Month: June 2017

Winning the French presidency was step one for Emmanuel Macron. Step two is nailing down the parliamentary majority France’s youngest-ever president needs to be effective. That happens in legislative elections that promise a monumental shake-up of the National Assembly and the consolidation of Macron’s grip on France’s levers of power.

Not only is the two-round vote, this Sunday and next, expected to install hundreds of new faces in the 577-seat lower house, but many will likely be first-time lawmakers, making good on Macron’s campaign promises to take a broom to established, old-style politics.

Half of the candidates for Macron’s fledgling Republic on the Move! party have, like him, never previously held elected office. They include an award-winning mathematician, a former female bullfighter and the ex-head of an elite French police unit that took down an Islamic State cell, among others.

With pollsters projecting a possibly dominant majority for Macron’s camp, the election could add real clout to the measured and studied air of authority the 39-year-old has cultivated in his presidential role since the very first minutes of his May 7 victory.

Much of Macron’s early muscle-flexing has been symbolic, most notably his knuckle-whitening handshake with U.S. President Donald Trump — aimed, the French leader later said, at showing that he is no pushover.

But a large, compliant majority in parliament would arm Macron with the actual power to quickly start legislating and launch his promised program of remedies for the persistent, chronic unemployment and other economic difficulties that have sapped France’s weight in Europe. He intends to speedily reform France’s labor codes, aiming to create work by injecting greater flexibility into the labor market and by boosting job-training.

Battered by the electorate that gave Macron a comfortable winning margin over far-right leader Marine Le Pen in the presidential vote, his weakened political rivals fear that another surge of support for the president’s candidates in the legislative ballot could make him almost untouchable and limit their tools and abilities to keep his ambitions and legislative program in check.

Political scientist Dominique Moisi says the legislative election is a “decisive piece” in the consolidation of Macron’s presidency. When the former banker and economy minister launched his wild-card bid for the presidential Elysee Palace in 2016, challenging the monopoly on power of France’s established parties on the left and right, his chances of winning the succession of presidential and legislative votes looked remote-to-nil. Now, Macron’s gamble is close to paying out in full, and the mainstream parties are in disarray.

“He’s on course to be a new De Gaulle if he makes the reforms he wants to,” Moisi said, referring to the hugely respected founding father of modern France, wartime hero Gen. Charles de Gaulle. “There is a risk that he will have too much authority given the fact that he has some sort of authoritarian personality in him. But that is what France needs right now.”

For Macron’s rivals, the election is their last best chance to clip his wings for the next five years until the next electoral cycle. Le Pen is hoping the record support for her National Front in the presidential vote will translate into more seats in parliament than the two held by the party in the last legislature. Similarly, far-left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon also is banking that his strong fourth place in the presidential ballot will help secure legislative seats for himself and his candidates.

The left and right mainstream parties, the Socialists and conservative Republicans, are hoping to limit their losses, having been spectacularly sanctioned by voters in the presidential vote. For the first time, neither of them made the decisive May runoff vote that was contested between Macron and Le Pen.

To win in the first round Sunday, candidates must win an absolute majority of votes cast and the support of at least 25 percent of registered voters in their constituency. Otherwise, the contest moves to the second-round vote the following Sunday.
…

European countries are used to hung parliaments and forming coalition governments — or being governed by minority ones. But they are more unusual in Britain, partly because of Britain’s first-past-the-post voting system.

However, several elections resulted in minority governments in the early part of the 20th century and, more recently, some governments have begun with outright majorities which then were lost because of resignations, by-elections and defections.

The Labour Party had a three-seat majority after the 1974 general election but, by 1977, it lost its majority status and remained in power because of a pact it formed with the Liberal Party.

And John Major’s Conservative government started out with a 21-seat majority in 1992 but, by the 1997 general election, it became a minority.

Here is a list:

1910-1915: Liberal minority governments under H.H. Asquith seen as among the most decisive and creative in British history, managing to pass major legislation.

1924: Labour minority under Ramsay MacDonald lasted 10 months and achieved modest success in domestic policy.

1929-1931: Labour minority government, again under Ramsay MacDonald, was blown off course by the Great Depression.

February-October 1974: Harold Wilson’s Labour Party formed a minority government for seven months until a second election gave it a three-seat majority.

