Tuesday, 1 February 2022

POLITICO

POLITICO

Creating our digital future by building on the past

Posted: 01 Feb 2022 12:00 AM PST

Over the past two years, the world changed irrevocably by learning how to live with the COVID-19 pandemic. We have reckoned with weaknesses in our public health systems. We have tested the limits of medical science in search of new vaccines and treatments. And we have leaned into virtual connections when in-person connections became impossible. As a result, our lives — and our health services — look different today. The pandemic has made it clear: the future of health is in the digital age. 

The digital transformation of health systems has been decades in the making. Since before the first feature phone, digital technologies have helped create stronger, more effective, more accessible health services. Today, there are countless apps that connect individuals with medical providers and services. Medical records are available at the click of a button and diagnoses are routinely made online. Governments have also looked toward digital tools and approaches to streamline medical supply chains, strengthen health system reporting, and enhance the skills of health workers.

The pandemic has made it clear: the future of health is in the digital age.

Since the early 2000s, digital health has been a priority for many multilateral fora and organizations. The World Health Organization passed its first resolution on digital health at the 2005 World Health Assembly, followed by a resolution on global digital health in 2018, and a global strategy on digital health in 2020. The G20 has championed digital health since the 2010s, with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's G20 Presidency launching the first G20 Digital Health Taskforce through the endorsement of G20 health ministers. With the creation of this taskforce, international collaboration on leveraging digital health interventions, addressing challenges in access to foundational requirements and supporting policymaking have been addressed at the highest levels of policymaking.

Beyond multilateral and national initiatives, many funders and philanthropists around the world have invested in digital health systems and related infrastructure of all types. This leadership catalyzed the digital transformation of health systems around the world and the expansion of digitally-enabled health services to more individuals and communities.  

The emphasis on digital health has accelerated during the pandemic, resulting in new initiatives designed to apply digital tools and data to COVID-19 response as well as prevent future epidemics. The World Health Organization launched the WHO Berlin Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence. The European Union's European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority (HERA), the United Kingdom's Global Pandemic Radar and the Rockefeller Foundation's Pandemic Prevention Institute are all designed to advance the use of digital technologies and data to detect, prevent and respond to future health emergencies. These initiatives reinforce the importance of — and progress toward — creating a shared platform for disease surveillance, data-driven action in public health and cross-country collaboration. 

Digital technologies have helped create stronger, more effective, more accessible health services.

As health ministers from across the European Union gather for a ministerial conference tomorrow under the auspices of the French European Union Council Presidency, we are heartened to see digital health among its highest priorities. 

Discussions such as today's side session endorsed by the French EU Council Presidency event "Beyond COVID-19: A multi-sectoral approach to accelerating digital health transformation in Europe" organized by The G20 Health and Development Partnership and its partners brought stakeholders together to find solutions and learn from each others' best practices to advance the digital health transformation. We must continue advancing the integration of digital tools and approaches into health systems — and European countries such as France continue to lead the way. 

However, as we look forward, we must remember the rich learnings and commitments already made by the global community. 

The Lancet and Financial Times Commission on Governing Health Futures 2030 report reminds us about these commitments already made by the global health community, based on recommendations and ideas for how the world can invest in and advance digital transformation:

  • The global community must acknowledge digital transformation as a determinant of health and take concrete steps to strengthen the digital public infrastructure needed to ensure everyone, everywhere has access to digitally-enabled health services.
  • We must design stronger trust architectures that balance the benefits of sharing health-related data with the need to protect individual data rights.
  • Governments must address the enabling environment by building the political will, health workforce, systems and policies required to unlock the full potential of digital technologies.

We also have strong commitments such as the Riyadh Declaration on Digital Health, which was an outcome of the Saudi G20 Presidency. The global community should be tracking progress against these commitments and compel countries to action and accountability. An action plan is needed to fulfil these commitments through a public forum in which to share progress. Greater focus is needed for how the world will pay for digital transformation in a way that promotes equity and impact. And any new commitments and declarations should build on what we already have.

We must foster innovation, not just in our technology, but in partnerships.

While it is important to hold governments accountable for progress made, it is equally critical that we shift from a supply-driven innovation and actively work with countries to unleash the missing competencies they need to promote their digital health agenda towards a more demand-driven innovation. 

