returns to ordinary democratic life, we will continue to work with Ukrainian partners to ensure that these standards are reflected in elections and that all Ukrainians have access to participate in the political process.

The global community has recognised, since the start of the full-scale invasion, that what is at stake is democracy. 

When Ukraine emerges from conflict, the country has the promise to rebuild itself as a model for a free, fair, and inclusive society. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Ensuring that the rights of people with disabilities are respected will be a litmus test of how well it succeeds.

Virginia Atkinson serves as Global Inclusion Adviser at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, and Yuliia Sachuk is Head of the Ukrainian Fight for Right NGO.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Disability #rights #Ukraine #litmus #test #democracy

Somalia-Ethiopia jitters could plunge the Horn of Africa into chaos

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

A breakout of a war between Ethiopia and Somalia would carry catastrophic consequences not just for the region, but for Africa as a whole, Mohamed El-Bendary writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

As the world welcomes the arrival of a new year and eyes are focused on the war in Gaza, tension continues to escalate in the Horn of Africa — a region of immense political instability. 

This comes following Somalia’s cancellation on 6 January of a pact which Ethiopia signed five days earlier with Somalia’s breakaway territory of Somaliland. 

The agreement would grant landlocked Ethiopia access to the Somaliland port in the Gulf of Aden to establish a marine force base that aims at strengthening political, economic and security ties between them. 

Somaliland, which seceded from Somalia in 1991, borders the Red Sea — a security hotspot and a strategic maritime corridor not just for African and Arab Gulf states, but also for world powers such as the United States, China, and Russia. 

The port agreement will grant Addis Ababa access to Red Sea shipping lanes through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait between Djibouti (in the Horn of Africa) and Yemen (in the Middle East), and which connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

The controversial deal has received condemnation from other Red Sea neighbours, including Egypt and Eritrea, which fear a possible naval access to the Red Sea which Ethiopia lost the right to use following Eritrea’s secession in 1993. 

Little attention paid to one of the world’s most volatile regions

Ethiopia has instead been utilising the port in neighbouring Djibouti for channelling the vast majority of its imports and exports in return for generous financial returns. 

There is also fear that the agreement could mount tension among Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia over the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile.

Regrettably, the West’s perception of Horn of Africa countries is weak with little attention currently paid to the rising concern among Africans that the port agreement could enflame conflict in one of the world’s most volatile regions. 

With a population of close to 120 million, Ethiopia is the biggest landlocked country globally and is viewed as an African giant after Nigeria. 

Somaliland, on the other hand, is far smaller in population and size and, hence, it can’t counter the giant next door which has been indulged in acts of retaliations and retributions.

Somaliland is not recognised by the United Nations or the African Union as an independent state, and this has hindered its economic and political development. 

Yet, one must admit that the de facto independent Republic of Somaliland has achieved some progress in those areas than several recognised states in west and central Africa. 

It is viewed today as one of the continent’s most democratic countries, with Kenya, Denmark, the UK, and the EU having offices or some form of presence in its capital Hargeisa.

Colonialism and autocracy at the root of conflict

Access to the Red Sea is viewed as an existential issue by many Ethiopians, with Addis Ababa promising to recognise Somaliland as an independent country in the near future. 

Most Somalis still, however, consider Somaliland as part of their territory, and hence tension is likely to increase. 

And with the African Union planning to withdraw its peacekeeping force from a politically bankrupt Somalia by the end of 2024, we are likely to witness an increase in attacks by al-Shabaab — a non-state militant group which controls half of Somalia’s territory — against Ethiopia.

Yet, the Somaliland-Ethiopian port agreement can also be viewed as an endeavour by the Ethiopian government to divert the world focus from its economic difficulties and internal conflicts, particularly in the aftermath of the 2020-2022 Tigray War — which has left hundreds of thousands of people killed and displaced — and the eruption of a new war with the Amhara and Oromia militias. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tigray War has left Ethiopia on the brink of a humanitarian disaster and further underlined its need for a port.

The port agreement has indeed uncovered the labyrinth of interests and political realities across the beleaguered Horn of Africa — in a region in which decades of colonialism, along with the autocratic rule implemented thereafter, have deeply planted schisms, rivalries and territorial disputes. 

