Author: wpc_editor

Lebanon’s parliament speaker is calling for a unity government that will rescue the country from its calamities. However, the reasons for these calamities and for Lebanon’s failure to have proper governance are mutilated concepts like unity government, “mithakia,” which means proper representation among all sects, and “consensual democracy,” which means all the different parties should be included in policymaking.
Lebanon has always had unity governments and none have been able to put forward any real program for the country. The concept of unity government came about after the death of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and was enforced after the Doha Agreement. During the time of Hariri, which extended from 1992, shortly after the end of the civil war, until 2005, the government was one of technocrats.
When Hariri took power after the Taif Agreement, the two main Christian parties were put out of power. Michel Aoun was in exile and Samir Geagea was in prison. Other politicians who kept their places under Taif, like Nabih Berri, the speaker of the parliament, and Walid Jumblatt, benefited from inflated government contracts in return for their acquiescence.
Many say the Hariri years institutionalized corruption. However, during the Hariri years, there was a business plan driving the country. After his death in 2005 came the concept of unity government. This was enforced after the 2008 Doha Agreement, which gave Hezbollah and Amal a third of the Cabinet and the power to veto government decisions.
Lebanon also has the mutilated concept of mithakia, or the fallacy of representation among the sects, which was reinforced after the Doha Agreement, i.e., each one that is strongest in his denomination should be assigned a position for that denomination. So, the Sunni party that gets most of the Sunni seats in parliament should have the premiership, the Shiite party that has most of the Shiite seats should have the speaker’s position, and similarly for the Christians and the presidential role.
The political class has no plan for the country, just a power-sharing scheme that ultimately shares the spoils of the state and through which each party uses some government facility or department as its fief, from which to extract as much money as possible. Former foreign minister and the president’s son-in-law, Gebran Bassil, who is a main pillar of corruption in the country, spelled it out on the sidelines of the 2019 World Economic Forum at Davos. He said that Lebanon could teach London and Washington how to manage a country without a budget.
Thus, the country was turned into a “farm,” as one of my Gulf colleagues described it. Although he added that even a farm has more order than Lebanon. There is no order to anything, just a corrupt class of elites agreeing among themselves to pillage the country. They fight over the ministerial quotas for each party and compete over the most lucrative ministries, like the Ministry of Energy and Water, where all the fatty fuel contracts go. No one can be held accountable as they are all part of the government. This was the motivation for the memorable slogan of the protest groups, “killun yaani killun” (all means all).

The political class has been very clever in benefiting the most from power while holding no responsibility for what has happened. This is mostly represented by Bassil’s famous line, “ma khalouna,” meaning “they did not let us,” blaming the failure on others.
A unity government is not really a democratic practice. Democracy means the minority follows the majority, which rules while the minority is in opposition and keeps a check on those who rule. Today, in the US, the administration is a Democratic one and not a hybrid between Democrats and Republicans. Similarly, in the UK, the government is a Conservative one headed by Boris Johnson, while the Labour Party is in opposition. The party that wins an election puts together a comprehensive political, economic and security strategy for the country and is held responsible for its success or failure.
One might say that, in the US, the people directly elect the head of state, while in Lebanon the parliament elects the president. Others might say that, unlike the US and UK, where there are dual-party systems and where the political scenes are divided between the liberal left and conservative right, Lebanon is a country where the political configuration is divided along sectarian lines.
Still, in the elections they are standing as blocks. For example, Hezbollah, Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement formed one block in the parliamentary elections. They represent the so-called resistance block. In the case of Lebanon, parties of similar thinking should form a coalition, with the coalition that has the majority of seats in parliament forming a government to put together a comprehensive plan and be held accountable for its execution and success. However, the leaders of the political class do not want any accountability. They know that, despite their differences on policy issues, they are “brothers” in corruption. They want to stay together and keep the status quo.
Today, Lebanon is collapsing and is in dire need of an International Monetary Fund bailout package. The Najib Mikati government, which is a unity government that took office from September 2021 to May 2022 and is now in caretaker status, was not able to seal a deal with the IMF. This was also the case of the government of Hassan Diab, which was in power from January 2020 until August 2021, when its members resigned en masse following the Beirut blast and it became a caretaker government. In total, two-and-a-half years of governments and caretaker governments have been unable to reach a deal with the IMF, which Lebanon badly needs because of this consensual democracy.
The mutilated concept of unity government and mithakia are driving political paralysis. It is giving an escape route to the different political parties, allowing them to blame the situation on others. The solution is to have one block form a government, put a comprehensive plan in place and be responsible in front of the Lebanese people and the international community.

Read the original article on the website Arab News

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2113571

Postwar relations between China and Japan have seen a number of epoch-making occasions, and one of the most important events in recent years was the November 2014 summit meeting between then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The meeting became an opportunity for the two countries, which had been experiencing increased friction and tensions over the Senkaku Islands, to ease and stabilize strained relations.

Prior to the Abe-Xi meeting on Nov. 10, 2014, the governments of the two countries released a four-point statement titled “Regarding Discussions toward Improving Japan-China Relations.”

The statement said, “Both sides confirmed that they would observe the principles and spirit of the four basic documents between Japan and China and that they would continue to develop a mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests.”

The four documents are the joint communique released on Sept. 29, 1972; the peace and friendship treaty issued on Aug. 12, 1978; the joint declaration released on Nov. 26, 1998; and the joint statement issued on May 7, 2008.

We can say that both countries share the common view that the documents serve as the basis of today’s China-Japan relations, although there are difficulties and uncertainties existing between them.

Nevertheless, Japan’s China policy fluctuated largely in the 30 years after the end of the Cold War and as a result it has been difficult for Tokyo to plan long-term policies.

But what constitutes a favorable Japan-China relationship from Tokyo’s viewpoint, and what kind of approach is Japan trying to take?

Several other questions also arise when trying to understand the ties between Beijing and Tokyo.

How should Japan regard China’s economic growth?

How does establishing favorable China-Japan ties comply with the U.S.-Japan alliance?

And how will Japan achieve a balance between the national interests of maintaining economic ties with China and the threats posed by Beijing from national security perspectives?

Japan’s basic stance on China seems to have been not having a China strategy.

In other words, it is difficult to show any documents that clearly describe Japan’s strategy on China.

Complexity

So why did Japan lack a China strategy until now? There are three main reasons.

First is the complexity of Japan’s relationship with Taiwan.

The postwar China-Japan relationship had been based on ties with the “two Chinas” — the relations with Taiwan defined by the peace treaty signed by Tokyo and Taipei on April 28, 1952, the same day that the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force, and relations with China defined by the 1972 China-Japan joint communique and the 1978 peace and friendship treaty signed by Beijing and Tokyo.

And the outline of these relations was not built by Japan on its own initiative but rather was largely determined by the U.S.-China relationship of the times.

