How young Kenyans are calling for change
We explore what made Kenyans get up from behind their screens and out into the streets to rise up against the political elite. Images of Gen Z confronting Kenyan police armed with tear gas, water cannon and live rounds have dominated headlines in recent weeks. What began as a social media movement opposing a proposed finance bill has escalated into fatal antigovernment demonstrations nationwide. Despite President William Ruto withdrawing the bill in response to the fervor of the protests, Kenya’s economic challenges, coupled with a sizable educated youth demographic facing scarce job prospects, persistently fuel discontent against the political establishment. It seems the country’s youth movement is just getting started. Presenter: Anelise Borges Guests:Brian Obra – film directorBoniface Mwangi – activistWanjira Wanjiru – Mathare Social Justice Centre co-founderKasmuel Mcoure – activist Adblock test (Why?)
‘Country first, party second’: Keir Starmer’s first address as UK PM
NewsFeed UK Labour Party leader Keir Starmer is now officially prime minister. He entered 10 Downing Street after a resounding defeat of the Conservative Party, ending their 14-years in power. Published On 5 Jul 20245 Jul 2024 Adblock test (Why?)
UK general election 2024 results: Five key takeaways
Britons have handed Keir Starmer’s Labour Party nearly two-thirds of the seats in the UK Parliament’s 650-seat House of Commons in what has been described as an “historic” general election following 14 years of rule by the Conservative Party. Here are some key takeaways from the results of Thursday’s election. 1. A Tory wipe-out The Conservative Party, led by former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, was subjected to its worst loss in history. The party has lost 250 seats since the last general election in 2019, having won a total of 121 seats this year. Eleven Conservative cabinet ministers were unseated this election. The Conservative vote share plunged by 20 percentage points since 2019 to just 24 percent, as supporters switched in their droves to Reform UK, the far-right party led by Nigel Farage. Prominent Tories who lost their seats include former Prime Minister Liz Truss, Commons leader Penny Mordaunt and former cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. 2. Reform fever takes hold, propelling Farage to Parliament Farage’s far-right Reform UK party made inroads. It won four seats, no small achievement for a start-up party, and was supported by 14 percent of voters overall. This is a rise of 12.3 percentage points since the last election, when it was known as the Brexit Party. The party also drew support in some seats it did not win, securing second place in Dover and Deal, and third in Folkestone and Hythe, Tunbridge Wells, Dartford and Sevenoaks among others. The rise of the anti-immigration far right group is of great concern to ethnic minority Britons and marginalised communities. Several Reform candidates were suspended ahead of the election because they were found to have made racist comments online. Meanwhile, the election is a dream come true for Farage, who’s finally heading to the House of Commons as a Member of Parliament to on his eighth attempt. His constituency, Clacton-on-Sea, removed the Conservative incumbent Giles Watling who had held the seat since 2017 by a considerable margin. Farage won 21,225 votes against Watling’s 12,820. The chairman of Reform UK, Richard Tice, won Boston and Skegness in Lincolnshire and Rupert Lowe, former chairman of Southampton football club, took Great Yarmouth from the Conservative Party, which had held the constituency for the whole 14 years of the party’s time in government. 3. Labour won, but is it popular? No one can doubt Labour’s victory, in terms of the number of seats it seized. It made landmark inroads, such as the party’s Tony Vaughan taking Folkestone and Hythe which the Tories had held since 1950. Cities of London and Westminster changed hands to Labour for the first time. But the centre-left party’s overall share of the vote rose by less than 2 percentage points. Despite taking 64 percent of the seats, the party only won 34 percent of the actual vote. In 2019, when the party was led by Jeremy Corbyn, whose low popularity was blamed for Labour’s losses, vote share was only slightly lower – at 32 percent. Thursday’s vote was marred by low turnout. Sixty percent of voters cast a vote, a fall from the 67 percent in 2019. This is the second-lowest voter turnout, which usually exceeds 65 percent, for a general election since 1885. “In many ways, this looks more like an election the Conservatives have lost than one Labour has won,” wrote John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, for the BBC. 4. Pro-Palestine independents challenge the system. Five win, but Galloway falls Five pro-Palestine independents won seats as Israel’s war on Gaza emerged as a key issue for the UK’s voters. Corbyn held his Islington North seat as an independent candidate. Shockat Adam in Leicester South, Ayoub Khan in Birmingham Perry Barr, Adnan Hussain in Blackburn and Iqbal Mohamed in Dewsbury and Batley all won seats. “This is for the people of Gaza,” Adam said after he was announced as the winner. These contenders all defeated Labour incumbents. Neither the Conservative nor Labour have called for an immediate ceasefire. They both back what they call Israel’s “right to self-defence”, causing discontent among pro-Palestine and Muslim voters. On the other hand, the leader of the left-wing Workers Party of Britain, George Galloway, lost the Rochdale seat that he won in a by-election in February by campaigning against the Gaza war. He was unseated by Labour’s Paul Waugh. 