1977-1979: Labour under James Callaghan governed for nearly two years as a minority administration until it lost a vote of confidence that was carried by a single vote. It was buffeted by economic crisis and strikes.

2010-2015: Labour’s Gordon Brown waived his right to form a minority government, giving way to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to enter into a coalition government. Arguably, it was the most successful coalition government in British modern history. It ended in 2015 when David Cameron Conservatives won enough seats to govern outright.
…

Hungary will modify proposed legislation on nongovernmental organizations that get foreign funding to address objections by the Council of Europe, the government said Thursday, backtracking on some elements of the controversial bill.

Under a bill drafted by right-wing populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government, NGOs with foreign donations of at least 7.2 million forints ($26,207.55) would have to register with the authorities and declare themselves as foreign-funded. The government said the aim was to ensure greater transparency.

The NGOs said the bill, due to be passed this month, would stigmatize them. The legislation has triggered a series of mass protests over recent weeks.

“We have accepted the legal remarks of the [Council of Europe’s advisory panel] Venice Commission, but we could not accept its political judgment,” Orban’s chief of staff, Janos Lazar told reporters.

Planned changes

He said the justice minister would submit an amendment to the legislation addressing some of the Venice Commission’s criticism. That will include changes to sanctions on noncomplying NGOs and the extent of required public disclosure of foreign funding.

The rights panel said the term “organization receiving support from abroad” in the bill appeared to be neutral. But considering Hungary’s “strong political statements against associations receiving support from abroad, this label risks adversely affecting their legitimate activities,” it said.

The European Commission has also begun legal action against Hungary over a separate law that critics say targets Central European University. The university was founded by Hungarian-born financier George Soros, who promotes a liberal worldview Orban detests.

Along with tough anti-immigrant rhetoric, vilifying Soros serves Orban’s domestic political aims as he prepares for April 2018 elections, where he will seek a third consecutive term. The strategy has worked well for him so far.

The latest opinion polls put support for his Fidesz party at about 30 percent, ahead of his nearest rivals, the radical nationalist Jobbik party and the Socialists, each with just over 10 percent.
…

NATO member nations are united in their stance toward Russia in a way they have not been for many years, says General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. In an interview with VOA’s Jela de Franceschi, Stoltenberg also said NATO is committed to stepping up its defense while at the same time continuing dialogue with Russia.
…

Three men arrested in a series of raids Wednesday in east London are suspected of having been in the final stages of plotting a terror attack in the British capital similar to the murderous rampage carried out last Saturday at London Bridge, say officials.

The men, all in their 30s, are not connected to last week’s van-and-knife attack in the London Bridge and Borough districts of the capital that left eight dead and 48 injured, say police officers.

Video of recent attack

The news of the arrests came as new video footage emerged of the dramatic shooting of the London Bridge attackers by armed police last Saturday. It shows officers leaping out of a moving police car to shoot the men in a few seconds of frenetic activity, bringing an end to a killing spree that lasted eight minutes.

The footage, taken by a local resident, has been circulated on social media sites. 

Other footage has also emerged of the three London Bridge attackers, who have been identified as Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane and Youssef Zaghba, meeting outside an all-Muslim gym the trio frequented in east London five days before the attack. 

In the video obtained by The Times newspaper, the three are seen hugging and laughing outside the Ummah Fitness Center near where Butt lived with his wife and two young children. 

The men appear to want to evade surveillance.

Redouane is seen placing his cellphone on a builder’s sack nearby before the men walk away. Presumably, they feared the phone was bugged. They are out of view of the CCTV camera for 10 minutes and when they return Redouane retrieves his phone. 

The footage of the meeting outside the gym will reinforce pressure on the British intelligence services to explain why the three were not under full-time surveillance. 

The Ummah Fitness Center was once run by a man accused of helping to train the Islamic extremists responsible for the coordinated July 7, 2005, underground train bombings in London, Britain’s first-ever Islamist suicide attack.

Fifty-two people were killed across the city in the 2005 coordinated strike that left more than 700 injured.

Missed chances

The British intelligence service, MI5, has been accused of missing a string of chances to identify Butt as a high-risk militant.

On Tuesday The New York Times reported that in 2015 FBI informant Jesse Morton, a one-time al-Qaida recruiter, warned his American handlers about the London Bridge terrorist. “Khuram Butt was on our radar rather a lot,” he told the newspaper.