At the time of signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951, how to handle the two Chinas had been a difficult diplomatic issue between the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as between the U.S. and Japan. But the policy had been established for Japan to choose to side with the government in Taiwan.

After Japan normalized diplomatic ties with China in 1972, it became difficult for Tokyo to come up with a proactive strategy that would respond to the sensitive question of how to balance between China and Taiwan while respecting Beijing’s “one China” position.

Second is the issue of postwar settlements and perceptions of history.

Unlike other developed countries such as the U.S., the U.K. or France, Japan had to handle postwar settlements as a top diplomatic agenda in its relations with the governments of both Taiwan and China.

In other words, building a foundation for a diplomatic relationship with Beijing was postwar Japan’s one and only China policy goal, and Tokyo put in a great amount of effort to achieve it.

It was not the kind of goal that could simply be achieved with the conclusion of a peace treaty.

Third, in providing official development assistance (ODA) to China, Japan regarded it as an alternative to war reparations and, at the same time, tended to prioritize pursuing mutual economic benefits rather than political strategies.

Moreover, it is widely recognized in Japan that its ODA supported China’s modernization and economic growth. And it is true that such assistance strengthened economic ties between the two countries and nurtured mutual benefits.

The Foreign Ministry’s review of Japan’s ODA to China says: “Since 1979, ODA to China has contributed to maintaining and promoting the Reform and Opening Up Policy of China, and at the same time, it has formed a strong foundation to support Japan-China relations.”

Japan’s cooperation toward boosting the Chinese economy was inseparably interlocked with the issue of wartime settlements and perceptions of history.

The Foreign Ministry also said in 2018 that new ODA projects would be terminated in fiscal 2018 and all multiyear projects would be concluded by the end of fiscal 2021. This means that the end of fiscal 2021 in March this year represented the completion of a period in the postwar history of Japan-China relations.

Because of these reasons, it has been difficult for Japan to proactively plan a China strategy from long-term perspectives.

Japan’s China policy has so far been focused on short-term efforts to repair the relationship when it deteriorated, as well as on strengthening economic cooperation and friendship.

However, such times are coming to an end. We are now facing an era in which Japan needs to create a desirable China strategy on its own initiative, taking into account its long-term national interests.

Establishing ties

Then what is a desirable China strategy for Japan?

Japan’s China policy has been based on supporting China’s economic growth through ODA, regarding it as being in Japan’s national interests and hoping Beijing will play a constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region. But this is being forced to change.

Japan and China normalized diplomatic ties in 1972, thanks to great contributions by Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, who headed the Liberal Democratic Party’s middle-of-the-road Keiseikai faction, and Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ohira, who headed the party’s liberal Kochikai faction.

Meanwhile, the party’s conservative Fukuda faction headed by Takeo Fukuda had many pro-Taiwan lawmakers who were cautious about cutting ties with Taiwan and establishing diplomatic ties with the communist regime in Beijing.

The 1972 system stepped up further in 1978 when the Fukuda administration signed a peace and friendship treaty with China. This was a major step in that support for boosting economic ties and friendly relations with China had been established within the LDP regardless of factions.

The largest opposition Japan Socialist Party had been even more active than the LDP in developing ties with Beijing, and the Foreign Ministry’s China school had also been backing such efforts behind the scenes.

Such a consensus eroded gradually with the end of the Cold War and due to change in the power balance between Tokyo and Beijing brought about by Japan’s economic slowdown.

Furthermore, the current international environment largely differs from the Cold War era when the 1972 system was established.

China and Russia are now demonstrating a cooperative relationship, effectively working together like allies. A joint statement issued following a meeting between Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Feb. 4 said, “Friendship between the two states has no limits, there are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation, strengthening of bilateral strategic cooperation is neither aimed against third countries nor affected by the changing international environment and circumstantial changes in third countries.”

As two authoritarian regimes — China and Russia — deepen cooperation while democracies including Japan and Western countries enhance their partnerships, the international society is being increasingly divided into two camps, centered around the two sides of U.S.-China confrontations.

Japan must consider a China strategy by setting the framework for future China-Japan relations in a broader context of the changing global balance of power.

Japan’s diplomacy

Taking into account such changes in the global community, the government should make use of the meeting of the four ministers — the prime minister, the foreign minister, the defense minister and the chief Cabinet secretary — within the National Security Council and come up with a long-term basic policy to place the China strategy at the core of the nation’s security strategy.

Amid increasing tensions between Washington and Beijing, Japan needs to strengthen deterrence against China based on the U.S.-Japan alliance and at the same time maintain and boost multilayered communications with China, making diplomatic efforts to stably develop China-Japan ties to a certain extent.

On top of this, unlike the U.S., it is also important for Tokyo to take part in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership free trade agreement to proactively facilitate regional economic cooperation in East Asia in view of Japan’s national interests.

It is possible to advance cooperation with China for regional economic development while stepping up deterrence against Beijing and restricting economic relations with the country in certain economic areas from the perspective of economic security.

Completion of all ODA projects in China at the end of fiscal 2021 in March indicates an end to one era after World War II.

This means it is important for Japan to plan a long-term China strategy for the next 50 years within this year — the 50th anniversary of the normalization of diplomatic ties with Beijing — and share it within the government and also with the Japanese people.

Find the original article on the website The Japan Times

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2022/06/30/commentary/japan-commentary/japan-china-strategy/

Ce mardi 28 juin, Nathalie Collin, directrice générale adjointe du Groupe La Poste, Patrice Geoffron, directeur du Centre de géopolitique de l’énergie et des matières premières (CGEMP Paris Dauphine), ainsi que Philippe Chalmin, fondateur du Cercle Cyclope et spécialiste des matières premières, étaient les invités dans la deuxième partie de l’émission Le Grand Journal de l’Éco présentée par Hedwige Chevriillon. Le Grand Journal de l’Éco est à voir ou écouter du lundi au vendredi sur BFM Business.

Regarder son intervention sur le site de BFM.

Seules les décisions portées par Bruxelles et les poussées écologistes contre le nucléaire depuis vingt-cinq ans expliquent la situation actuelle.

Par Jean de Kervasdoué

La crise de l’énergie, dont on n’a pas fini de payer les conséquences, ne doit à la guerre en Ukraine que d’en être la brutale révélatrice, car elle trouve son origine dans les politiques allemande, européenne et française menées depuis un quart de siècle.

Sa première source figure dans l’idéologie libérale qui a inspiré la folle régulation du marché européen de l’énergie en général, celui de l’électricité en particulier. La seconde est à rechercher dans l’idéologie écologique qui a combattu avec succès en France, mais surtout en Allemagne, tout développement de l’énergie nucléaire en laissant penser que le robinet du gaz russe serait toujours ouvert et que le vent, le soleil, et même la mer et la biomasse, suffiraient à le compléter.

