President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of US troops to Portland, Oregon, authorising use of “full force” if needed.

Trump said he was “directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland”.

He claimed that the move would help protect “any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” adding on Truth Social: “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

The announcement drew pushback from Democratic lawmakers, who said there was no need for federal troops to be deployed to the city.

“There is no national security threat in Portland. Our communities are safe and calm,” said Oregon Governor Tina Kotek in a statement, adding that she has asked the Trump administration for further information.

Portland’s mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement that the “number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city”.

Saturday’s announcement marks the further expansion of deployment of troops in American cities, amid a wider crackdown by the Trump administration on illegal immigration.

Trump’s post does not specify whether he intends to activate national guard or regular US military. The post also did not specify what is meant by the use of “full force”.

“We stand ready to mobilize U.S. military personnel in support of DHS operations in Portland at the President’s direction,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman, Sean Parnell told the BBC. “The Department will provide information and updates as they become available.”

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland has been targeted by protesters since early June, sometimes leading to violent clashes.

As of 8 September, the US Attorney’s Office had brought federal charges against 26 people for crimes including arson, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that demonstrators had “repeatedly attacked and laid siege to an ICE processing centre” in Portland.

In a post on the social media platform X, the department stated that several individuals had been arrested and charged with federal offences.

“Rose City Antifa, a recently designated domestic terrorist organization, illegally doxed ICE officers. They published their home address online and on public flyers. Individuals associated with Antifa also sent death threats to DHS personnel,” DHS wrote on X.

Earlier this week, Trump signed an order formally designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation.

Antifa, short for “anti-fascist”, is a loosely organised movement of primarily far-left activists.

Legal experts have pointed out that there is no legal mechanism in the US that would formally establish any group as a domestic terror organisation. Such efforts, they said, could face constitutional challenges under the First Amendment, which protects free speech and assembly.

Democratic lawmakers have criticised both the president’s rhetoric and the reported actions of ICE agents in the state.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said on Friday that there were “credible” reports that federal agents “may be replaying the 2020 playbook “, in a reference to federal forces being deployed in response to protests against the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody.

“I urge Oregonians not to fall into Trump’s attempt to incite violence,” Wyden said.

Local lawmakers have also accused ICE of going after people who are not an actual danger to society.

“ICE has said they’re targeting people for arrest and detainment who have committed crimes. That’s what they told us. But that’s not what we are seeing,” said Democratic house representative Suzanne Bonamici on Friday.

Lawmakers cited recent incidents, including the detention of a father outside his child’s preschool and a wildland firefighter who was arrested while battling fires in the Olympic National Forest.

They also pointed to a statistic published by the Cato Institute, a US think tank based in Washington DC, which reported that 65% of people detained by ICE had no criminal convictions.

World Opinions + BBC News

L’article Debate. Trump orders deployment of troops to Portland and authorises ‘full force’.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

PM Bayrou lost the vote, but a deadlock in Parliament means France might struggle to find a replacement who can pass a budget aimed at cutting the deficit.

French Prime Minister François Bayrou has lost a confidence vote of MPs, ending his nine months in office during a period of chaos in the country’s parliament, the National Assembly.

Bayrou, 74, was the fourth prime minister in two years under President Emmanuel Macron, whose second term is office has been overshadowed by political instability.

The outgoing PM’s minority government called for €44bn (£38bn) of budget cuts to tackle France’s mounting public debt. It has now effectively collapsed.

The BBC looks at what led to his removal by MPsand what could happen next.

Ahead of the no-confidence vote, Bayrou spoke on Monday afternoon in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of Parliament, where he told lawmakers that the economy faced serious risks because of its deep indebtedness. He then fielded questions from parliamentarians, before the vote took place.

Here’s what you need to know:

What could happen next?

For several weeks, lawmakers had made it clear they would vote against Bayrou’s state-slashing budget. Opposition parties from the far left to the far right hold 330 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly – so Monday’s ouster was widely expected.

After Monday’s vote, Bayrou’s government has collapsed. However, he will stay in office until President Emmanuel Macron decides what to do next. Unfortunately for the president, France lacks a consensus figure to replace Bayrou.

Macron is faced with uniquely hard choices – appoint another prime minister in the hope that he or she can pass an unpopular budget, call new elections to try to re-establish a parliamentary majority, or stand down himself, something he has refused to do before his term ends in 2027.

With the arithmetic in Parliament unchanged, picking a new premier risks simply repeating the events from last year when Bayrou succeeded Michel Barnier.

A fiscal conservative, Macron is unlikely to appoint a premier who advocates for higher state spending. But after the government recently tried to cut deals on the right of the political spectrum, some wonder if Macron might try something new.

According to Stefano Palombarini, assistant professor of economics at the University of Paris VIII, “the two previous appointments, Barnier and Bayrou, both failed. He [Macron] lost a lot of credibility in that process, and if he tries a similarly centrist approach, he’d lose even more.”

Palombarini told Al Jazeera that “in this context, it would make the scenario of a relative opening towards the left possible. Some Macronist, Socialist and Green politicians say they’re ready for compromises to form a government that lasts until 2027.”

Does this mean there is a clear political path?

Not really.

According to an opinion poll this month for Le Figaro Magazine by the Verian Group, just 15 percent of the electorate has confidence in Macron, down 6 percentage points since July. However, the president has consistently ruled out resigning from office.

Separate surveys by Ifop, Elabe and Toluna Harris Interactive indicated that 56 to 69 percent of French people want snap parliamentary elections, indicating growing dissatisfaction with current party politics in a country run by minority cabinets since 2022.

For Palombarini, “there’s general political malaise [in France] and also dissatisfaction specifically with Macron. So overall, opinion polls are actually quite stable.” Indeed, the latest polls show no material change in voting intentions over the past year.

This means there is no certainty that a new prime minister would be safe from a similar fate as Bayrou.