Questions are also being asked about why the British security services didn’t act on information supplied by Italian police on Zaghba, an Italian-Moroccan, who had been stopped at Bologna airport last year on suspicion he was heading to join the Islamic State in Syria.

Italian authorities say they informed British intelligence agencies about him and uploaded his details to a European Union database that’s designed to trigger an alert to passport control officers.

Officer injured in attack

Meanwhile, the rookie transport policeman who was stabbed in an eye while tackling the London Bridge terrorists armed only with a baton issued a statement Wednesday saying he “did everything I could” to stop them.

He has not been named by the authorities. He was one of the first officers to confront the London Bridge assailants.

“I am truly moved and overwhelmed by all the support and comments that I’ve received, not only from people in this country, but across the world,” the officer said.

He has been hailed as a national hero, but he dismissed the description.

“Like every police officer who responded, I was simply doing my job,” he said. “I didn’t expect the level of love and well wishes I have received. I feel like I did what any other person would have done. I want to say sorry to the families that lost their loved ones.”
…

As Britain confronts a wave of terrorist attacks, pressure is mounting on its Muslim community to do a better job of identifying potential extremists and policing itself.

At the forefront of such efforts is Nazir Afzal, a Muslim and former top prosecutor. Afzal gained national attention for pioneering difficult prosecutions to tackle honor-based violence and forced marriage, as well as child sexual exploitation and grooming in the northwest of England, including Manchester, the site of last month’s suicide bombing that killed 22 people at a pop concert.

In an exclusive interview, Afzal said the community has, in general, done a good job of making sure mosques are no longer a forum for radicalization of young Muslims; but, he adds, more needs to be done, both by Muslims and British authorities, to curb the country’s dangerous Islamist minority and counter the jihadists’ narrative.

“Very few people get radicalized in mosques and places of worship,” said Afzal, the first Muslim to be appointed as a chief prosecutor in Britain. “It takes place elsewhere, in the backstreets and other places. The communities have gotten very good now at policing what happens in mosques, although there are exceptions.”

Community reports as the ‘bedrock’ of intelligence

In the interview, conducted after last month’s Manchester bombing but before last Saturday’s van-and-knife attack in London, Afzal was critical of both the government and Muslims for not doing enough, and of being too tolerant of Islamic extremism. However, he was ready to identify efforts that have made a difference.

He credits grass-roots Muslim groups, many of them led by women, for challenging extremists and warning authorities when they see something especially alarming. “Time and time again, I come across really good work. The vast majority of work happens within the communities and is under the radar,” he said.

Afzal cites the foiled attack on Downing Street in April, just two days after the Westminster Bridge attack, when a suspected jihadist armed with several knives was arrested by police 200 meters from the prime minister’s residence. Police had shadowed the suspect from his home following a tip.

“Information came from within the community,” Afzal said. “The head of UK’s security and counterintelligence agency] MI5 has made it very clear that information from the communities is the bedrock of their intelligence.”

Media coverage gives a different impression. “The people with the loudest voices are the ones the media tend to hear,” he said. “The vast majority of Muslims don’t want this type of behavior. They don’t want to be associated with this violence and ideology.”

Grooming for terrorism

Afzal, who until recently was chief executive of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, says much more needs to be done when it comes to early intervention, emphasizing that it is crucial and it works.

“The grooming of people for ideology is the same as grooming for sex or for organized crime,” he said. “They manipulate the most vulnerable in our society and distance them from their families and friends. In relation to grooming for sex and crime we do have responses that work through early intervention, through education, through diversion. Why is it that we don’t make more use of those techniques when it comes to radicalization?”

Afzal faults what he says is a laziness by successive British governments in identifying who to engage with in the Muslim communities, and warns that grass-roots groups making headway are often being neglected and starved of funding. “The best work I see is by women-led groups,” he said.

Those groups are already engaged with families and have been tackling forced marriage, domestic abuse and honor killings, and have built up trust in the communities. “Therefore, when they identify someone at risk of radicalization, they are in the position of being able to do something about it,” he said, adding that the groups deserve to be better funded.

It is a mistake to perceive all Muslim communities as the same, he says, pointing out that in London alone, Muslims are from 50 countries. “They are extremely diverse, and it needs a diverse response and not a one-size-fits-all approach.”   