There is more work to be done as governments, donors, the private sector, and multilateral organizations and their initiatives continue to build a legacy of collaboration and coordination. We must foster innovation, not just in our technology, but in partnerships. We must address pressing issues of digital security, ethics, governance, and equity. And we must look toward the future as we define the 'new normal' for public health. 

But as we build, let us recognize the opportunities that health in the digital age will play in transforming and advancing our health systems to fast-track our commitments aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Even though COVID-19 has set us back in achieving our global health targets, it has also reminded us how far we've come in using technology to promote health and well-being for all through partnerships.

Austria’s ‘asshole’ protocols

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 07:00 PM PST

Some political scandals never die. They just get more embarrassing — especially, it would seem, when Austria is involved.

Just weeks after former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz was forced off the political stage following the publication of explosive text messages that triggered probes into official corruption, another cache of revealing chats has thrown the country's conservative-led government back into crisis mode. 

While evidence of criminal wrongdoing has yet to emerge in the chats, the political fallout is considerable. The new disclosures have already led to the sidelining of one of the country's most senior judges, whose unorthodox career path is detailed in the exchanges. 

The communications pull back the veil on how conservative party gatekeepers have filled posts throughout the civil service, from judgeships to police academy staff, not according to candidates' qualifications, but their political loyalties. Unfortunately for Chancellor Karl Nehammer, who stepped down as interior minister to take charge of the government last month, both his wife and his former ministry are central to the story.  

First published by ZackZack, a scrappy investigative online magazine, the exchanges reveal the extent of the cronyism in Austria, shining a light on the inner workings of the conservative network that has dominated the country's politics for decades. 

Beyond exposing the favors politicians traded for plum positions, the chats also detail what happened when the conservative nomenklatura didn't get its way. 

"Chin up! Remember these assholes and we'll deal with them one by one," a senior civil servant in the interior ministry, Michael Kloibmüller, wrote in 2016 to a colleague about a dispute with police union representatives. Kloibmüller worked in the ministry for nearly 20 years, in senior roles for eight different conservative ministers, making him one of the most powerful people in the entire government. 

"I'm going to fight for that with everything I've got," responded the official, who was pressured by union reps into relinquishing his membership of the conservative Austrian People’s Party before taking a senior law enforcement role.

Kloibmüller declined to comment in detail, saying only that the data on his phone had been stolen and that he was the victim of a crime. He said he couldn't confirm the authenticity of the chats that have been published.

Just how ZackZack, which was founded by Peter Pilz, a prominent former Green politician and anti-corruption campaigner, secured the information isn't clear. 

What is known, however, is that the exchanges were taken from Kloibmüller's mobile phone, which fell into a branch of the Danube during a canoe trip the interior ministry organized in 2017.

During the trip, intended as a team-building exercise, Kloibmüller and other senior officials ended up in the water, allegedly because Katharina Nehammer, the wife of the current chancellor and then-adviser to the interior minister, rocked the boat they were in. She couldn't be reached for comment.   

The waterlogged phones were collected and handed to government security officials. The episode was largely forgotten until ZackZack began to publish details of what was on Kloibmüller's phone in January.

Case for the prosecution

The most shocking revelation so far involves Eva Marek, the vice president of Austria's highest criminal and civil court.

In 2014, Austria's then-justice minister needed to fill the politically sensitive post of Vienna chief prosecutor, an office that includes oversight of all political corruption investigations. The minister, Wolfgang Brandstetter, was worried that the two women who had applied couldn't be influenced by either him or the People's Party, according to the chats. So he decided to ask Marek, who was regarded as loyal to the party, to apply instead.

The trouble was that Marek was already a high-ranking judge and the prosecutor's job was a step down in both pay and prestige. She agreed to apply anyway, according to the exchanges, in return for a promise from Brandstetter for a better job down the line.

Even though a special commission tasked with recommending a candidate for the prosecutor's job tapped one of Marek's rivals for the post, she ended up getting the job anyway.

Two years later, having held up her end of the bargain, Marek sought Brandstetter's help in winning an appointment as Austria's chief federal prosecutor, arguably the most powerful job in the justice ministry. When she didn't get it, she wrote Brandstetter an angry text, reminding him that she had helped him out of an "impossible situation," only to suffer an "unbelievable humiliation" in return.

In fact, much worse humiliation was to come. Though Marek eventually returned to the highest court and became its vice president, the release of the chats has opened her up to widespread criticism and scorn.

Though Marek's coziness with the People's Party was an open secret, she denied it in public.  