What are the origins of this crisis?

At the heart of France’s political paralysis is Macron’s risky decision to call snap parliamentary elections last year. That came after he was re-elected in 2022.

Macron’s gamble in June 2024 was an effort to shore up support for the political centre. But French voters edged towards the extremes, leaving Macron with a weakened minority government and limiting his ability to pass legislation.

The vote resulted in a hung Parliament split between three groups. A left alliance won the most seats, but fell far short of a majority. The far-right National Rally won the most votes, but also doesn’t have a majority. Macron’s centrist coalition lost seats, but still forms a significant third bloc.

This parliamentary shake-up has made France hard to govern. Divisions have shown up most clearly around spending.

How does the budget fit into it?

The immediate reason for Bayrou’s fall is his budget proposal for next year. His unpopular 44-billion-euro ($51bn) deficit-reduction plan, including freezing most welfare spending and scrapping two public holidays, has been widely rejected by parliamentarians.

On August 25, Jordan Bardella, head of the National Rally, said his party would “never vote in favour of a government whose decisions are making the French suffer”. Bayrou in effect has announced “the end of his government”, Bardella said.

The French budget deficit is now nearly 169 billion euros ($198bn), or 5.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), well above the 3 percent limit set by the European Union for countries using the euro.

Bayrou is trying to lower the government’s borrowing to 4.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2026 and to 2.8 percent by 2029. In turn, that would lower the overall debt-to-GDP ratio to 117.2 percent in 2029, compared with 125.3 percent if no changes are made.

Bayrou recently said young people will be saddled with years of debt payments “for the sake of the comfort of boomers” if France fails to tackle its fiscal pressures. Born in 1951, Bayrou himself qualifies as a baby boomer, the generation born in the years soon after World War II.

But any attempt to curtail social benefits is politically difficult in France, as made clear by conflicts in 2023 over Macron’s decision to raise the retirement age to 64 from 62.

Still, investors worry that France’s persistent deficits will cause ever higher debt ratios and undermine its credit score.

Is more gridlock expected?

A series of street demonstrations known as “Block Everything” is expected this week, followed by union-led hospital and rail strikes in the second half of September.

In 2018 and 2023, France witnessed what became known as the “gilets jaunes”, or yellow vest. anti-government protests against various domestic policies overseen by Macron, who will want to avoid a repeat this time, analysts said.

“Macron’s policies since 2017 have been very unpopular. If there were legislative elections tomorrow, a Macronist government would not get elected,” Palombarini said.

But with the president rejecting the idea that he might resign early, “he is likely to continue to enjoy power of the office for a few more years”, Palombarini added.

Beyond that there are also voices – from the far left this time – calling for Macron’s resignation. That is most unlikely to happen.

Who could replace Bayrou?

Pressure will be on Macron to name a successor from the left. The last two prime ministers were from the right and centre, and a left alliance came out numerically top in the 2024 election.

Olivier Faure, the leader of the Socialist Party, would be one possibility. The 57-year-old has a group of 66 deputies in the National Assembly.

Two other possibilities from the left are former PM Bernard Cazeneuve, and the veteran ex-minister Pierre Moscovici, currently head of the Cour des Comptes, the official accounting office.

If Macron decides to stick with the centre and right, his first choice would probably be Sebastien Lecornu, 39, the current defence minister who is a member of Macron’s Renaissance party and said to be close to the president.

Another conservative whose name has been mentioned is the current minister of labour and health, Catherine Vautrin.

Two other possibilities from inside government are Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, who now leads the Republicans, and Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin.

But with all eyes on the 2027 presidential election, would these heavyweights want the electoral kiss-of-death which is to be Macron’s next PM?

World Opinions – BBC News – Aljazeera

L’article Why has the French PM had to go and what happens next? est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The race is still too close to call between Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, with only two days to go until Election Day.

Harris is holding several rallies in Michigan, while Trump is jumping between Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia – all crucial swing states.

Trump visited Virginia and North Carolina on Saturday, while Harris was also in North Carolina, and made a surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live in New York City.

The national polls are tightening even further. Harris is now only ahead by one point, within the margin of error.

Hello from Detroit, Michigan, where Kamala Harris is beginning her day at the Greater Emmanuel Institutional Church of God in Christ.

At the moment, the minister is giving an impassioned sermon, accompanied by an organ and electric guitar.

As we entered the building, a gospel choir was in full song.

The black churchgoing vote has been the backbone of many a Democratic victory, not just here in Michigan but across the battleground states.

The vice-president’s expected to address the congregation soon.

Media watchdog says no complaint made about Harris SNL appearance

As we reported earlier, Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance last night on the US comedy-skit show Saturday Night Live – its final edition before the election.

Brendan Carr, a Republican member of the media watchdog, the Federal Communications Commission, said Harris’s participation on the NBC programme was “a clear and blatant effort to evade” its “equal time rule”.

But a spokesperson for the FCC tells the BBC’s US partner, CBS News, that it “has not made any determination regarding politically [sic] programming rules, nor have we received a complaint from any interested parties”.

The independent government agency must first receive a formal complaint from a political candidate alleging that they have requested “equal time” and been denied it, in order to review whether the policy was violated.

The Trump campaign has indicated it did not receive an invite to the show but has not yet made a complaint.

Earlier this week, it sued CBS for $10bn alleging the network made a “deceitful” edit of a Harris interview.

Trump uses rally to hit his talking points, again and again

And they might not be what his campaign wants him to focus on, as Trump acknowledged.

The start of his speech in Lititz, Pennsylvania, was on the topic his campaign wanted him to focus on: the economy and inflation. But he quickly veered off the prepared speech on the teleprompter.

Trump started a lengthy section on themes that are less popular among the general public his strategists. These include his repeated complaints over the voting process and some of the nastier language he uses towards leading Democrats and the “fake news”.