Rising fear of conflict to engulf the entire continent

The rupture in Ethiopian-Somali ties could have grave consequences for the region and the Red Sea countries as a whole. 

The ongoing US-British attacks on the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen — which is located along the Gulf of Aden at the intersection of the Red Sea and Arabian Sea — could also threaten shipping operations through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait.

Guarding the strategic strait poses a major challenge to today’s Arab Gulf states, with Saudi Arabia and Emirates fearing attacks on shipping lanes in it and the Red Sea. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The Gulf states have always viewed the Horn of Africa region as a strategic borderline, with claims made that the United Arab Emirates — which has diligently been increasing its economic clout in the region — played a role in striking the port agreement. 

There is also rising fear of conflict extending to endanger ships passing from Egypt’s Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean via the Red Sea.

The political and economic grievances of the Horn of Africa region are so great that they can’t solve them alone. 

A breakout of a war between Ethiopia and Somalia would carry catastrophic consequences not just for the region, but for Africa as a whole. 

It is incumbent upon the UN and the African Union to push for calm and play a more active role in settling the dispute.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mohamed El-Bendary is an independent researcher based in Egypt and a former journalism lecturer in the US and New Zealand. He is the author of “The ‘Ugly American’ in the Arab Mind: Why Do Arabs Resent America?”.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#SomaliaEthiopia #jitters #plunge #Horn #Africa #chaos

The European Super League case has woken up a sleeping giant

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

After the Court of Justice of the European Union’s December ruling, the last thing FIFA and UEFA want is to have a fragmentation of mini-regulations imposed by courts all over the EU, Dr Assimakis Komninos writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Tucked away in the fairy-tale Grand Duchy of Luxembourg”, as a commentator once put it, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the unsung hero of European integration. 

When it comes to sports, the CJEU is like a sleeping giant. Every three decades, the court will wake up and upend the way we play and enjoy our favourite sports. Then, there will be a period of hibernation until the next eruption. 

The previous shock was on 15 December 1995, when the CJEU adopted the Bosman ruling which reshaped European football — in my personal view, for the worst. 

Twenty-eight years later, on 21 December 2023, we had the next shock. The Court this time delivered a crushing defeat for FIFA and UEFA in the European Super League case.

We also had two more judgments on the same day, Royal Antwerp Football Club and International Skating Union, which completed the picture and that picture is now bleak for sports federations. 

The Court’s rulings will have profound consequences on almost all other sports and their organisation. 

Lots of cases and complaints that are currently pending before the Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) at the European Commission will now acquire momentum — to the horror of the officials — and I am sure there will be a huge wave of new preliminary references on similar questions on every sport you can imagine.

What is the case about?

More seriously, what is the European Super League case about? The Court held that the FIFA and UEFA rules making any new interclub football project, such as the Super League, subject to their prior approval, and prohibiting clubs and players from playing in those competitions, are unlawful. 

In essence, the role and powers of FIFA and UEFA are at stake. 

The CJEU thought it needed to check these powers. The Court did so by relying predominantly on the competition rules of the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). And it did so through three strikes.

The first strike is the deconstruction of Article 165 of the TFEU about the special status of sports. 

The Court essentially held that Article 165 has no “teeth” and cannot justify conduct that falls foul of the competition or the four freedoms rules. 

So those who had placed their bets on this provision, which was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon precisely to please the sports bodies, will be disappointed.

The second strike is the finding that FIFA, UEFA and their member associations are “undertakings” in the sense that they perform economic activities consisting of the organisation and marketing of interclub football competitions and the exploitation of media rights. 

Hence, they are subject to the competition rules and, not to forget, FIFA and UEFA hold a dominant position, indeed a monopoly, in these economic activities, which is “indisputable” in the Court’s words.

With great power comes great responsibility

The third and most serious strike is the Court’s treatment of FIFA and UEFA as quasi-state actors. 

By relying on case law that applies to undertakings with special or exclusive rights granted by the member states, the CJEU in reality said that FIFA and UEFA are unlike other private organisations. 

No other text encapsulates this better than paragraph 137 of the judgment:

ADVERTISEMENT

“Requirements identical to those [applicable to undertakings that have been the beneficiaries of special or exclusive rights granted by member states] are all the more necessary when an undertaking in a dominant position, through its own conduct and not by virtue of being granted exclusive or special rights by a Member State, places itself in a situation where it is able to deny potentially competing undertakings access to a given market […] That may be the case when that undertaking has regulatory and review powers and the power to impose sanctions enabling it to authorise or control that access, and thus a means which is different to those normally available to undertakings and which govern competition on the merits as between them.”