5. Lib Dems stage a comeback Ed Davey’s Liberal Democrat party, which is left of centre, won 71 seats – a massive 63 more than in 2019. Since 2010, when the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition with the Conservative Party in order to enable the Tories to form a government, having not won a majority of seats, the popularity of the Lib Dems has declined. This year, however, voters seem to have returned to support them. The party won some critical seats, including Chichester, which was previously held by Conservative Education Secretary Gillian Keegan. Lib Dem member Jess Brown-Fuller won the seat with a majority of 12,146. The party also won the Lewes seat in a notional gain from the Conservatives after boundary changes. James MacCleary won with 50.6 percent of the votes, taking the seat from former Conservative health minister Maria Caulfield who won just 26.8 percent. All eyes are now on Starmer, but also the opposition. The Conservatives are not used to being in the shadows and they now have some new opponents to deal with. Adblock test (Why?)
UK general election live results 2024: By the numbers
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s party is expected to lose the July 4 election after 14 years of Conservative rule. Vote counting is under way in the United Kingdom’s snap general election with 650 seats in the House of Commons – the lower house of Britain’s parliament – up for grabs. The candidates with the most votes in each constituency will be declared winners by the early hours of July 5. By 7am local time, most results should be declared. Here is how all the parties are performing: Previous election results In 2019, Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party secured a majority by seizing seats from the Labour Party in its traditional heartlands in the north and midlands. The Conservatives won 365 seats with a net change of +49, while Labour had 203 seats, a net change of -60 from the prior election. The SNP gained 13 seats, bringing the total number of seats in parliament to 48. The Liberal Democrats had 11 seats, a net change of -2 since the last election. The Greens maintained their only seat. Which are the main parties in the race? There are several political parties in the UK, however, the two that have dominated the political arena in the 20th and 21st century are the Conservatives and Labour. The Conservative Party, also known as the Tories, is a centre-right to right party, currently led by Rishi Sunak, who took over from Liz Truss in October 2022. Labour is a centre-left party, led by Keir Starmer. They were last in power between 1997 to 2010 under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Liberal Democrats, centre to centre-left aligned, led by Ed Davey. In power from 2010 to 2015 in coalition with the Conservatives under David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, then leader of the Liberal Democrats. Greens, left-wing ecopolitics, led by Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay. Reform UK, right-wing party led by Nigel Farage. SNP, Scottish National Party, centre-left party led by John Swinney. Plaid Cymru, centre-left to left-wing Welsh party, led by Rhun ap Iorwerth. DUP, Democratic Unionist Party, centre-right Northern Irish party, led by Gavin Robinson. How does voting work in the UK? Voters in 650 constituencies across the UK will elect members of parliament to the lower chamber, the House of Commons, via the first-past-the-post system. To win each constituency and gain a seat in the House, candidates need to receive more votes than any of their competitors. A party needs to win at least 50 percent of the seats – 326 – to secure a majority in the House of Commons and be asked to form a government by the monarch, King Charles III. The members of parliament’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, are appointed rather than elected. If no party wins a majority, there is a hung parliament. The UK’s outgoing parliament Before parliament closed on May 30, the House of Commons was represented by 13 parties and 17 independents, including: The Conservatives – 344 seats (52.9 percent) Labour – 205 seats (31.5 percent) The Scottish National Party (SNP) – 43 seats (6.6 percent) The Liberal Democrats – 15 seats (2.3 percent) The remaining 43 seats were held by nine other parties and independents. Adblock test (Why?)