His focus on these topics energises his base, but is it the kind of material that will win around crucial undecided voters in the swing states? The very type of voter these last-minute swing state rallies are supposed to win over.

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article US election 2024 : Trump vows ‘new golden age’ as Harris targets Michigan two days before election.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Ahead of Tunisia’s presidential election scheduled for October 6, many Tunisians are taking stock of the past five years under the presidency of Kais Saied. The country remains divided between his long-term supporters, and opponents who say the regime is repressive. Our reporters Lilia Blaise and Hamdi Tlili went to meet voters on both sides of the political divide, from Tunis to Paris.

Tunisia will hold a presidential election on Sunday against the backdrop of a crackdown on dissent and human rights violations committed against undocumented migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean to Europe.

The incumbent, Kais Saied, whose most prominent critics are behind bars, is expected to sail to an easy win after a campaign with few rallies and public debates, marking a significant step back for a country that long prided itself as the birthplace of the Arab spring uprisings of 2011.

Only 11% of the electorate of 9 million voted in December’s local elections. Similarly low voter turnout this weekend would provide a hint of disapproval with Saied’s tenure so far.

Observers say Saied, who has been in office since 2019, has increasingly bent the country’s institutions to his will.

Last year, he ordered a crackdown on undocumented black migrants that drew criticism from around the world, but the EU nevertheless proceeded with a €105m deal with Tunisia to stem irregular migration.

The deal has helped fund security units that, according to a recent Guardian investigation, have been perpetrating widespread sexual violence against women on migration routes in its territory.

In the run-up to the election, the Independent High Authority for Elections (ISIE) whittled down an initial longlist of 17 presidential candidates to three after a raft of controversial disqualifications. Of the remaining trio, the former lawmaker Ayachi Zammel was jailed this week for reportedly falsifying documents. It is unclear if his candidature remains valid despite his detention.

Bassam Khawaja, a deputy director for Middle East and north Africa at Human Rights Watch, said: “Since the start of the electoral period on 14 July, authorities have prosecuted, convicted, or detained at least nine prospective candidates.”

Late in September, Tunisia’s parliament voted with an overwhelming majority to strip the courts of the power to reverse decisions made by its electoral body. The vote followed a row between the ISIE and a court that overturned the former’s disqualification of three presidential contenders.

The latest development has made Saied, who will lead for another five years if victorious on Sunday, near unstoppable.

Sarah Yerkes, a senior fellow in the Middle East programme at the Washington-based thinktank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the election would “almost certainly be a low point in the trajectory of what was once the sole democracy in the Arab world”.

After the Arab spring protests ousted the longstanding ruler Ben Ali in 2011, Tunisia was hailed as one of the region’s brightest democratic lights, a reputation boosted by back-to-back elections.

Saied stood as an independent candidate and establishment outsider in the previous election in 2019, campaigning on a platform of strong government after nearly a decade of deadlock between Islamist and secular blocs since the 2011 revolution. The political outsider won by a landslide, with 73% of the vote in a second round runoff with turnout of 58%.

In 2021, he suspended the opposition-controlled parliament and fired the prime minister. The following year, a referendum changed the constitution and gave Saied sweeping powers in a newly introduced unitary system of government. He apportioned to himself the power to appoint magistrates and the seven ISIE members by presidential decree – and fire them at will.

More than a dozen leaders of the leading opposition party, Ennahda, including the former MP Said Ferjani, who was also imprisoned under Ali, were detained. Many remain in captivity.

Khawaja said: “Holding elections amid such repression makes a mockery of Tunisians’ right to participate in free and fair elections.”

Saied’s pursuit of an authoritarian agenda has coincided with downturn in Tunisia’s economic fortunes. Unemployment has risen and inflation is in double digits. According to the World Bank, the country’s economic recovery from years of a cost-of-living crisis and a recession in 2023 has slowed.

Throughout his tenure, Saied has accused civil society and opposition groups critical of his governance of having nefarious motives and being puppets of foreign countries. That line of thinking was echoed by the lawmakers in September, as some even outside the ruling party accused judges of acting on behalf of unnamed foreign interests.

With the coast clear for his re-election, there are fears of more democratic backsliding and populist propaganda efforts in the years to come.

Yerkes said: “By manipulating the 2024 presidential election, Saied has put one more nail in the coffin of Tunisia’s democratic transition and ensured the outcome well before the process began.”

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article Debate. Arab spring dreams in ruins as Tunisia goes to polls against backdrop of repression est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The resolution passed but the vote demonstrated persistent flouting international law in favour of strategic interest.

The death toll from an Israeli air attack in Beirut’s southern suburbs has risen to 37 people, including three children and seven women, Lebanon’s health minister says.

On September 18, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution calling for Israel to terminate its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory within one year. The vote, which concluded with 124 in favour, 12 against, and 43 abstained, has been interpreted by some as a significant triumph for Palestinian advocacy.

Yet, the fact that 54 countries (excluding Israel) – constituting about 28 percent of all member states – did not back the resolution cannot be overlooked. It not only signifies a failure of moral courage but also underscores a pervasive hypocrisy that continues to shape global governance. In fact, it reflects continuing efforts to erode the international regime in order to ensure impunity for Israel.

The resolution in question demanded that Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. It reiterated the findings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled in July that Israel’s occupation was illegal, that its settlements on occupied Palestinian land are also illegal and must be dismantled, and that it needs to pay reparations for damages incurred by the Palestinians.

International law is quite clear on the question of occupation: it is a criminal act. A consensus among international scholars underscores that an occupier cannot invoke the right of self-defence against the people it occupies – an argument Israel has employed to justify its nefarious genocidal actions.

In the context of this ruling by the World Court, voting against and abstaining from voting on the UNGA resolution cannot be dismissed as mere political neutrality. By choosing not to support a resolution that re-affirms the illegality of the Israeli occupation, these nations implicitly endorse Israel’s actions and contribute to the perpetuation of a status quo marked by brutal oppression and suffering. They also openly disregard and thus attack the provisions of international law.