One of the biggest challenges faced in combating radicals and their narrative is a generation gap, Afzal warns. More than half of all British Muslims are under the age of 25 and from low-income backgrounds, while community leaders tend to be much older, male and middle-class.

Community leaders, too often, want to avoid the issue, he says. They are badly equipped to understand the recruitment process and how radicals tailor their appeal to an array of youthful urges — from a need for redemption to thrill-seeking and status-seeking. Many who are recruited are “struggling with their masculinity” and are lost, Afzal says.

What’s needed is a much stronger counter-narrative, he says, and one delivered by charismatic people able to connect with disoriented youngsters and who are not afraid to shake things up.
…

The European Union on Wednesday unveiled a new defense fund to get better value for money on high-tech projects like drones or robotics as European allies at NATO come under U.S. pressure to boost their military budgets.

The European Commission said the fund would provide a total of 500 million euros ($563 million) in EU money in 2019 and 2020 to help buy and develop military equipment.

This would double to 1 billion euros annually from 2020. The Commission says it expects the money to generate about five times that amount for developing defense capabilities, once member countries make their contributions.

The EU money would be used to finance the building of prototypes for cutting-edge technologies, the riskiest phase for investors when projects hang in the balance. The money would only be granted if a minimum of three companies were taking part from a minimum of two EU member countries.

The executive Commission is also offering grants for defense research. EU countries spend around seven times less on defense research and development than the United States.

U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded that NATO’s European allies and Canada start spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on military budgets. Twenty-two EU countries are also members of the world’s biggest military alliance.

But the Commission insists a big problem is that defense budgets are badly spent. It says more than 25 billion euros is lost annually through poor cooperation and estimates that around 30 percent of expenditure could be saved if nations bought equipment together.

“Two percent of GDP spent separately provides less security than if part of the money is used jointly. As important as the amount of money, is how to use it,” Commission Vice President Jyrki Katainen told reporters.

Alongside its budget plans, the Commission also launched debate on what direction EU defense cooperation should take once Britain leaves in 2019.

While not going as far as to suggest the creation of an EU army, the Commission does encourage countries to cooperate more closely and allow Brussels to have a bigger say in defense matters.

 
…

The European Union has slapped new security screening on imports from Bangladesh, a move that is likely to make it costlier for businesses in the South Asian country to sell products to EU nations.

Just over half of Bangladeshi exports go to the European bloc, accounting for $18.68 billion in revenues during the last fiscal year. Those shipments, by air or sea, will now have to be screened by bomb-detecting dogs and devices.

Bangladesh has none of these facilities, so cargo will have to be routed through a third country where security screening is possible.

The move makes Bangladesh the 13th country designated as “-high risk” for EU commerce. It was unexpected, according to Bangladeshi government officials, who said they were given no explanation when informed Monday of the change. The EU ambassador’s office in Dhaka did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last year, Britain, Germany and Australia banned direct cargo shipments from Dhaka’s international airport, citing its poor security system.

The country has suffered a string of deadly attacks in recent years claimed by extremists targeting perceived enemies of Islam, including bloggers, rights activists, atheists, religious minorities and foreigners. The government has blamed the attacks on home-grown extremists bent on re-establishing Islamic rule in the secular nation.

The government has offered little comment about the EU move. But Civil Aviation and Tourism Minister Rashed Khan Menon criticized Brussels for delivering the news as a surprise, and said the government would work quickly to establish an adequate screening mechanism in the country. But getting everything in place could take months.

Business leaders are worried about the possible delays in screening, when they are already scrambling to fulfill large orders on short notice despite frequent power outages that shut operations down.

Some air shipments from Bangladesh are already being routed through Dubai, Istanbul or Doha for screening, and some sea shipments are going through Colombo or Singapore.

“Fresh screening will take at least 10 days, at a time when we struggle to ship goods timely for many reasons,” said Mir Mobasher Ali, who exports about $50 million in garments to Europe and Canada every year. “We need to count extra amount for the screening in a third country. That’s disastrous for us.”

Siddiqur Rahman, president of the Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters’ Association, representing 70 percent of the textiles industry, also described the move as “disastrous.” During fiscal 2015-16, the garment industry exported $17.15 billion in goods to the EU — 60 percent of the industry’s exports.

 
…