Streaming giants challenge new Canadian revenue-sharing rules
Global streaming companies have said they were challenging new Canadian rules that oblige them to help pay for local news, saying Canada’s federal government had acted unreasonably and provided no legal basis for the demand. The Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents Netflix, Walt Disney Co and other companies, said on Thursday that it has filed applications in a federal court for leave to appeal the rules and ask for a judicial review. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the national broadcasting regulator, said in June that major online streaming services must contribute 5 percent of their Canadian revenues to support the domestic broadcasting system, including news generation. “The decision does not reveal any basis for the CRTC’s conclusion that it is appropriate to require foreign online undertakings to contribute to news production,” MPA-Canada said in a legal filing. “The CRTC acted unreasonably in compelling foreign online undertakings to contribute monies to support news production.” The CRTC said the funding would be directed to areas of what it called immediate need in the broadcasting system, such as local news on radio and television as well as French-language and Indigenous content. The regulator declined to comment because the matter is before the courts. It has previously said the rules, which are due to become effective in September, will raise roughly 200 million Canadian dollars ($146m) a year. The measure was introduced under the auspices of a law passed last year that the federal government says will ensure online streaming services promote Canadian music and stories and support Canadian jobs. Other streaming platforms the MPA-Canada serves include those offered by Paramount, Sony, NBCUniversal and Warner Bros Discovery. Adblock test (Why?)
Senator Lindsey Graham slams Palestinians as ‘radicalised’ in social post
United States Senator Lindsey Graham has sparked anger after he responded to protests outside his home in Seneca, South Carolina, with anti-Palestinian remarks on social media. “The Palestinians in Gaza are the most radicalized population on the planet who are taught to hate Jews from birth. It will take years to fix this problem,” Graham said in a post on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. “When I hear ‘from the river to the sea,’ it reminds me of ‘the Final Solution.’ The Hamas terrorists are the SS on steroids,” he added, drawing a comparison to a Nazi paramilitary organisation, the Schutzstaffel (SS). As part of the post, Graham shared a video of a small line of protesters — about 20 in total — who held up a large Palestinian flag on the road outside his home and chanted, “Lindsey Graham, we’re not done. Intifada’s just begun.” Thursday’s remarks fell on the July 4 holiday, when the US celebrates its Declaration of Independence, and Graham used his post to denounce the protest as disruptive. “While I respect the right to peacefully protest, I apologize to my neighbors and their families for the disruption on the Fourth of July caused by this pro-Palestinian group,” he wrote. “Events like this make me more determined than ever to stand with Israel, de-radicalize the Palestinian people, and march toward a better and more stable world.” The comments are the latest in a string of anti-Palestinian remarks from the Republican senator, who previously suggested that Israel would be justified in using nuclear weapons in Gaza, where it has led a deadly military campaign since October. “Listen, here’s what I would say about fighting an enemy who wants to kill you and your family. Why did we drop two bombs — nuclear bombs — on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? To end a war that we couldn’t afford to lose,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press in May. “You don’t understand, apparently, what Israel is facing.” Those televised comments, in part, sparked the protest outside Graham’s home on Thursday. A group called the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) organised the demonstration to respond to his “hawkish stance” on Israel. In a statement released to local media, it warned Graham’s “warmongering rhetoric has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Gaza”. “I’m Palestinian, and I have friends and family in Palestine,” Rose Hassouneh, a PSL member, told a local ABC news affiliate. “I am taking part in this campaign to support their struggle for liberation, and because we must end all US support for the Israeli apartheid regime.” In response to Thursday’s social media post, Claudia De la Cruz, the PSL’s presidential candidate, compared Graham to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “It’s clear from Lindsey Graham’s comments that he considers the entire Palestinian population to be ‘the enemy’, making his genocidal intent as clear as Netanyahu’s. He should be held to account for aiding and abetting war crimes,” De la Cruz said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera. More than 38,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its war on October 7, following an attack by the Palestinian group Hamas that killed 1,139 people. The military offensive and siege have spurred fears of genocide in the Palestinian enclave, and the United Nations and human rights groups have warned of a high risk of famine. A majority of Americans likewise disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza: The survey agency Gallup found in March that 55 percent oppose the military offensive, and approval dropped to 36 percent. But the US has continued to send weapons and aid to Israel despite the outcry, particularly from Arab, Muslim and progressive groups in the