Lire l’article intégral sur le site du Point.

Alors que se tient à Kigali la réunion des chefs d’État et de gouvernement du Commonwealth, la Rwandaise Louise Mushikiwabo revient sur les liens compliqués entre l’OIF, qu’elle dirige, et son pendant anglo-saxon.

CHRONIQUE – Les États occidentaux ont mis en place des sanctions économiques pour punir la Russie de son invasion en Ukraine. Une véritable balle dans le pied des Européens.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

From Covid-19 to the war in Ukraine, external crises have put pressure on African economies, but many on the continent see opportunities to undertake radical reforms.

Africa already showed some resilience during the pandemic as its economic contraction was less severe than in the rest of the world, shrinking by two percent compared to 3.3 percent globally in 2020.

While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is weighing on the world economy, Africa faces a better outlook again in 2022.

“Africa is headed towards growth of around 3.7 percent, while in North America and Europe there is a real risk of recession”, said economist Lionel Zinsou, formerly prime minister of Benin.

“We haven’t been the biggest victims of the pandemic, and we won’t be the biggest victims of the collateral consequences of the war in Ukraine”, added Zinsou.

The conflict in Europe has fuelled a surge in global inflation, but Zinsou said growing prices for raw materials will compensate for the higher costs of imports in Africa.

Another positive signal is that investor confidence in Africa is up to a higher level than that before the pandemic.

Of 190 business owners in Africa who were questioned, 78 percent voiced confidence about their development prospects — compared to 61 percent before the Covid crisis, according to a report by the Deloitte accountancy firm.

‘Opportunity to transform’

The fallout from the war in Ukraine, however, remains a threat as it has driven up prices for wheat and other key agricultural products, sparking fears of famine in some countries.

“We are concerned about the slowdown in global growth and the availability for Africa of certain products such as wheat or fertilisers”, Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara said during the Africa CEO Forum in Abidjan this month.

Makhtar Diop, general director of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a branch of the World Bank, said African economies “have taken a hit and haven’t regained their pre-2019 growth rates”.

“The situation remains particularly difficult with inflation which disproportionally affects the poorest populations,” he added.

But some see the situation as a chance for African countries to map out new strategies.

“We lose a good part of our crops each year due to lack of electricity and cold chain,” said Zinsou, referring to the transport of goods that need to be kept cool across the supply chain.

These losses could be reduced through infrastructure investment, he added.

For Diop, “every crisis is an opportunity to transform the situation structurally. There is potential for the economic transformation of African countries by increasing the added value created on the continent.”

‘Gain independence’

Some countries have stepped up the pace in recent years. Ivory Coast has built new cashew processing plants, while Nigeria is building a major oil refinery in Lagos.

In Guinea, foreign companies have recently been tasked with building bauxite processing plants.

“One of the consequences of the pandemic is that many groups wanted to depend less on foreign imports,” said Emmanuel Gadret, head of Deloitte in francophone Africa.

Georges Wega, deputy director of international banking networks for the Africa region at France’s Societe Generale financial group, believes that Africa has “a lot of potential” to finance its essential projects.

“This is the time for Africa to gain its independence in many aspects. We need to rely more on funds raised on the continent versus external debt,” he said.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which aims to harmonise customs tariffs across the continent, which is gradually happening, holds out hopes of boosting intra-African trade.

“Africa has been extraordinarily responsive (to the pandemic), financially and technically, and it will be again,” said Zinsou.

Read the article on RFI.

Le gouvernement allemand organise ce vendredi 24 juin à Berlin une conférence internationale sur la crise alimentaire liée à la guerre en Ukraine. Depuis son déplacement à Sotchi, le président sénégalais Macky Sall, président en exercice de l’Union africaine, le répète : « Il faut faciliter l’exportation du blé ukrainien à partir du port d’Odessa parce que l’Afrique est véritablement menacée de famine ». Philippe Chalmin, spécialiste des marchés de matières premières, se déclare quant à lui surpris de ce qu’il appelle une « dramatisation » de la part de la communauté internationale. « Il n’y a, selon lui, aucune raison de supplier Moscou et de donner à Poutine une arme du blé ».

Carine Frenk : Quel est selon vous l’impact du quasi-blocage de l’Ukraine sur la situation alimentaire de l’Afrique aujourd’hui ?

Pour l’instant il est faible dans la mesure où certes il y a peu de céréales qui sortent aujourd’hui d’Ukraine, mais je rappelle que l’Afrique est surtout concernée par le blé et l’Ukraine avait presque terminé sa campagne d’exportation de blé. Il reste dans les silos ukrainiens, avant la nouvelle campagne, il reste peut-être 4 à 5 millions de tonnes de blé. Mais en réalité, le véritable impact de la guerre en Ukraine sur les importations africaines de blé, c’est par le biais le prix. Il faut bien reconnaître que depuis le déclenchement de la guerre, les prix mondiaux du blé ont bien pris quand même une centaine de dollars la tonne de plus.

Mais quand on parle des exportations céréalières de l’Ukraine et qu’on en fait la cause majeure du problème alimentaire mondial, c’est une erreur d’appréciation, un raccourci de journalistes ?

Je laisse les journalistes parler de raccourci de journalistes, mais je pense que c’est un peu beaucoup de cela. Ce qui est clair, c’est que la vraie raison des tensions sur les marchés agricoles mondiaux, et qui est antérieure à la crise ukrainienne puisqu’elle remonte à 2021, c’est l’importance des achats chinois en 2021. Il est clair qu’ensuite nous avons eu une augmentation des tensions liées à la guerre en Ukraine. Donc la crise ukrainienne a amplifié un problème qui d’abord existait déjà, qui était la dépendance alimentaire excessive de nombre de pays africains qui n’ont pas fait les efforts de politique agricole suffisante. Et d’autre part, les tensions, on les avait déjà en 2021 du fait notamment de l’importance des achats chinois. Dire que c’est l’Ukraine qui provoque une crise alimentaire mondiale, c’est une exagération.

Et donc ça veut dire que vous remettez en question les analyses que font les instances européennes onusiennes ou africaines, quand elles évoquent l’urgence d’ouvrir des corridors en mer Noire pour laisser passer le blé.

Le problème, c’est que pour l’instant ces corridors laisseraient plus se passer du maïs que du blé, il faut en être honnête. Ensuite va se poser le problème de l’arrivée de la nouvelle campagne, donc de la nouvelle récolte ukrainienne. Celle-ci effectivement aura du mal à sortir. Mais je pense que plutôt que d’imaginer des corridors maritimes qui seront extrêmement difficiles à mettre en place dans la mesure où une partie de la mer est minée, et que la fiabilité du partenaire turc peut-être quand même assez facilement mis en doute, il vaut probablement mieux faire tous les efforts possibles pour essayer de développer des corridors terrestres par la route et le rail pour arriver sur le Danube et sortir par les ports roumains par exemple. On n’arrivera pas à tout sortir, mais si je me cantonne au blé, on arriverait probablement à sortir une bonne part du blé ukrainien.