It is important to remember that this vote came amid a continuing Israeli aggression against Gaza and the West Bank, in which nearly 42,000 Palestinians – the majority of them women and children – have been killed and more than 100,000 injured. In January, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling that Isreal is “plausibly” violating the Genocide Convention with its actions in Gaza. This genocidal violence is a direct consequence of the decades-long illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

The October 7 attack last year by Hamas cannot be viewed in isolation. It is rooted in decades of brutal occupation that has left Palestinians trapped in what many describe as the world’s largest open-air prison, where systemic oppression, displacement, and violence have defined millions of Palestinian lives. Understanding this context is essential to addressing the underlying issues and moving toward a just and lasting resolution that honours the dignity and humanity of all affected.

One of the 12 countries that voted against the resolution – the United States – has been a long-time supporter of the Israeli occupation, sending billions worth of weapons to its military before and after October. For its role in arming Israel, the US has been repeatedly accused of complicity in Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Strangely, the US representative to the UN entered a “no” vote despite the fact that Judge Sarah Cleveland, who represents the US at the ICJ, voted in favour of all the court’s opinions in the July ruling.

What makes the US position even more problematic is that it has had the exact opposite stance on occupations elsewhere. In 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and occupied parts of its territory, Washington was at the forefront of global condemnation, sending billions in military and financial aid to the Ukrainian army. This has set a troubling double standard that other countries allied with the US have also followed.

The United Kingdom, for example, expressed “considerable concerns” about the January ICJ ruling and rejected genocide allegations against Israel. On September 18, it chose to abstain. Despite its own legal advisers warning that British weapons could be used for human rights violations in Gaza, the British government has continued its arms shipments to the Israeli army, suspending just 30 out of 350 arms export licences.

Like Washington, London has also extended significant military support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian occupation and wholeheartedly backed investigations into war crimes committed by Russian forces.

Germany, which also abstained on September 18, is another example of a country with a troubling position. As a key supplier of arms to Israel, Germany faces serious allegations of facilitating the commission of genocide, complicating its moral standing and raising questions about its commitment to human rights. Its government has announced plans to intervene in the main hearing of the genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, categorically rejecting the accusations of genocide without substantial justification.

While trying to block legal proceedings against Israel, Germany has accelerated investigations launched by its own justice system into war crimes committed in Ukraine.

Various other countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific – mostly US and NATO allies – have also either voted against the UNGA resolution or abstained, putting geopolitical considerations above international law and ethics.

The hypocrisy inherent in these geopolitical alliances raises critical questions about the integrity of the global legal framework. Why is it that violations committed by Israel, an ally of powerful Western nations, are met with silence or insufficient condemnation and others are not? This inconsistency not only deepens the divisions between the West and the Global South, but also damages the legitimacy of international law and its ability to prevent atrocities.

The more Israel is shielded by these countries, the more it flouts international law without fear of consequences and the more brutal and deadly its abuses become. And its violations do not only affect the Palestinian population. This pattern of impunity undermines the foundational principles of justice and accountability and encourages others to engage in such crimes.

The abstention of 43 countries and the opposition from 11 others regarding the UNGA resolution send a clear message to the world: there are “no rules”. This alarming trend suggests that nations with powerful militaries can act unilaterally, disregarding international law without consequence. If we fail to halt this erosion of the legal regime, we risk descending into a world governed by the “law of the jungle”.

Such a breakdown of international law would have catastrophic implications for human civilisation. It would foster a climate where the powerful can trample on the rights of the weak, perpetuating cycles of violence and oppression. The hypocrisy evident in the global response to the Palestinian plight exemplifies this dangerous disregard for justice and accountability. As these 54 countries continue to turn a blind eye to grave violations, the foundations of global order are threatened.

To restore faith in international law, countries must prioritise human rights over strategic interests. This requires a unified front from the international community. Nations must hold each other accountable for their actions and speak out against violations, regardless of political affiliations or alliances. A true commitment to justice necessitates that the principles of international law be applied consistently and without bias.

Only through decisive action can the ideals of international law be upheld and the world saved from a dark, lawless future.

Israel-Hezbollah attacks resume after Lebanon says 37 killed in Israeli strike on Beirut

Here’s a look at today’s main developments:

The death toll from an Israeli air attack in Beirut’s southern suburbs has risen to 37 people, including three children and seven women, Lebanon’s health minister says.

The strike, which wrecked two buildings in the Lebanese capital’s Dahiya district during rush hour on Friday, also injured more than 60 people, Health Minister Firass Abiad told a news conference on Saturday.

Cross-border attacks between Hezbollah and Israel have resumed. Hezbollah says it has fired rockets at two military positions in northern Israel, while the IDF said it was attacking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon

The number of people killed in the Israeli strike on Beirut on Friday has risen to 37, the Lebanese health ministry says, as search and rescue efforts in Dahieh continue.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said it killed 16 Hezbollah members in the strike, including 12 senior commanders.

A news conference by Lebanon’s health ministry revealed this morning that 152 people are still in a critical condition after the device explosions on Tuesday and Wednesday. It also said the number of those killed over the two days of explosions has risen from 37 to 39.

Away from Lebanon in Gaza, the Hamas-run health ministry says at least 22 people, “mostly” children and women, have been killed following a strike on a school in Gaza city housing displaced people.

World Opinions + BBC News + Aljazeera News

L’article Analysis. No, the UNGA resolution on Palestine was not a win..  Attacks resume after Lebanon says 37 killed in Israeli strike on Beirut est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The Venezuelan defence minister has described anti-government protests which erupted after the disputed election result was announced as “a coup”.

People took to the streets across cities and towns in Venezuela on Monday in protest after the government-dominated electoral authority had declared President Nicolás Maduro the winner of the election.