country. The US contributes $3.8bn in military aid to Israel each year, and it has committed billions of dollars in additional funds and supplies during the war. Graham is among the bipartisan majority in Congress who supports robust US assistance for Israel. Both Democrats and Republicans have resisted calls to place conditions on that aid in order to push for humanitarian safeguards. The administration of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has likewise remained steadfast in its “ironclad” support of Israel during the war, despite some criticism of the war’s humanitarian toll. In early May, for instance, Biden announced he had suspended a single shipment of heavy-duty bombs to Israel, citing concerns about their use in Israel’s assault on Rafah, a city in southern Gaza. But the US continued other weapons shipments to Israel, and last month, US and Israeli media reported that Biden is expected to release the paused shipment soon, amid criticism over his decision. While I respect the right to peacefully protest, I apologize to my neighbors and their families for the disruption on the Fourth of July caused by this pro-Palestinian group. I want to make it crystal clear: I am with Israel wholly and completely. As I have consistently said,… pic.twitter.com/d9gElmgwBq — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 4, 2024 Graham is not the only member of the US Congress to face outcry over anti-Palestinian remarks. In February, Republican Representative Andy Ogles was filmed walking through the halls of Congress, telling antiwar protesters, “I think we should kill them all.” “Hamas and Palestinians have been attacking Israel for 20 years, and it’s time to pay the piper,” he added. Biden himself stirred anger when he questioned the rapidly rising Palestinian death toll in October. “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed,” Biden said in a press conference. Advocates have said such remarks contribute to anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic and anti-Arab hate. In April, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it had received 8,061 reports of anti-Muslim hate in 2023, half of which came after the start of the war in Gaza. There have also been high-profile attacks on Palestinian Americans since the war began. In October, a six-year-old Palestinian American boy named Wadea al-Fayoume was stabbed to death by his neighbour, who
Ukraine army retreats from part of strategic Chasiv Yar as Russia advances
Fall of key Donetsk town, prized for elevated position, would bring Russia one step closer to seizing entire region. The Ukrainian military says its army has retreated from a neighbourhood on the outskirts of Chasiv Yar in the eastern Donetsk region, a strategically important town where Russian forces recently captured a district. The military confirmed on Thursday that it had fallen back from the town’s Kanal district, saying “the enemy had entered”, destroying “defenders’ positions” and threatening “the lives and wellbeing of our soldiers”. “The command decided to retreat to better protected and prepared positions,” said a spokesperson for the Ukrainian military’s Khortytsia ground forces formation, reporting the withdrawal on state-run television. Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed on Wednesday that its forces had taken control of the Novyi district, which lies to the west of the Siverskyi Donets-Donbas canal that runs through the eastern part of the town. Russian forces have had their sights on Chasiv Yar, a military hub prized for its strategic, elevated location, for months. The town lies a short distance from west Bakhmut, captured by Russia last year after a bitter 10-month battle. The fall of Chasiv Yar would put cities like Kramatorsk and Sloviansk in jeopardy, compromise critical Ukrainian supply routes and bring Russia closer to its stated aim of seizing the entire Donetsk region. The hilltop town has been left devastated by increasingly intense Russian strikes, with homes and municipal offices charred, its population of 12,000 having long fled. A destroyed building in the frontline town of Chasiv Yar [File: Oleg Petrasiuk/Ukrainian Armed Forces via Reuters] In the past week alone, Russia has carried out nearly 1,300 strikes, fired nearly 130 glide bombs and carried out 44 ground assaults in the area of Chasiv Yar, said the military spokesman. On the defensive The Kremlin says Donetsk, which has borne the brunt of fighting since its forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022, is part of Russia. Kremlin-supported separatist forces have controlled parts of the industrial region since 2014. Ukrainian commanders in the area say their resources remain stretched, largely due to a months-long gap in military assistance from the United States which threw Ukraine’s military onto the defensive. In June, members of the artillery brigade in Chasiv Yar reported that supplies of US ammunition had started to arrive. Elsewhere in Ukraine, Russian shelling on Thursday wounded seven people in the Ukrainian town of Nikopol in the Dnipropetrovsk region, regional Governor Serhiy Lysak posted on the Telegram messaging app. Lysak wrote earlier that Russian forces had attacked areas near Nikopol with kamikaze drones and artillery on Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, damaging infrastructure, four residential buildings, a gas pipeline and a power line. In the northern Chernihiv region, Governor Viacheslav Chaus reported that a Russian drone hit an infrastructure facility overnight, leaving nearly 6,000 customers without electricity. On Wednesday, a Russian missile and drone strike in the southeastern Ukrainian city of Dnipro killed at least five people, wounding dozens. Adblock test (Why?)