Autre facteur inquiétant pour l’Afrique, c’est la pénurie d’engrais. Le président Macky Sall a évoqué à son retour de Sotchi le risque d’un effondrement de 20 à 50% des rendements céréaliers en Afrique si l’approvisionnement en engrais n’est pas assuré sur le continent. Partagez-vous ces inquiétudes ?

Alors là je crois qu’il a parfaitement raison. Le président Macky Sall touche probablement ce qui est le talon d’Achille, à l’heure actuelle, de l’agriculture africaine. Je crois qu’il faut appeler un chat un chat : la crise alimentaire africaine, elle est avant tout une crise de la pauvreté, une crise de la mal gouvernance, une crise de la mauvaise gestion des politiques agricoles et pour certaines régions, mais aussi une crise climatique, je pense à la sécheresse qui touche la corne de l’Afrique.

Lire l’interview sur le site de RFI.

La remontée des taux d’intérêt – et la fuite de capitaux qui en découle – associée à la sous-estimation par le système financier des risques climatique, « cyber » et géopolitique fait peser de graves menaces sur l’économie mondiale, alerte, dans une tribune au « Monde », l’économiste Hélène Rey.

Au moment où presque toutes les banques centrales retirent des liquidités de l’économie pour combattre l’inflation, la crainte de crises financières ressurgit avec force. Dans un environnement où les Etats et les secteurs privés sont très endettés et où les prix des actifs sont souvent surévalués, le retournement du cycle financier global est à craindre. Car, plus le resserrement des politiques monétaires est important, plus la création de crédit ralentit, et plus les flux de capitaux se tarissent et les primes de risque augmentent, parfois de façon excessive. La Réserve fédérale américaine joue un rôle particulièrement important pour le cycle financier mondial et donne le ton sur les marchés financiers internationaux : lorsqu’elle coupe les liquidités, l’aversion au risque augmente et la valeur des actifs risqués (bitcoin, actions, etc.) chute.

La situation actuelle rappelle dans une certaine mesure la période précédant la crise de la dette de l’Amérique latine des années 1980, soulignait Richard Portes, professeur à la London Business School et fondateur du Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), lors du premier symposium du CEPR à Paris, le 2 juin, où ce réseau européen de 1 600 chercheurs vient d’installer son siège, auparavant situé à Londres. La montée des taux et l’augmentation des primes de risque pourraient déstabiliser les pays émergents en raison des fuites de capitaux et des crises de change. On peut ajouter que les restructurations de dette qui seront probablement nécessaires seront bien plus difficiles à gérer dans un monde où le multilatéralisme est moribond et où la Chine est un créditeur important mais n’est pas membre du Club de Paris, l’institution réunissant les créanciers publics où se négocient lesdites restructurations.

CHRONIQUE. Un rapport de l’OMS pointe la progression du surpoids en Europe. Or notre pays est à la traîne face à ce fléau contre lequel il faut agir tôt.

Par Jean de Kervasdoué

La branche européenne de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS Europe) vient de publier un rapport aussi documenté qu’inquiétant. Il traite de l’évolution croissante du surpoids et de l’obésité dans les pays européens et en souligne les très fâcheuses conséquences. En la matière, l’idée que la France se faisait jusque-là d’elle-même n’est plus fondée, tant l’épidémie se développe à tous les âges, et notamment chez les jeunes. Pour le constater, il suffit d’ailleurs d’ouvrir les yeux, notamment dans les quartiers pauvres de nos grandes villes.

L’obésité est à la fois une maladie et un facteur d’aggravation de nombreuses autres affections.

Patrick Achi a posé la première pierre du Centre de formation aux métiers des énergies renouvelables de Yopougon le vendredi 17 juin 2022. Photo : AfrikiPresse

Le Premier ministre Patrick Achi a posé la première pierre du Centre de formation aux métiers des énergies renouvelables de Yopougon le vendredi 17 juin 2022. À cette occasion, le chef du gouvernement s’est prononcé sur l’importance pour la Côte d’Ivoire de former des jeunes sur les énergies renouvelables à une ère où la question du réchauffement climatique intéresse tous les États.

« Ces énergies renouvelables, ici comme ailleurs dans le monde, sont au cœur de la stratégie de transition énergétique que l’accélération du réchauffement du climat nous impose d’amplifier. Ces métiers seront donc clés pour l’avenir, celui de notre pays comme de notre continent, et favoriseront ainsi une très bonne et très durable insertion de notre jeunesse, dans la vie active et dans la vie tout court », a déclaré Patrick Achi à cette occasion.

La formation professionnelle comme une option prioritaire, et non secondaire

À en croire le chef du gouvernement, la formation professionnelle est un segment important pour l’État ivoirien dans le cadre de la vision Côte d’Ivoire 2030 du Président de la République Alassane Ouattara. Il a dans ce sens, invité les parents d’élèves à ne plus voir l’enseignement professionnel comme la solution après avoir échoué partout, mais plutôt, comme une option prioritaire.

« Avec la création du ministère dédié en avril 2021, la volonté du Gouvernement est de faire passer le taux de scolarisation dans ce secteur à 15% en 2025 », a expliqué le chef du gouvernement qui a précisé : « Ce centre de formation novateur qui sera construit ici et dans lequel vous pourrez inscrire vos enfants dans quelques mois, illustre la volonté claire du gouvernement de faire de l’Enseignement Technique et de la Formation professionnelle une vraie alternative à l’enseignement général, mais surtout une passerelle très forte vers l’emploi durable ».

Le futur centre de formation qui doit être inauguré dans 9 mois, est le fruit de la coopération entre la Côte d’Ivoire et le Royaume d’Espagne. Le Premier ministre a dans ce sens salué les relations entre les deux pays.

De son côté Rafael Soriano Ortiz, Ambassadeur d’Espagne en Côte d’Ivoire a indiqué que ce projet permettra d’avoir une infrastructure fondamentale dans la stratégie du ministère de l’Enseignement technique mais aussi permettra d’assurer une formation d’excellence aux métiers des énergies renouvelables.

[Un coût de 6,5 milliards Fcfa, 500 apprenants]

Avant le Premier ministre Patrick Achi, c’est Koffi N’Guessan, Ministre de l’Enseignement Technique, de la Formation Professionnelle qui a souligné l’importance de cet établissement. Ce lycée professionnel, faut-il le savoir sera construit pour un montant total de 6,5 milliards de Francs CFA dont 5,5 milliards apportés par la Coopération espagnole et 1 milliard décaissé par le gouvernement ivoirien.