That says it all: with great power comes great responsibility. The Court viewed FIFA and UEFA as a “state within the state” and was quite strict. Certainly, this amounts to new law.

The status quo is untenable

So what is the Court of Justice demanding from FIFA and UEFA? The asks sound innocuous but the reality is that they go to the very core of how the two are organised: FIFA and UEFA need to put in place specific measures that ensure there is no risk of abuse of dominance and a whole framework for substantive criteria, as well as detailed procedural rules for ensuring that these criteria are transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory. 

The CJEU also makes clear that the status quo is untenable and has to change, since, as the Court puts it, “at the current juncture it is impossible to set up viably a competition outside [FIFA’s and UEFA’s] ecosystem, given the control they exercise, directly or through their member national football associations, over clubs, players and other types of competitions”. 

As to media rights and the commercial exploitation of rights related to football competitions, the Court was equally not happy with FIFA’s and UEFA’s role, although a bit more flexible. 

ADVERTISEMENT

In reality, the Court stressed that it was not deciding about the European Super League project, but I wonder how much room for manoeuvre is left for the two football federations.

All roads lead to Brussels

Obviously, I don’t think the case should be left to the Spanish judges which have now received the ruling. 

I believe the way forward is for the European Commission to step in and implement the Court’s judgment in the context of cases that are in front of it — and I am sure there are. 

And if I were FIFA and UEFA, I would move fast and try to resolve this centrally with the European Commission. 

The last thing they want is to have a fragmentation of mini-regulations imposed by courts all over the EU. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The two organisations must put together a new regime with necessary and proportionate measures to safeguard their legitimate objectives. 

And it would be ideal if that new regime were blessed by the European Commission in the form of a decision — more likely, a commitment decision. Time is running out.

Dr Assimakis Komninos is Partner at White & Case LLP and a litigator in major competition law cases before the EU Courts, the European Commission, national authorities, national courts and international arbitration tribunals. He is a visiting professor at Université Panthéon Assas (Paris II) and a member of the Executive Committee of the Global Competition Law Centre (GCLC) at the College of Europe.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#European #Super #League #case #woken #sleeping #giant

The ANC’s Israel deflection strategy is cynical and wrong

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Instead of making claims that are nothing short of modern-day blood libels against Jews, the ANC should be working to create a safer and more transparent democracy for the people of South Africa, Charles Asher Small writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

In 1982, as a new first-year undergraduate student of politics at McGill University in Canada, I took a course with the renowned professor Sam Noumoff on the politics of revolution. 

He gave a series of lectures about Apartheid South Africa. Its Nazi-inspired fascist and racist ideology that governed every aspect of the segregated society based on racial categories, both shocked and disturbed me.

It was an issue I had barely any prior understanding of. I couldn’t fathom that in my lifetime, an entire society was being ruled by an ideology of racial supremacy that was closely based on the Nazi ideology and a worldview that systematically annihilated my grandparent’s generation. 

An ideology which I thought had been consigned to the trashcan of history. Yet the architects of apartheid — Verwoerd and Smuts — were racist antisemites who aligned themselves with this supremacist worldview, and the system was still in place, in my lifetime.

The anti-apartheid movement made sense to me

Eventually, I met an exiled South African professor, Chengiah Ragaven, an intellectual leader and founder of the Black Consciousness Movement and teacher of Steve Biko. Under his mentorship, I gained valuable insights into the movement and decided to delve deeper into my studies. 

I understood that the goal of the anti-apartheid movement, personified by the great Nelson Mandela, was a social democratic society in which all citizens would be equal under one legal system.

As a proud young Jewish person with a strong background in human rights and Zionism, the movement committed to the national liberation of the Jewish people, I became deeply involved in the anti-apartheid movement. 

It made sense to me. I became the chairperson of the African National Congress Solidity Committee of Canada, worked with the leadership of the ANC, and actively supported its goals to create a democratic society in South Africa.

Tragically, the reality of ANC rule has failed to live up to the rhetoric and vision of its legendary leader and the vision I and others worked for decades ago. 