Southeast Asia armed group Jemaah Islamiyah to disband: Report
Al-Qaeda-linked group is accused of orchestrating some of the deadliest attacks in Indonesia, including the 2002 bombing of Bali nightclubs that killed more than 200 people. Senior members of Jemaah Islamiyah, the Southeast Asian armed group blamed for the deadly Bali bombings, announced they’re disbanding. A report from the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC) on Thursday confirmed the authenticity of a June 30 video statement by 16 Jemaah Islamiyah leaders announcing its dissolvement. In the statement, captured on video and shared online, the leaders confirmed their commitment to the Indonesian state and law, and said all material taught in affiliated boarding schools would be in line with orthodox Islam. “It is too early to say what the consequences are, but the men who signed the statement have enough respect and credibility within the organisation to ensure widespread acceptance,” said Sidney Jones, who authored IPAC’s preliminary analysis. The al-Qaeda-linked group is accused of orchestrating some of the deadliest attacks in Indonesia, including the 2002 bombing of Bali nightclubs that killed more than 200 people. Indonesia’s National Counter Terrorism Agency declined to comment but said it planned to hold a news conference soon. The decision to disband the organisation, said Jones, was likely driven by several factors including the influence of intellectuals within Jemaah Islamiyah who are less interested in violence, and a cost-benefit analysis on the best way to protect the group’s biggest assets – its schools. Intensive engagement with counterterrorism officials also played a role, the report said. Despite the clout of the figures involved, IPAC noted the group has a history of splinters and it is possible one could emerge in the future, although probably not immediately. “For the moment, the likely result is the flourishing of JI-affiliated schools and the increasing involvement in public life of the men who signed the 30 June statement,” said IPAC. “What happens to the rest of the membership remains to be seen.” Adblock test (Why?)
Russia poses as peacemaker, stepping up attacks on Ukraine’s east
Russia has sought to paint itself as a peacemaker in the war it started in Ukraine, calling NATO and Ukraine warmongers and storming out of the Organization for Security and Co-pperation in Europe (OSCE). Russia formally withdrew the country’s delegation from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on Wednesday, after citing “discriminatory approaches, double standards and total Russophobia”. The last straw, it said, was Romania’s refusal to grant the Russian delegation visas to attend the OSCE’s annual session in Bucharest this week. The diplomatic posture appeared designed to push back against Ukraine’s peace conference in Switzerland last month, part of a global diplomatic process in which Ukraine has tried to win countries over to its view of how the war should end. Respecting Ukraine’s “territorial integrity” is key to that view, and was part of a statement at the end of the conference. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy followed up on the Swiss conference last Friday when he said his government was working on finalising aspects of a comprehensive peace formula by the end of the year. (Al Jazeera) “We are currently working on three detailed plans in energy, food security and [prisoner] exchanges,” Zelenskyy said during a live broadcast of a Ukrainian telethon, naming the three themes on which the Switzerland summit reached the greatest consensus. On Wednesday, Ukraine said it would submit a draft resolution on nuclear safety to the United Nations General Assembly in the coming days. Ukraine and its allies have called on Russian troops to withdraw from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, saying their presence there risks turning it into a military target. Russia seized upon Hungarian premier Viktor Orban’s unannounced visit to Kyiv on Tuesday to portray Zelenskyy as anything but a seeker of peace. Orban, whose country assumes the rotating presidency of the European Union this month, met with Zelenskyy to propose “a ceasefire tied to a deadline, which could offer the opportunity to accelerate peace talks”. A drone view shows destroyed buildings in the front-line town of Chasiv Yar in the Donetsk region, Ukraine, in this screengrab obtained from social media video released on July 4, 2024 [Special Purpose Battalion ‘Donbas’ of the 18th Slavic Brigade of the NGU/via Reuters] Zelenskyy did not accept that formula but seized on the chance to improve relations with Hungary, which has stood out in the European Union for its opposition to more assistance for Ukraine. Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova held up Zelenskyy’s rejection as proof that Ukraine is not serious about peace. “All that peace rhetoric is just a smokescreen, smoke and mirrors, cliches or memes. Abstract words that must be learned by heart and voiced, while there is only one goal, which was declared by the collective West, namely to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” she said. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov sought to play on Hungary’s Euroscepticism, saying, “we don’t expect anything” from Orban’s visit to Kyiv,” adding that Orban would be obliged to serve “Brussels’ interests rather than Hungary’s national interests”. Zelenskyy explained his opposition to a ceasefire in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer. “A ceasefire is the best option for the Russians so they can prepare for taking even more,” he said. His view of NATO was exactly the opposite of Zacharova’s. As he has often said before, he felt Ukraine’s allies were deliberately holding back support to not embarrass Russian President Vladimir Putin with a rapid defeat: “Everybody is still afraid that Russia can split apart, everybody is afraid of what will happen to Russia without Putin and whether it will stay as it is or get worse.” (Al Jazeera) Throughout this war, Zelenskyy has asked for more than allies were willing to consider giving Ukraine, and in the case of tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, medium-range missiles and fighter planes, he eventually got it. But he has not managed to get the United States to sign off on the use of long-range weapons anywhere in Russia, only in territories facing an imminent new invasion. Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko expressed some of Ukraine’s frustration with NATO’s self-restraint, saying the alliance should establish a no-fly zone over western Ukraine. “I do not understand [why] NATO cannot deploy air defence systems along the Polish border,” Goncharenko told the AFP news agency. “This will make it possible to defend the border of Poland and Moldova and to establish a reliable no-fly zone in western and southern parts of Ukraine.” NATO has said it does not wish to become directly part of the war in Ukraine, so as not to provoke a wider war with Russia. Russia stalled on the ground Russia’s diplomatic posturing as peacemaker has taken place against continued hostilities but a disappointing Russian military performance in the past week, as Ukrainian troops managed to defend their turf against any significant advances. The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, said Russian forces were making particular efforts to capture territory in Toretsk, in the Donetsk region. Toretsk lies between Chasiv Yar to the north and Avdiivka to the south, both areas Moscow has prioritised this year. “The Russian military command may intend to leverage the ongoing Toretsk push to create operational opportunities for advances in either the Chasiv Yar or Avdiivka areas,” said the ISW. Russia’s offensives have given it more than 500 square kilometres (193 square miles) of territory this year, but at a high cost. (Al Jazeera) Russian opposition news outlet Meduza analysed Russian Federal Statistics Service (Rosstat) mortality data to estimate that Russian war-related deaths in Ukraine doubled last year, relative to 2022. After factoring in social trends and COVID-related deaths, it said at least 40,500 young Russian men died last year above trend levels, versus 24,000 in 2022. The biggest increase over two years was in the 25-29 age group, the analysis found, whereas the highest excess mortality rate was in the 35-39 age group. This would appear to confirm the suspicion expressed in Western think tank analyses that Russian casualties increased sharply in the
What could the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling mean for US foreign policy?