500 apprenants pourront assister aux cours de façon simultanée dans ce lycée qui offre plusieurs commodités dont des espaces aménagés pour les handicapés ou des installations alimentées par l’énergie solaire.

Yaya Kanté avec Sercom

Lire l’article sur le site de AfrikiPresse.

Le PDG du Cnes, Philippe Baptiste, milite pour une démocratisation des données spatiales, dont une grande partie est accessible gratuitement. Selon lui, l’espace est une opportunité pour l’Europe de reprendre pied dans le numérique.

© Dahmane

VU D’AILLEURS – Selon l’ancien président de la Banque centrale européenne, «les mesures réactives prises par les pays les plus dépendants de la Russie, comme l’Italie et l’Allemagne, ne suffisent pas».

Ce mardi matin, Christian Bréchot, ancien directeur de l’Institut Pasteur, alertait face à la hausse des cas de contaminations au variant BA5.

Regarder son intervention sur la chaîne youtube d’Europe 1.

PUBLISHED SUN, JUN 19 2022

Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks during the unveiling of the Communist Party’s new Politburo Standing Committee on October 25, 2017 in Beijing, China.

Lintao Zhang | Getty Images News | Getty Images

For President Xi Jinping, dispatching his special envoy to Europe for a three-week charm tour was just one of many acts of high-stakes damage control ahead of the 20^th Chinese Communist Party Congress this autumn.

Xi’s economy is dangerously slowing, financing for his Belt and Road Initiative has tanked, his Zero Covid policy is flailing, and his continued support of Russian President Vladimir Putin hangs like a cloud over his claim of being the world’s premier national sovereignty champion as Russia’s war on Ukraine grinds on.

Few China watchers believe Xi’s hold on power faces any serious challenge, but that’s hard to rule out entirely given how many recent mistakes he’s made. So, Xi’s taking no chances ahead of one of his party’s most important gatherings, a meeting designed to assure his continued rule and his place in history.

European business leaders understood that as the context for their recent meetings with Wu Hongbo, the special representative of the Chinese government for European affairs and former UN Undersecretary General. His message was a similar one at every stop: Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Germany, and Italy.

“The Chinese want to change the tone of the story, to control the damage,” said one European business leader who asked to remain anonymous due to his Chinese business interests. “They understand they have gone too far.”

The businessman described Wu, with his fluent and fluid English, as one of the smoothest, most open, and intellectually nimble Chinese officials he’s met. At every stop, Wu conceded China had “made mistakes,” from its handling of Covid-19, to its “wolf warrior” diplomacy, to its economic mismanagement.

His trip came as concerns in China have grown about “losing Europe” in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

The public mood has shifted sufficiently to have Finland and Sweden knocking on NATO’s door, and the European Union this week embracing the prospect of Ukraine’s membership candidacy. Wu’s visit was also something of a mop-up operation following a failed visit by Chinese official Huo Yuzhen to eight central and east European countries. In Poland, he was refused a meeting with government officials.

Germans and their political leaders — Europe’s most significant target for Chinese diplomats and business — are raising new questions about everything from investment guarantees for German business in China to specific projects like VW’s factory in Xinjian province, home of human rights abuses against the primarily Muslim Uyghur population.

Though Wu addressed Putin’s war in Ukraine only indirectly, his message was designed to reassure Europeans that they are preferred partners, as opposed to the United States. His bottom line: China will always be China, a country of growing significance and economic opportunities for Europe.

Yet lost ground in Europe is just one of many gathering problems President Xi faces ahead of his party congress, which will determine the country’s economic, foreign policy and domestic agenda for years to come.

The party congress is likely to provide Xi a third term, a move that follows a 2018 decision to scrap term limits. What’s more likely to reveal the extent of Xi’s power, writes Michael Cunningham of the Heritage Foundation, is whether he can put his allies in key central bodies, primarily the Politburo and the Politburo Standing Committee, as retirement norms ensure considerable turnover.

However the Congress turns out, there is growing talk among China experts about whether we are entering a period of “Peak Xi” or even “Peak China.” There’s growing evidence that he and the country he represents (and his approach has been to make the two inseparable) have reached the height of their influence and reputation.

Nothing will determine the outcome more than how Xi manages China’s economy, which is the foundation for the country’s far-reaching global influence as well as the Communist party’s domestic legitimacy.

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, one of the keenest China-watchers anywhere, sees China’s economic prospects weakening due to a chain of factors. They include at least 10 Chinese property developer defaults, and Xi’s crackdown on China’s technology sector, which has cost it $2 trillion in market capitalization of its 10 biggest tech companies over the past year.

Moreover, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has sent energy and commodity prices soaring and has snarled supply chains, “terrible news for the world’s largest manufacturer, exporter and energy-consuming economy,” Rudd wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal. Add to this Xi’s insistence on China’s Zero Covid strategy, which led to mass lockdowns.

Rudd concludes that this combination of factors is enough to make Xi miss his 5.5% growth target and perhaps even grow more slowly this year than the United States. “For Mr. Xi, failing to reach the target would be politically disastrous,” writes Rudd.

Xi’s damage control on the economic front has included fiscal and monetary stimulus and infrastructure spending to grow domestic demand. A recent meeting of the Politburo also suggested some coming relief from the regulatory crackdown on China’s tech sector.

Yet none of that will be enough to reverse Xi’s cardinal sin, and that was his dramatic pivot to stronger state and party controls.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic Council’s Daniel H. Rosen, who is a founding partner of Rhodium Group, argues, “China cannot have both today’s statism and yesterday’s strong growth rates. It will have to choose.”

Adds Craig Singleton this week in Foreign Policy, “China’s fizzling economic miracle may soon undercut the (Communist party’s) ability to wage a sustained struggle for geostrategic dominance.”

There’s not much time left for damage control before Xi opens his party Congress in the Great Hall of the People. He’s likely to get the vote he wants, but that won’t solve the larger problem. It has been his leadership and decision-making that have generated China’s challenges, and he’ll have to correct course if he is to restore economic growth at home, revive his international momentum and avoid “Peak Xi.”

Read the original article on the CNBC‘s website.

États-Unis et Union européenne ont appelé jeudi la Russie à accepter rapidement une ouverture des ports ukrainiens afin de permettre aux millions de tonnes de céréales qui y sont stockées d’être exportées, permettant d’atténuer la crise alimentaire mondiale.

Moscou «devrait agir immédiatement pour ouvrir ces ports et mettre fin à cette guerre», a souligné le ministre américain de l’Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, lors d’une conférence de presse après des discussions à l’ONU. «C’est une chose sérieuse, nous ne devrions pas utiliser la nourriture comme une arme», a-t-il insisté.