Yet, the ANC threw their full weight behind Hamas

Thirty years after the end of apartheid, the ANC has failed to deliver any of its basic promises, as the vast majority of Black South Africans continue to live in squalor. 

Rampant corruption among the ruling party’s leadership is out of control, making it one of the worst in the world. 

In 2023, South Africa once again featured in the top ten countries in the world for the highest murder rates, with tens of thousands of annual killings, and inadequate basic services such as electricity, nutrition, housing and employment.

Yet instead of focusing on transparency in their own party, or cleaning up the streets, the ANC has gone back to the world’s oldest scapegoats. 

Just like Nazi-inspired racists and Jew-haters Verwoerd and Smuts, who blamed Jews for all the evils in the world, the current ANC government is deflecting from its own failures by attacking the one and only Jewish state and threatening Jewish South Africans with prison for serving in the army of the truly democratic nation of Israel. 

The claims being made by the South African government at the Hague are nothing short of a modern-day blood libel, with the scapegoating rationale as cynical as ever.

The liberators of apartheid have tragically jumped into bed with the autocrats of Qatar, Russia and China, while throwing their full weight behind Hamas, whose own ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is based on the genocidal European antisemitism that lay the foundation of Nazism. 

Hamas in its very constitution not only openly calls for a genocide of Jewish people around the world, it calls for the subjugation of women and the elimination of democracy — the antithesis of the ANC Freedom Charter. Nelson Mandela, who was close to the Jewish community, must be turning in his grave as his party betrays its very core beliefs.

Instead of siding with the liberal democracy facing the Islamist terrorist organisation whose own charter calls for the genocide of Jews, the ANC Government now supports the movement in Gaza that at its core calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jewish people.

ADVERTISEMENT

The people of South Africa deserve more

It should be recalled that on 6 October 2023, Gazans and Israelis had relative peace and quiet. On 7 October, Hamas’ unprovoked rampage of rape and murder against Israeli civilians, whereby entire families were burned and butchered in their beds, began a war of necessity for Israel. 

The terrorists sang ISIS songs as they beheaded their victims. One even phoned his parents to boast about the number of Jews he had killed with his bare hands.

Yet, encouraged by the very enemies of freedom and democracy, South Africa has gone “all-in” with the terrorist group. Furthermore, South Africa has brought in some of the world’s most repugnant and disreputed antisemites and racists to represent them at the Hague, including former UK Labour Party head, Jeremy Corbyn, who has called those same genocidal rapists of Hamas his “friends”.

The people of South Africa deserve more. At a time when South Africans are facing the highest unemployment rate in the world according to the World Bank, and out-of-control crime and murder rates, the ANC should be focusing on the issues that matter. 

Instead of cynically deflecting with modern blood libels against the Jews, the ANC should be working to create a safer and more transparent democracy for the people of South Africa.

ADVERTISEMENT

Charles Asher Small is Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP).

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#ANCs #Israel #deflection #strategy #cynical #wrong

The EU must actively back Libya’s new National Dialogue

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Competing outside interests have fanned the flames of internal discord in Libya. European policymakers must show an active interest in this new initiative, rather than falling back repeatedly on the failed formulas of the past, Ashraf Boudouara writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Libya is again at a crossroads. One path is marked “Dead End” — that’s the path we are on. 

It’s a path to nowhere because expecting those who will lose power in elections — and with it their financial interests — to agree to organise elections is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. 

Turkeys never do, but this is the process the UN is leading. 

The other, more rational path is to support the new Libyan-led National Dialogue recently launched by Prince Mohammed El Senussi, the legitimate heir to the Senussi Crown of Libya, to break the deadlock. 

Rising above narrow interests to reunite our divided country, this new National Dialogue is gathering pace and capturing hearts and minds across all factions of our country. 

It’s the only realistic path at this crucial intersection. It embodies a patriotic vision centred on inclusivity, legitimacy, democratic governance and Libyan national identity, and Libyans expect Europe’s active support in this re-found hope for our country.

A Libya in disarray impacts Europe’s future, too

The political failures since 2011 have been unequivocal, leaving Libya in disarray. We have suffered multiple civil wars. Elections have been promised, cancelled, or indefinitely delayed multiple times. 