Two leading NGOs in Venezuela have said that there have been several deaths and dozens of people injured.

As people gathered for fresh protest rallies, Gen Vladimir Padrino read out a statement saying that President Nicolás Maduro had the “absolute loyalty and unconditional support” of the armed forces, which would “defeat the coup”.

Venezuela’s attorney general, who is a close ally of Mr Maduro, said a member of the military had been killed in the anti-government protests.

Attorney General Tarek William Saab added that 749 people had been arrested.

He told journalists that most would be charged with “resisting authority and, in the most serious cases, terrorism”.

The opposition Voluntad Popular (Popular Will) party said among those who have been detained was their national political co-ordinator, Freddy Superlano.

The party warned that the government was stepping up its repression of activists who have been demanding the publication of results from polling stations, which the opposition say prove that their candidate won.

Protest erupted after the head of the National Electoral Council (CNE) – who is a member of Mr Maduro’s party and used to work as his legal adviser – declared the president re-elected for a third consecutive term.

The CNE had earlier announced that Mr Maduro had won with 51% of the votes, ahead of Edmundo González with 44%.

However, the electoral authority has so far failed to publish detailed voting tallies, which the opposition says show that the result the CNE announced was fraudulent.

The regional body for the Americas, the Organization of American States (OAS), has accused Venezuela’s government of completely distorting the results.

The opposition coalition backing Mr González said they had been able to review 73.2% of the voting tallies and maintained that they confirmed that Mr González was the winner by a wide margin.

“We have the records showing our categorical and mathematically irreversible victory,” Mr González said.

Opposition parties had united behind Mr González in an attempt to unseat President Maduro after 11 years in power, amid widespread discontent.

Almost 7.8m people have fled the economic and political crisis which has rocked the country under the Maduro Administration.

On Monday, crowds of people chanted “freedom, freedom” and called for the government to fall.

In some areas, posters of President Maduro were ripped down and burned while tyres, cars and rubbish were also set alight.

Miguel Sarzalejo, 64, told the BBC that “we want a better future for the youth because if not they will leave the country”.

“We have a rich country and he is destroying everything,” he added referring to President Maduro.

The opposition has urged its supporters to gather peacefully in squares across the country on Tuesday while the government has also called on its backers to rally.

The spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General, Stephan Dujarric, said Venezuelans must be allowed to exercise their right to peaceful protest.

“It’s important that all political leaders and their supporters reject all forms of violence, threats of violence or incitement to violence. It is also, as it is in every country, primordial that the authorities respect the right of people to demonstrate peacefully and that they should protect that right and not hinder it.”

By Ione Wells in Caracas and Vanessa Buschschlüter in London – BBC News

L’article Analysis. Venezuelan defence minister says protests constitute ‘coup’ est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

An exit poll carried out by polling company Ipsos, and paid for by the BBC, ITV and Sky says Starmer’s Labour Party will win the general election with 410 seats. The final outcome of the election should be clear by early on Friday.

Labour set to win a general election landslide with majority of 170, according to exit poll for the BBC, ITV and Sky

If the forecast is accurate, it means Keir Starmer will become UK prime minister with 410 Labour MPs – 326 seats are needed for a majority#BBCElection live ⬇️

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) July 4, 2024

Labour is set to win a general election landslide with a majority of 170, according to an exit poll for the BBC, ITV and Sky.

To everyone who has campaigned for Labour in this election, to everyone who voted for us and put their trust in our changed Labour Party – thank you. https://t.co/q6yDNPnAbo

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 4, 2024

If the forecast is accurate, Sir Keir Starmer will become prime minister with 410 Labour MPs – just short of Tony Blair’s 1997 total.

The Conservatives are predicted to slump to 131 MPs, their lowest number ever.

The Liberal Democrats are projected to come third with 61 MPs.

The Scottish National Party will see its number of MPs fall to 10, while Reform UK is forecast to get 13 MPs, according to the exit poll.

The Green Party of England and Wales is predicted to double its number of MPs to two and Plaid Cymru is set to get four MPs. Others are forecast to get 19 seats.

The exit poll, overseen by Sir John Curtice and a team of statisticians, is based on data from voters at about 130 polling stations in England, Scotland and Wales. The poll does not cover Northern Ireland.

At the past five general elections, the exit poll has been accurate to within a range of 1.5 and 7.5 seats.

If the exit poll is correct it will be a remarkable turnaround for the Labour Party, which had its worst post-war election result in 2019.

The Conservatives may avoid the wipe-out predicted by some opinion polls but their predicted result will be a devastating blow for the party after 14 years in government.

The Tory losses are likely to have been inflicted by the resurgent Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which looks set to win more seats than many polls predicted.

We will have to wait until the early hours, when the bulk of results start rolling in, to see if the exit poll is accurate.

Scotland’s former first minister Nicola Sturgeon said it was “not a good night” for the SNP, which is predicted to lose 38 seats, adding that she believed the prediction would be “broadly right”.

Labour’s predicted landslide would be just short of the 179 majority won by Tony Blair in 1997 and the party may achieve it on a smaller share of the vote than former leader Jeremy Corbyn won in 2017, according to Sir John Curtice.

But it will be seen as a vindication of Sir Keir Starmer’s efforts to change his party and move it back to the centre ground of British politics.

Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner told the BBC Sir Keir had done a “tremendous job” of transforming the the party but added “the exit poll is a poll so we haven’t had any results yet”.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: “It looks like this will be our best result for a generation.”

The Conservatives are on course for their worst election since 1906, when they got 156 seats.

Rishi Sunak had insisted he could still win right to the end despite failing to make a dent in Labour’s commanding opinion poll lead over the six-week campaign.

Conservative Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride told BBC Radio 4: “This is a very difficult moment for the Conservative Party.”