L’ONU négocie depuis plusieurs semaines avec Moscou, Kiev et Ankara, caution militaire d’une utilisation de la mer Noire pour des navires civils, un accord qui permettrait aux céréales ukrainiennes de sortir du pays en sécurité et aux engrais produits par la Russie de revenir sur le marché international.

Moscou se plaint d’entraves à ses exportations à cause de sanctions économiques.

Si un accord était trouvé, il ferait baisser les prix des denrées et atténuerait la crise alimentaire dans le monde, qui s’aggrave du fait de l’invasion russe de l’Ukraine.

Tom Vilsack a réaffirmé que les sanctions américaines ne visaient pas la nourriture et les engrais. Pas plus que les sanctions européennes, a renchéri le chef de la diplomatie de l’Union européenne, Josep Borrell, lors d’une réunion du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU sur la coopération avec l’UE.

«Les sanctions de l’UE ne sont pas la cause des pénuries alimentaires» car «elles visent la capacité du Kremlin à financer l’agression militaire – et non la conduite d’un commerce légitime», a déclaré le responsable européen.

«Les sanctions de l’UE n’interdisent pas l’importation et le transport de produits agricoles russes, ni d’engrais, ni de paiement pour ces exportations russes» et «nos mesures n’affectent pas la capacité des pays tiers à acheter à la Russie», a précisé Josep Borrell.

«Besoin immédiat»

À propos des discussions en cours, le ministre américain a indiqué espérer que les Russes négocient «de bonne foi», «sérieusement et qu’ils ne fassent pas cela uniquement pour créer une image» destinée à faire croire à leur bonne volonté. «J’encourage la Russie» à contribuer à «la réouverture des ports et qu’elle le fasse rapidement. Car le besoin est immédiat», a-t-il dit.

Actuellement, «la Russie bloque au moins 20 millions de tonnes de céréales ukrainiennes qui ne peuvent pas atteindre les marchés mondiaux», a dénoncé de son côté Josep Borrell, en appelant aussi Moscou à permettre la réouverture des ports sous blocus russe.

«C’est l’équivalent de 300 énormes navires qui devraient accoster dans des ports du monde entier. Au lieu de cela, la Russie bombarde les ports, les infrastructures et les terres agricoles de l’Ukraine», a-t-il lancé.

Ambassadeur russe à l’ONU, Vassily Nebenzia a balayé ces accusations. «On essaie de rejeter la faute sur la Russie, avec des allégations infondées de bombardements d’entrepôts de céréales, de blocages de céréales. Il n’y a aucun obstacle à cet égard», a-t-il affirmé.

Interrogé sur un projet du président américain Joe Biden d’établir des silos en Pologne pour accueillir du grain ukrainien, Tom Vilsack a expliqué qu’il s’agissait de «réduire le risque de perte» des céréales, éviter leur vol et préserver leur qualité.

Mercredi, la Turquie a annoncé être prête à accueillir «une réunion à quatre», avec l’ONU, la Russie et l’Ukraine, en vue d’organiser la sortie des céréales ukrainiennes via la mer Noire.

«La Turquie soutient» le plan proposé par l’ONU «et attend le retour de la Russie», a indiqué le ministre des Affaires étrangères Mevlüt Cavusoglu, en précisant que des rencontres techniques entre militaires se poursuivaient.

«Il faut répondre aux inquiétudes de tout le monde», a précisé le ministre . «La Russie veut être sûre que les bateaux ne transportent pas d’armes et l’Ukraine veut être sûre que la Russie n’utilisera pas ces corridors (en mer) pour attaquer», a-t-il expliqué.

Lire l’article sur le site du Journal de Québec

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2022/06/16/cereales-les-etats-unis-appellent-la-russie-a-accepter-rapidement-louverture-des-ports-ukrainiens

Sheikh Mohamed says the UAE will continue to honour its commitments and looks forward to hosting the world at Cop28.

President Sheikh Mohamed has pledged $50 billion to address climate change across the world after taking part in a meeting hosted by US President Joe Biden.

Sheikh Mohamed said the UAE had invested more than $50bn in renewable energy projects across 40 countries, and it plans to double that over the next decade.

He joined heads of state from 17 economies accounting for 80 per cent of global GDP, population and greenhouse gas emissions at an online meeting on Friday.

“I was pleased to participate in the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate hosted by President Biden and to emphasise the ongoing importance of peace, unity and meaningful collaboration as enablers of sustainable social and economic development,” Sheikh Mohamed wrote on Twitter.

“The UAE continues to honour its commitments on climate action and is on track to submit its revised NDC.”

NDC, Nationally Determined Contribution, is an action plan to cut emissions and adapt to climate change effects.

“We look forward to hosting the world at Cop 28 and accelerating progress on climate action through an inclusive, practical and integrated approach,” Sheikh Mohamed said.

Mariam Al Mheiri, Minister of Climate Change and Environment, said the $50bn investment highlighted the country’s commitment to addressing environmental concerns around the world.

“The UAE has joined the ranks of countries at the forefront of the fight against climate change,” said Ms Al Mheiri, who also serves as Minister of State for Food Security.

“We have issued environmental protection laws and strategies and rolled out relevant initiatives. We have also adopted a proactive approach to promoting clean energy solutions as the sustainable, alternative energy sources of tomorrow.”

The Emirates will host the 28th UN global climate talks in 2023.

Addressing leaders, Sheikh Mohamed acknowledged that climate change must be addressed by co-operation.

He said the UAE has long held the view that climate action is an opportunity to achieve new pathways for economic and social development, with a focus on practical solutions that can benefit all countries.

The UAE is stepping up its efforts to address climate change and speed up the global energy transition.

At the third virtual gathering of the Major Economies Forum under his presidency, Mr Biden urged countries to take collective action on climate, energy security and food security.

He also invited leaders to co-operate and ease these immediate effects by supporting initiatives that accelerate the clean energy transition and reduce the vulnerability of the food system to climate and supply-chain disruptions.

“His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed’s address to global leaders at MEF highlighted the need for unity, peace, stability and collaboration as key enablers for sustainable economic and social development, particularly as the world tackles global economic challenges, energy and food security, as well as resource scarcity,” Dr Sultan Al Jaber, Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology and special envoy for climate change, said after the meeting.

“His Highness’s statement highlighted the UAE’s long-standing history of and ongoing commitment to climate action, driven by the principles established by our Founding Father Sheikh Zayed.

“For more than 15 years, the UAE has demonstrated a proven track record in progressive climate action and multilateral co-operation, as well as playing a leading role in investing in renewable energy both domestically and internationally which have led to the UAE’s selection as the host country of Cop28 in 2023.”

The UAE was the first country in the region to sign and ratify the Paris Agreement and the first in the region to commit to an economywide reduction in emissions and announce a net zero by 2050 initiative.

The Emirates has also invested in renewable and clean energy, both domestically and internationally.