Multiple governments — appointed by non-Libyans if we agree to call things as they are — have delivered dividends only for narrow interests, thus deepening divides rather than bridging them. 

Thousands have lost their lives due to a lack of governance, an inability to provide citizens with security, and sorely lacking economic development and infrastructure due to endemic corruption.

The implications for Europe are far-reaching. From a lack of security on its southern flank that has seen destabilising elements take root, increased illegal migration to the continent (2023 saw a whopping 2,200 migrants die on their way to reach Europe’s shores), to energy insecurity as a result of global instability which could have been easily offset with access to Libya’s vast reserves (our country is home to 48 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, representing North Africa’s largest supply), the situation could not be any more serious for European strategic interests. 

And although some countries have been more engaged than others, it is apparent that Europe simply has no coherent vision for the future of Libya. At times, different European countries, for example France and Italy, have even been on opposing sides.

A true, Libyan-led grassroots dialogue

But now, in the face of a seemingly intractable impasse, a new and realistic hope for a better future is rapidly taking hold across the country. 

Just weeks ago, on the occasion of Libyan Independence Day, Crown Prince El Senussi delivered his annual address. This has become a highlight in the country’s calendar for many. 

And while in previous years his words were primarily focused on providing strength and hope to his countrymen, this year he did so in a far more concrete way, announcing the launch of an ongoing new Libyan-led National Dialogue.

Unlike any of the previous initiatives seen, this dialogue is truly Libyan-led and grassroots under the leadership of Prince Mohammed. 

Announcing an impressive roster of Libyans who have travelled to meet with him in capitals around the world, the extent to which this project is truly inclusive is distinctive. 

From currently serving political officials to community leaders and elders from across the land, to military leaders, academics, the youth and many others, they have all come to see the Crown Prince with the same message in mind: the time has come to work together to create a truly united Libya.

What can we learn from Libya’s history?

As Prince Mohammed reminded those present, an important fact that has been under-appreciated is that Libya faced similar, though of course not identical, challenges immediately after World War II. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The ravages of the multi-decade Italian colonisation, World War II itself where Libya was a field of battle, set in the context of the same tribal, regional and ethnic affiliations and fissures you see today, combined to create a political landscape possibly even worse than Libya faces today. 

But immediately after, Libya found a way out to herald in what is commonly referred to now as its Golden Era.

It did so by relying on its own cultural and historic norms, falling back on its own national identity, to implement political processes and constructs that had intrinsic legitimacy, the necessary national significance to be unifying, as well as the necessary symbols and institutions that fostered loyalty and patriotism to make reconciliation and nation building possible. 

Starting in 1949, in under two years, the last National Dialogue reached a consensus to adopt the 1951 Independence Constitution.

It set up a democratic constitutional monarchy, with an elected parliament and representative governance. It established a bicameral legislature comprising a Senate and a House of Representatives, allowing elected officials to voice the concerns of the populace. 

ADVERTISEMENT

There was also of course an independent and much-respected judiciary. This framework aimed to ensure a balance of power between the monarchy and the legislative branch, providing avenues for citizen participation and fostering a democratic foundation.

Elections were held, and women were allowed to vote, offering citizens the opportunity to engage in the political process and express their preferences. In fact, women had the right to vote in Libya before they did in Switzerland and Portugal.

Europe can still have a positive impact on Libya

There are many models of democratic constitutional monarchy in the world today including Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Malaysia and Japan. 

Each evolved from and is consistent with the country’s own history, culture and national identity. It was the same in Libya.

Libya’s new National Dialogue should be seen as an opportunity for European leaders to finally have a positive impact on our country. 

ADVERTISEMENT

To date, by any measure, foreign interventions have contributed significantly to instability in our country. Competing outside interests, including amongst European countries, have fanned the flames of internal discord.

There is a need for a paradigm shift, especially amongst European countries, to support the new National Dialogue launched by the crown prince, a homegrown approach to stability and progress in Libya, that is taking hold and has the necessary ingredients for success. 

European policymakers must show an active interest in this new initiative, rather than falling back repeatedly on the failed formulas of the past. The time for action is now.

Ashraf Boudouara is a Libyan political analyst and the Chairman of the National Conference for the Return of the Constitutional Monarchy.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Source link

#actively #Libyas #National #Dialogue