He says he is “very sorry” that the exit poll is projecting that a number of his colleagues will lose their seats. On keeping his own seat, he says “we will have to wait and see”.

On Wednesday – the day before the election – Mr Stride made headlines when he admitted he thought it was likely there would be a massive Labour majority, effectively conceding defeat.

Not an ‘existential catastrophe’ for the Conservatives

Tim Bale, a politics professor at Queen Mary University, says that while Labour’s predicted win was “very impressive,” the ruling Conservative party also did better than earlier opinion polls suggested.

“The Conservatives haven’t done quite as badly, it has to be said, as some of the polls during the campaign suggested. Some even suggested that it would go under 100 seats, it looks as if they’re going to pick up about 131…[but] it is a disaster for the Conservative Party but not an existential catastrophe,” Bale told Al Jazeera.

“I think they will be able to build back from this, how it will take for them to do this, however, is the big question”.

Bale added that the party has been in “chaos” since the Brexit referendum in 2016.

“None of the benefits the Conservatives so promised that would come about through Brexit have really materialised. So, I really couldn’t catch a nation if you like of circumstances which has led to this very, very bad result,” he said.

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article UK general election 2024: Exit poll points to Labour victory est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Tensions are rising in France, home to one of Europe’s largest Muslim minorities, ahead of the snap election run-off.

Fatimata, a 22-year-old French Muslim woman, suddenly feels as though many of her compatriots are against her very being.

On Sunday, the far right led the first round of parliamentary elections and while it’s not yet clear if Marine Le Pen’s National Rally movement will form a majority after the July 7 run-off, many of France’s six million Muslims are, like Fatimata, paralysed with fear.

“I am feeling betrayed by France. Knowing that 10.6 million people voted for a party promoting the ban of the veil in the public space is hurtful,” she told Al Jazeera.

She represents the kind of French citizen that Le Pen’s party has long demonised.

She wears the hijab, she was born to foreign parents – Mauritanian and Senegalese, and she was raised in one of the banlieues, the impoverished suburbs circling Paris that are home to many immigrant and ethnic minority communities. She’s also a dual citizen.

Le Pen has called for the hijab to be banned in public spaces while Jordan Bardella, her protege who could become France’s next prime minister, has called the veil a “tool of discrimination”. He has railed against the populous banlieue north of Paris that he grew up in – Seine-Saint-Denis – and promised to ban dual nationals from some “the most strategic” state jobs if his party seizes power.

“I’ve experienced to the core the feeling of becoming a foreigner in one’s own country. I’ve experienced the Islamisation of my neighbourhood,” 28-year-old Bardella said in June.

Fatimata, a student, hails from Stains, a commune within Seine-Saint-Denis. It is possible that as a child, she may have walked past Bardella at a market or sat across from him in a cafe.

“I received French nationality when I was 13, and I can’t help to think that somewhere in my banlieue, there is a 13-year-old girl just like I was who won’t be able to achieve things because the first party in France is now the National Rally,” she said.

‘Compromising my future’

President Emmanuel Macron called the snap polls after suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the far right in the recent European Parliament elections. But his risky gamble has backfired.

While National Rally secured about a third of Sunday’s vote with 33.15 percent, the New Popular Front, a left-wing alliance, came second with 28.14 percent. Macron was left red-faced again, as his centrist alliance scored just 20.76 percent. Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets since to rally against the far right.

Elias, a 27-year-old who works in marketing, said many Muslims are considering emigrating from France if the National Rally ends up governing – a trend which has already taken hold among some professionals.

Earlier this year, the authors of a study titled La France, tu l’aimes mais tu la quittes (France, loving it but leaving it), conducted a survey of more than 1,000 people, interviewing 140 at length. They cited a “brain drain” of French Muslims quitting the country for jobs abroad because of the “harmful effects of Islamophobia”.

While a “valid” reaction to discrimination or the rise of the far right, Elias said he feels “torn”.

“If we all leave, who will continue to resist? I think it is important to stay, at least for the future generations,” said Elias, who has Algerian ancestry.

“What’s also making me very worried is the potential increase of police violence. There will probably be a surge of racial profiling and of violence, because the officers will feel protected and supported by the National Rally.

“I am scared for my little brother, who is 15 years old and who had his first police check when he was only 13.”

For Tiziri Messaoudene, an 18-year-old student of Algerian descent, it is Bardella’s position on dual nationals that is most frightening.

During a pre-election speech, Bardella justified his stance by evoking Russia’s war on Ukraine, saying, “Can anyone imagine a Franco-Russian working at the armed forces ministry today?”

“The National Rally is saying that dual-nationality holders will not be allowed to work in ‘strategic positions in the state’. This is compromising my future in this country. I am studying political science and would like to work in public affairs, so if this bill passes, would I have studied for nothing?” Tiziri said.

In Carpentras, Tiziri’s hometown in southern France, the National Rally scored 53.51 percent on Sunday.

National Rally was previously known as the National Front, the party founded in 1972 by Marine Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. The movement has attempted to soften the hard-right image cultivated by Le Pen senior, who was known for, and convicted of, racist hate speech.

Rim-Sarah Alouane, a French legal expert, said it would be “theoretically impossible” for the National Rally to carry out some of its aims.

“The bill on the ban on the veil in the public space would infringe on the laïcité (secularism) principle, while the bill on the dual-nationality holders would infringe on the principle of equality between the citizens,” Alouane told Al Jazeera.

“Nevertheless, the National Rally is a political party like no other, which means that it could do exceptional things if it comes to power.

“So in theory, those bills are against the Constitution. But in practice, we will have to see if the supreme institutions of the country will play their roles as counterweights.”

She believes that a “long process of normalisation” lies behind the far right’s success.

Under Macron’s government, controversial bills such as the abaya ban, the so-called separatism law and recent measures on immigration have rocked marginalised groups.