It is also the first in the region to use peaceful nuclear energy and is home to three of the largest and lowest-cost solar plants in the world.

Read the article on the website The National

https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/government/2022/06/17/president-sheikh-mohamed-participates-in-climate-change-meeting-hosted-by-joe-biden/

In devastating testimony to a US Congressional hearing this month, a Syrian man known only as “the gravedigger” described the atrocities he witnessed when he was forced to work at a mass grave in Syria from 2011 to 2018.

His evidence — of trucks arriving twice a week with up to 600 bodies of the victims of torture, shelling and slaughter, and at least 40 bodies of civilians who had been executed in prison — is the final blow to those in the US who want to rehabilitate Bashar Assad, and to hopes of supplying gas to Lebanon through Syria.

Lebanon will plunge into darkness after the summer. The deal under which Iraq has supplied the country with a million tons of fuel oil over the past year expires soon, and Baghdad does not want to renew it. In the Lebanese parliament, despite the relative success of protest candidates at the election in May, the established elite will block any attempt to enact the reforms required by the IMF to trigger a desperately needed financial bailout.

The election delivered a fragmented parliament that cannot reach a consensus on anything. Though the protest groups are supposed to work as a bloc, they are divided on several issues, primarily Hezbollah’s weapons — which some want to tackle as a priority, while others see it as a regional issue and prefer to tackle the challenges that affect the day-to-day life of the average citizen. This division was shown in the vote for parliamentary Speaker, which resulted in Nabih Berri’s retention of the role.

The Lebanese elite had pinned their hopes on a deal signed last September for Egyptian natural gas to flow to Lebanon via the 20-year-old Arab Gas Pipeline through Jordan and Syria, but that would require the US to ease or lift sanctions imposed on the Assad regime in Syria under the Caesar Act — and the testimony of “the gravedigger” has buried those hopes.

In addition, the composition of the US Congress will probably change after the November mid-term elections, making it less likely that the “frozen conflict” policy — which indirectly includes a certain level of rehabilitation of Assad — will work. Advocates of this policy in Washington hoped that neutering the Caesar Act with so many exceptions as to make it devoid of content would be a shortcut to stabilizing Syria by accepting Assad as he is, but the new evidence against the Assad regime makes that impossible.

Meanwhile Jordan, which had been lobbying the US government to accept Assad, has changed its position after pro-Iran Assad forces were caught smuggling drugs into the country. As for the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, the Assad regime has been displacing and persecuting the Kurds for decades and will not give them the autonomy they want, and negotiations with Damascus have been fruitless. The SDF has asked the regime to protect the northeast and use its air defenses against an imminent military incursion by Turkey, but the regime does not want to confront Turkish forces — so the entire premise of agreement between the regime and the SDF falls apart. Therefore, the only remaining viable US policy is to maintainsanctions on the Assad regime and hope that “maximum pressure” will one day bring it down.

None of this is of any comfort to a Lebanese elite that is to a large extent linked to the Assad regime. The political class that has been resourceful in blackmailing the international community to keep itself afloat is running out of options. Hezbollah had hoped that gas via Syria would generate enough electricity to appease popular discontent, but the US is now more likely to enforce the Caesar Act than to weaken it.

Another possible lifeline is the extraction of gas from disputed fields in the Mediterranean, but that is a long shot. Viable extraction takes years, so even if the maritime border dispute with Israel is resolved, it is not a solution to Lebanon’s immediate problems.

Lebanon’s political elite are trying by all means to avoid the true reforms that would expose them. They are holding on to the status quo and banking on stop-gap solutions to prevent a total crash — for example, pricing goods and services in US dollars to extract as much hard currency as possible from the Lebanese expatriates who will come to visit their families this summer.

None of these crooked tricks will save Lebanon. It is important that the international community stands firm against the country’s political establishment, as accommodating them means the disintegration of the country. They might have a space to float during the summer, but a reckoning is coming in September and the US and the rest of the world should be ready to increase the pressure then.

In the end, either Lebanon’s corrupt political elite will crack, or the country will.

• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese NGO focused on Track II.

Read the article on the website of Arab News

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2105611

In a pair of related cases in which the decisions were announced June 13, the US Supreme Court upheld the challenge by Biden administration lawyers to three lower court rulings that entitled non-citizens to request a bail hearing while waiting for their objections to deportation to be resolved.

Because of these reactionary rulings, thousands of immigrants who pose no danger and no risk of flight, and who are asserting credible legal claims to remain in the United States, will remain jailed under medieval conditions as their cases wind through the backlogged and indifferent immigration courts.

In a third case decided on June 8, Border Patrol agents, perhaps the most thuggish of all federal law enforcement officers, were granted broad immunity from constitutionally based lawsuits for excessive force, brought by US citizens.

Antonio Arteaga-Martinez was arrested in 2018 after six years in the United States, while awaiting the birth of his first child, because he entered without documents. An asylum official found credible Arteaga-Martinez’s claim that he would face persecution and torture if deported to Mexico. Arteaga-Martinez sought to be reunited with his family while his petition for a “withholding of removal” order worked its way through the immigration courts, followed by the inevitable appeals.

Writing for eight of the nine justices, the leading “liberal,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reversed the lower court ruling requiring the federal government to provide a bail hearing within six months, at which an immigration judge could consider traditional criteria for releasing someone in exchange for the posting of a cash bond, such as danger to the public or risk of flight.

Sotomayor, indifferent to the devastating impact that indefinite imprisonment for immigration violations has on working families, based her decision on a pedantic, result-driven reading of the governing statute, which, she  added, could be changed. Sotomayor left open the option that Arteaga-Martinez could present a constitutional challenge on remand to the lower court.

Stephen Breyer dissented, writing that a 2001 case, Zadvydas v. Davis, resolved the issue, preventing the government from detaining immigrants indefinitely. If deportation was not likely in the “reasonably foreseeable future,” immigrants must be released absent some good reason to detain them, Breyer wrote. Arch-reactionary Clarence Thomas agreed that Zadvydas was controlling, but instead urged that the earlier decision be overruled.

The second case, Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, involved two class actions filed on behalf of non-citizens jailed for more than six months. Both lower courts issued class-wide injunctions ordering bail hearings on the grounds that due process rights were being violated.

Reactionary Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, did not just rule that the lower courts were wrong, but that the detainees had no right to bring the lawsuit in the first place. He wrote that federal law “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out specified statutory provisions.”

Despite her simultaneous ruling against the statutory right to bail hearings, Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Breyer, on the grounds that Alito’s ruling made it impossible for people to band together in challenging government misconduct that could not be challenged individually. She wrote that the ruling will “leave many vulnerable noncitizens unable to protect their rights.”