The United States Supreme Court’s decision to expand presidential immunity has caused alarm among legal experts, who fear the ramifications may extend beyond the country’s borders. On Monday, the court’s conservative majority ruled that any “official acts” a president takes — even beyond the office’s “core constitutional functions” — would enjoy “presumptive immunity” from prosecution. But in the US, the president also serves as the head of the military, and experts say Monday’s decision could further strengthen a culture of impunity for actions taken abroad. Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale University, said the decision erodes the few guardrails left to govern US foreign policy. Already, the US Congress gives presidents wide latitude to take actions overseas, and the country refuses to recognise the authority of bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC). “There was already a large consensus among conservative and liberal elites that a US president should never be restricted by international courts outside of the country,” Moyn told Al Jazeera. “What was extraordinary about Monday’s ruling is that it seems to take that attitude and import it — to apply it to courts inside the country as well as outside.” Former President Donald Trump made broad claims to presidential immunity when facing criminal indictments [File: Julia Nikhinson/AP Photo] A powerful shield The ruling came about after former President Donald Trump asserted far-reaching claims to presidential immunity, as he tried to dodge four separate criminal indictments in US courts. “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized,” the court majority explained in its opinion. Still, it held that any act deemed an “official” part of the presidency could be shielded from criminal charges. But even the court acknowledged that this could herald “king”-like executive powers with few criminal constraints. Foreign policy was one area the dissenting justices highlighted. “From this day forward, Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the Commander-in-Chief powers, the foreign-affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in [the US Constitution] however they please — including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. Already, the Supreme Court had established legal precedent in the 1980s that gave presidents “absolute immunity” from civil damages for their conduct while in office. That put presidential actions out of reach of laws like the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign nationals to pursue human rights violations in US civil courts. The US Supreme Court has a conservative six-to-three majority [J Scott Applewhite/AP Photo] An evolving executive But experts say that Monday’s decision continues a trend of giving ever-greater power to the executive branch over matters of foreign affairs. Under the US Constitution, the president and Congress share the powers to shape foreign policy. But the legislative branch has ceded ground to the presidency, particularly in periods of national emergency such as the Cold War and the attacks on September 11, 2001. While it is difficult to pinpoint a single moment when authority over foreign affairs became concentrated in the White House, overseas conflicts helped strengthen what some critics call “the imperial presidency”. Coined in 1973, that term describes a perception among some historians that the US presidency has exceeded its constitutionally mandated powers, particularly when it comes to overseas actions like warfare. The US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, but the last time it formally did so was in World War II. The Cold War, meanwhile, saw an ever-growing number of defence and intelligence bodies take shape under executive control. That period saw institutions like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) crop up in 1947, and the National Security Agency in 1952. Experts say these defence and intelligence groups helped the US wage a global campaign to expand its influence, sometimes through clandestine operations and even torture and assassination. At times, after revelations of abuses, the legislative branch tried to claw back influence over US foreign policy. One example came in the early 1970s, when an emboldened Congress barred President Richard Nixon from sending weapons to the government of Pakistan after a campaign of brutal repression came to light. It also moved to rein in the president’s secretive military incursions into Cambodia during the Vietnam War. But such stabs at oversight proved to be the exception rather than the rule, and presidents have historically faced few consequences for overseas actions that could constitute violations of international and domestic law. Nixon, for instance, continued to send weapons to Pakistan, albeit through proxies like Jordan, in defiance of Congress’s sanctions. Former President Richard Nixon, centre, was criticised for circumventing the US Congress in foreign affairs [Nixon Library handout/Reuters] ‘Rule of law at home but none abroad’ The country’s appetite for reining in the White House continued to diminish after the September 11 attacks, according to experts like Moyn. After President George W Bush declared a global so-called “war on terror” in 2001, US presidents have carried out military operations in nearly 80 countries. Critics say perceived enemies have been captured and tortured in the name of national security, including at CIA black sites and the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 2014 drone strike that killed the Yemeni American Muslim leader Anwar al-Awlaki also raised uncomfortable questions about whether a sitting president should be able to execute a US citizen without a trial. US courts have mostly declined to weigh in on such matters, Moyn explained. He said that presidents have largely been given a “permission slip” to take drastic overseas actions, with government legal advisers finding creative ways to give human rights abuses the imprimatur of legal compliance. President Barack Obama, for instance, signed an executive order to end the torture programme launched under Bush. But while Obama admitted the US “tortured some folks”, he declined to prosecute those responsible under the previous administration, calling on the country to “look forward, not back”. The US has also been hostile to international efforts to ensure criminal acts