“It’s an important thing to remember,” said Tiziri. “Even under Macron, we lived in a nauseating Islamophobic and racist climate, where scapegoats were the Muslims and the people from foreign origin.”

According to Benjamin Tainturier, a doctoral student at Sciences Po Paris who researches far-right discourse in the media, the National Rally’s rise can be linked to the “demonisation of the radical left”, especially of Jean-Luc Melenchon’s France Unbowed party, as well as shifting theories on racism.

“After 15 years, the National Rally has succeeded in changing the definition of what racism is, through replacing a colonial and essentialist racism by a more subtle form,” he told Al Jazeera.

Macron’s Renaissance party also “stigmatised its left-wing opponents, by using the same demonising tactics that were used against the far-right before”, he said.

While campaigning, centrist politicians adopted the slogan “Ni RN, ni LFI” (Neither National Rally, nor France Unbowed).

Looking ahead, Tainturier shares Elias’s concern that police-led discrimination could surge if the far right dominates the parliament.

“If the ruling power conveys the idea that it is acceptable to discriminate against people according to their origins, it could legitimise police violence and thus increase it,” he warned.

Meanwhile, Macron, who faces the prospect of awkwardly cohabiting with a far-right premier, is urging voters to get behind the centre, ominously warning of “civil war” if the hard right – or left – triumphs.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA

L’article Elections. France’s Muslims fear for their futures as Le Pen’s far right party surges est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Elected, accused of corruption – fired, accused of rape – acquitted, elected president, accused of corruption again – denied again, ousted, imprisoned for contempt of court – freed, barred from becoming an MP.

For most politicians almost any of these punches would have proved fatal to their career, but not for South Africa’s Jacob Zuma.

Like a resolute prize-fighter, the 82-year-old former president may have been knocked down on occasions, but he has never been knocked out.

During the recent election campaign he has been doing his familiar dance and the results of last week’s vote show he still wields huge influence.

He is at the helm of a new party that took on the African National Congress (ANC), gaining 15% of the vote.

The results have been humiliating for the ANC, the liberation movement Mr Zuma once led, as it has lost its outright parliamentary majority for the first time in 30 years – and the “Zuma tsunami”, as it has been dubbed, is partly responsible.

In the centre of the coastal city of Durban, the main city in KwaZulu-Natal province, Mr Zuma’s smiling face beams down from virtually every street lamp on green-and-black election posters of his recently formed party, uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) or Spear of the Nation.

There is no doubting the octogenarian’s exalted status here in his heartland, where he is respected for upholding his cultural and traditional Zulu beliefs.

He is also lauded for his role as a peace broker during political violence in the early 1990s, which almost derailed the country’s transition to democracy.

And more than 20 years ago, he was credited with bringing voters in KwaZulu-Natal from the Zulu nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party to the ANC.

This year he was able to take his loyal supporters with him to MK, which is named after the ANC’s former armed wing and holds huge political symbolism because of its role in fighting for the end of white-minority rule.

The launch of MK’s manifesto, a week before the 29 May election at a packed 40,000-seater stadium, was a clear signal that “uBaba” (father), as Mr Zuma is known, was back.

The sea of his supporters braving the scorching heat chanted: “Zuma! Zuma!”

One shouted: “Uyinsizwa nxamala”, which loosely translates from Zulu as “a fearless warrior who never backs down”.

On election day, arriving at his polling station, a modestly built primary school without flushing toilets, the MK party leader was greeted by hundreds of people who called out his clan names: “Msholozi, Nxamalala, Maphum’ephethe”.

The former president waved and smiled at them before entering a classroom to vote.

As he left the polling station, his supporters sang a pro-Zuma song in Zulu made popular several years ago when the former president was accused of corruption.

One refrain they belted out translates as: “What has Zuma done? You’re influenced by propaganda from so-called white monopoly capital.”

Many politicians can rely on a loyal core of backers, but Mr Zuma’s ability to genuinely connect with the poor and marginalised is what sets him apart.

And this may explain his enduring popularity despite facing numerous scandals and damning accusations.

Six years ago, it seemed that his luck had finally run out when he was forced from the presidency, following a litany of corruption allegations, which he denied.

Cyril Ramaphosa replaced him as president and Mr Zuma became a political pariah and a damaged brand.

Then three years ago, things got worse: he was sent to jail after being found in contempt of court for failing to give evidence and testify at a judicial investigation into corruption during his nine-year term as president.

His arrest in July 2021 sparked the deadliest riots since the end of white-minority rule in 1994 and led to the deaths of more than 300 people.

He had been sentenced to 15 months, but President Ramaphosa released him after he had served only three, in an attempt to placate him and his angry supporters.

Just a few weeks ago, it seemed Mr Zuma was dealt another blow after being legally barred from standing as a member of parliament because of his conviction.

But none of that seemed to matter to voters, and his propensity to outsmart his political opponents was evident, which the ANC acknowledged.

“Jacob Zuma is a force to be reckoned with in South African politics… we never underestimated him,” admitted ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula, as he reflected on his party’s dismal performance.

Despite his suspension from the ANC, Mr Zuma remains a member of the party that brought an end to apartheid.

With no formal schooling and a modest upbringing, his anti-apartheid activism eventually saw him jailed for 10 years at the notorious Robben Island prison along with Nelson Mandela.

After the ban against the ANC was lifted by the white government in 1990, Mr Zuma returned from exile and rose through the party’s ranks. In 1999 he was appointed deputy president of the country.

He was then implicated in corruption allegations in 2005, which he denied, involving a 1999 arms deal and was fired by then-President Thabo Mbeki. This case continues to drag on – and he still faces charges over the multi-billion dollar scandal.

In December of that year, he was accused of raping the daughter of a party comrade. He admitted to having sex with the woman, who was HIV positive, but said the encounter was consensual.

Mr Zuma invited ridicule when he said he had had a shower after sex to prevent HIV transmission and believed that a healthy man was unlikely to catch HIV from a woman.