These reactionary rulings occurred against the background of a surge in arrests along the Mexican border. US Customs and Border Protection announced there were 239,416 arrests in May alone, a pace of nearly three million detentions annually. The mass arrests are fueled in large part by the Biden administration’s failure to terminate the unconstitutional Title 42 summary exclusion policy, instituted by the Trump administration, which effectively abolishes the right to asylum on the southern border of the United States.

In the previous week’s case, Egbert v. Boule, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the right-wing majority, ruled against Robert Boule, a US citizen who runs the “Smuggler’s Inn,” a bed-and-breakfast that abuts the Canadian border.

Boule was a paid government informant who found himself at odds with Erik Egbert, a local Border Patrol agent. While arguing over a Turkish guest legally in the United States, Egbert threw Boule against a car and then slammed him to the ground. When Boule filed a formal complaint, Egbert used his government connections to retaliate by triggering a tax audit.

Boule filed a federal lawsuit under the well-known 1971 precedent Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, which authorizes claims for money damages against federal officials based on constitutional violations. Right-wing justices have been attacking and restricting Bivens for decades. Although Thomas declined to straight-out overrule Bivens, his opinion reduced its scope to the approximate size of a postage stamp.

While the facts may seem somewhat trivial, the decision has far-reaching legal consequences.

Thomas referred at length to Alito’s 2020 decision in Hernández v. Meza, a sickening case where the Supreme Court “declined to create a damages remedy for an excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent who shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican national across the border in Mexico.”

Although Bivens was decided two years after Chief Justice Earl Warren retired, it stands as one of the landmark decisions from the relatively brief period in the last century when the Supreme Court was popularly perceived as an institution that protected democratic rights. Thomas, speaking for the reactionary majority, wrote not only that Bivens would likely be decided differently today, but that “we are now long past the heady days in which this Court assumed common-law powers to create causes of action.”

Finally, Thomas wrote, “In Hernández, we declined to authorize a Bivens remedy, in part, because the Executive Branch already had investigated alleged misconduct by the defendant Border Patrol agent… Boule nonetheless contends that the Border Patrol’s grievance process is inadequate because he is not entitled to participate and has no right to judicial review of an adverse determination. But we have never held that a Bivens alternative must afford rights to participation or appeal… Thus here, as in Hernández, we have no warrant to doubt that the consideration of Boule’s grievance against Agent Egbert secured adequate deterrence and afforded Boule an alternative remedy.”

In other words, because a law enforcement agency rubber-stamps the actions of its employees, without “rights to participation or appeal,” there is no need for a lawsuit.

Read the article on the website World Socialist Website

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/06/18/auqu-j18.html

The Big Question is a regular feature in which Project Syndicate commentators concisely address a timely topic.

Tumbling equity markets and greater regulatory and public scrutiny are subjecting previously fast-growing green investments to what may be their toughest stress test yet. As fears of recession increase, many believe that an industry based on the promise of making money while doing good may be facing a reckoning.

In this Big Question, we ask Bertrand Badré, Karen Karniol-Tambour, Daniel Litvin, and Eva Zabey to assess the future of environmental, social, and governance investing.

Read the entire article in Project Syndicate.

The Time is Ripe to Reset U.S.-Saudi Relations.

Article by Richard Haass

Originally published at Project Syndicate

June 14, 2022

Several recurring debates animate foreign policy. The most basic is how much foreign policy to have, or how to strike the right balance between addressing domestic issues and problems abroad – in extreme form a debate between isolationism and internationalism. Then there are debates over tools (diplomacy versus sanctions or military force) and means (unilateralism versus multilateralism). In some countries, there are also debates over how foreign policy should be made and carried out; in the United States, for example, this debate involves the role and powers of Congress versus those of the president and the executive branch.

The two countries also collaborated against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, most notably in Afghanistan. Such common interests more often than not offset persistent differences over the Saudi government’s poor human rights record and the Kingdom’s hostility toward Israel.

President Joe Biden’s administration came into office a year and a half ago determined to alter this pattern and treat Saudi Arabia as a “pariah.” The US had concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (widely known as MBS), the country’s de facto ruler and heir apparent to the throne, ordered the 2018 murder in Istanbul of Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent journalist and Saudi dissident who was a US permanent resident.

The Biden administration was also deeply opposed to Saudi participation in Yemen’s civil war, a conflict responsible for enormous human suffering. With oil prices low and supplies plentiful (in no small part because of much-expanded US output), and Biden determined to reduce the US footprint in the Middle East and focus on Asia, values appeared to take precedence over economic and security interests for the first time since US-Saudi relations developed in the 1940s.

Now, however, the Biden administration is reportedly considering a change of course, with Biden planning to visit the Kingdom and meet with MBS this summer. It is not difficult to figure out why. Energy prices have skyrocketed, owing to high demand associated with the post-pandemic economic recovery and the sanctions now in place against Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, all of which limit supply.

Higher energy prices are fueling inflation, which has emerged as the greatest economic and political challenge facing the Biden administration. Suddenly, Saudi Arabia, the rare oil producer with the ability to increase output relatively quickly, is a much-needed partner again.

Other factors are at work as well. Several Arab countries in recent years, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, have made peace with Israel. Bringing Saudi Arabia, host to the holiest sites in the Muslim world, into the peace camp would have great symbolic and political value. Also paving the way to a presidential visit is Saudi Arabia’s embrace of a cease-fire in Yemen.

What could ultimately prove to be the most important reason, though, is Iran. The US and Saudi Arabia find themselves sharing mounting concern over Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as its support for violent groups in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. It is a classic case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Close cooperation between the Kingdom and the US will be essential if, as seems increasingly likely, diplomatic efforts to restore the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran fail – or fail to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear breakout with little or no notice.

Despite these new considerations, the Biden administration is treading carefully, as it is sure to be attacked for changing its stance. The good news is that there is no reason for the US to abandon its commitment to human rights. The Saudis need US support to stand up to Iran, and as a result can be pushed to improve their treatment of government critics, women, and religious minorities. The result will not be perfect, but the emergence of a more open society is achievable.

There is a larger lesson here. A successful foreign policy for a global power such as the US cannot choose values over interests. A pure, values-centered approach to Saudi Arabia – or toward China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, for that matter – is unsustainable. The principal measure of a foreign policy is that it prioritizes the country’s security over its preferences. Realism must prevail over idealism. History suggests the ability of a country, even one as powerful as the US, to bring about political reform in other countries is limited.

But this does not mean that the US should ignore democracy and human rights. Foreign policy must reflect the country’s values if it is to enjoy public support and lead over time toward a more democratic world, which is more likely to be peaceful and prosperous and open to cooperation. It is always a matter of degree and of balance. What the Biden administration is contemplating in Saudi Arabia appears to be righting the balance.

Read the article on the site of Council on Foreign Relations.

The Ukraine war could lead to breakthroughs in nuclear power and natural gas, with Washington’s help.