The following year, he was acquitted of rape.

He then fought his way back to the top of the ANC and became president in 2009.

Mr Zuma remained in the role until he was forced to resign in 2018 after intense pressure from his own party.

This came after he was accused of being involved in a process known as “state capture”, where he allowed a family of wealthy businessmen – the Guptas – to wield massive political influence.

Mr Zuma and the Gupta brothers have dismissed the allegations of corruption as a fabrication.

The former president and his supporters blame his successor, Mr Ramaphosa, for his downfall.

And now he might want to settle a score with his rival.

With coalition talks under way, the MK party has made it clear that it will only form a partnership with the ANC if the president resigns.

Freshly emboldened by his party’s performance, Mr Zuma threw the first punch on Saturday, alleging irregularities.

“Nobody must declare results, don’t provoke us, don’t start trouble,” he said on the eve of the announcement of the final election results.

The electoral commission has strongly denied these allegations.

Police are now on alert because of the risk of potential unrest following Mr Zuma’s comments.

Yet despite this acrimonious situation and relationship, the ANC has not ruled out a coalition with the MK party.

“We are talking to everybody who is prepared to form a government with us,” Mr Mbalula said.

It all shows Mr Zuma’s remarkable ability to remain in the ring.

By Nomsa Maseko – BBC News

L’article Analysis. Behind the ‘Zuma tsunami’ in South Africa est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

The conflict in Sudan has displaced more than two million people, triggering one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises. The international community has a responsibility to do more.

At Renk in South Sudan, 40km (25 miles) south of the border with Sudan, I met a young boy – Miyok, orphaned by the brutality of the Sudan conflict. Miyok is one of at least 600,000 refugees who have fled to South Sudan since the start of the conflict a year ago. He now lives with his aunt in one of the two transit centres.

Despite facing myriad challenges, Miyok’s wish is simple yet profound – to be educated and have the opportunity to fulfil his dream of becoming a doctor.

As international donors met earlier this week in Paris, Miyok’s story resonated deeply. His dream represents not only his personal aspirations but also embodies the collective hope of a nation striving for a better future.

A future that continues to remain uncertain, however. In Paris, donors pledged $2bn to support millions of people in Sudan and in host countries. Although this is most welcome, it is only half of the $4.1bn needed to give people their next meal and what they need to survive and rebuild their lives.

To date, the conflict in Sudan has displaced at least two million people, triggering one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises. Neighbouring countries – South Sudan, Chad, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Libya – are feeling the impact whether through strained resources, economic disruptions or risk of the conflict spilling over.

We have seen up to 1,500 people arriving every day in Renk, some on donkey carts, others crammed into overcrowded minivans, and those who can’t afford transport walk for miles under the scorching sun to reach the border.

Many of those who have fled are women carrying nothing but a small bundle of clothes on their backs and their children. Their eyes are filled with exhaustion, fear, and uncertainty about what the future holds.

Time and time again, when I met with officials and Oxfam’s partners in South Sudan, the phrase “perfect storm” was mentioned, summarising the prevailing challenges which have plunged the nation further into destitution.

Even before the war in Sudan erupted, South Sudan was already suffering from intercommunal conflict over resources and a climate crisis, which have created a dire humanitarian crisis. Two-thirds of the population urgently needs food, including 35,000 people facing starvation. Nearly nine million people currently depend on aid for survival.

Despite contributing little to global carbon emissions, South Sudan has been hit hard in recent years by climate change-induced erratic weather patterns – harsh droughts and boiling temperatures followed by heavy rains leading to severe flooding which have continued to wreck property, infrastructure and crops. This situation, compounded by an economic crisis, has had devastating effects on an already vulnerable population.

To make matters worse, the country’s key oil pipeline, which passes through neighbouring Sudan, was damaged in February. With oil responsible for 90 percent of South Sudan’s revenue and the pipeline accounting for two-thirds of oil revenues, the loss of the pipeline puts the already fragile economy on the brink.

Despite South Sudan’s humanitarian and economic crisis, and the increasing influx of refugees from neighbouring Sudan, aid has dwindled to an extreme low. In 2023, the United Nations appeal for South Sudan was slashed by half to $1.79bn, but less than four percent of the target was met.

The resilience of the South Sudanese people has been repeatedly tested, yet the difficulty in fully implementing the 2020 peace agreement risks jeopardising the legitimacy of the government. This situation, coupled with an economic crisis, could intensify further the ongoing violence.

To overcome this deep crisis, South Sudan needs three key things. First, an immediate injection of aid funding that not only focuses on short-term emergency support but also prioritises development that empowers South Sudanese people to break free from the vicious cycle of shocks and be able to rebuild their lives.

Second, while external support is crucial, the South Sudan government should intensify efforts to lead, build basic infrastructure and provide essential public services so the economy works for the South Sudanese people.

Third, and most importantly, as the country heads towards elections later this year, many in South Sudan see this as a crucial step in addressing the governance, economic and humanitarian challenges. A lasting peace will help avert the perfect storm and ensure a stronger South Sudan.

Amid the chaos, those who love this country, from government officials to grassroots activists and partners, share a determination to rebuild a nation torn apart by conflict and climatic shocks.

Despite the numerous crises the world is currently experiencing, we should not turn our backs on the South Sudanese people and the refugees fleeing the conflict in Sudan. We urge donors who met in Paris this week to keep the momentum and immediately scale up the humanitarian response and renew their call for an immediate ceasefire and an inclusive peace process.

I left South Sudan with my heart aching for Miyok and countless others, whose futures hang in the balance. But I refuse to lose hope.  We should all rally together as partners in progress, empowering South Sudanese communities to chart their path towards a brighter future.

By Amitabh Behar – Interim Executive Director of Oxfam international – Al Jazeera

L’article The world cannot turn its back on Sudan and its neighbours any longer est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.