"Partisan politics has no place either in a criminal investigation or in filling jobs,” she said in a 2014 interview after taking the Vienna prosecutor's position.

Last week, the president of Austria's highest court stripped Marek of all her management duties. She remains a member of the court and retains her title as vice president. In a statement, the court warned that the chats threatened to "undermine the public's trust in the independence of the judiciary."

Nonetheless, Austria's conservative establishment continues to insist that the affair is much ado about nothing.

Asked by POLITICO if it was advisable that officials close to the People's Party occupied almost every key position in the interior ministry, which is responsible for the entire domestic security apparatus, Wolfgang Sobotka, the president of Austria's parliament and a conservative stalwart, said he didn't see an issue.

"I'm not aware that anyone was given a position as a result of party membership," said Sobotka, a People’s Party politician who served as interior minister himself from 2016-2017. "That people you might have known already end up getting jobs is difficult to avoid in areas that are effectively closed off to the outside."   

Though Sobotka said he hadn't read the Kloibmüller chats in their entirety and couldn't judge them, he warned against a "political atmosphere in which everything is criminalized."

He acknowledged that politics were a factor in filling government positions, but pushed back on the notion that the People's Party is the worst offender, noting that Social Democrats and the Greens have elevated their own people when given the opportunity.

In his own party, a candidate's qualifications have always been the decisive criterion, Sobotka insisted.

"When it comes to professional matters, then the central question is whether people are qualified and have undergone a transparent and independent selection process," he said. "That was definitely always the case."

The release in recent days of so-called side letters — effectively secret agreements — between senior coalition figures in which they divvy up key positions, from the head of the public broadcaster to the national bank, points to a different reality.

The documents, drafted both for the People's Party coalition with the far-right Freedom Party, which collapsed amid the Ibiza scandal in 2019, and the People's Party's present alliance with the Greens, present a detailed roadmap of how the establishment divides the spoils.  

In many cases, the first agreement, negotiated in 2017 between Kurz and Heinz-Christian Strache, the disgraced former leader of the Freedom Party, even includes the names of who will get which position.  

If nothing else, the recent revelations give Austrians a warts-and-all look at a political system that for decades has ensured stability, if not integrity.

"It's a valuable piece of contemporary history and undeniable proof of cronyism in its purest form," concluded the weekly Profil.

It’s the economy, stupid. But whose economy?

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 07:00 PM PST

John Lichfield is a former foreign editor of the Independent and was the newspaper's Paris correspondent for 20 years.

There are 10 weeks to go until the first round of the presidential election and the French economy is buzzing.

Growth last year was 7 percent — the highest for half a century and the best in the G7 group of big, industrial nations. Unemployment at 8 percent is the lowest for 15 years.

If you apply the James Carville Rule — "It's the economy, stupid" — President Emmanuel Macron should glide to a second term in the Elysée Palace on April 10 and 24.

Maybe. It depends on how you interpret the Carville Rule.

Carville was the successful manager of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992. His celebrated dictum referred not to the "official" economy but to the "lived" well-being of voters — their sense of prosperity. 

I covered the 1992 U.S. election, travelling to a score or more states. The American economy recovered strongly in the months before the vote and boomed soon afterward. And yet it was evident on the campaign trail that rising GDP figures had not revived the spirits of the suffering American heartlands. Clinton won over incumbent George H. W. Bush.

Now fast forward 30 years from U.S. 1992 to France 2022.

Macron and his finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, deserve great credit for the way they have guided the French economy through the COVID pandemic (albeit at the cost of vast state spending and increased debt). The American economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times recently that France was the "star" economic performer among large industrial nations in the last two years.

Out in the French heartlands, however, the mood is darker, especially among those on low and middling incomes.

Inflation was officially only 2.8 percent in 2021. That fails to tell the true story — especially for the lower paid.

Energy prices have soared; heating gas, used widely in rural France, has risen by 57 percent in the first nine months of 2021. The pump prices of petrol and diesel are now 10 centimes a liter higher than those that ignited the original Yellow Jackets rural and provincial revolt in 2018. 

Rents and house prices are increasing. Food prices are soaring thanks to the boom in commodity prices worldwide.

Last week there were demonstrations for higher wages in 270 French towns and cities. A large opinion poll by Ipsos for France Inter last week found that the cost of living was by far the most important issue for voters in this year's campaign (51 percent of those questioned).

The subject which has dominated the debate on the right and far right — immigration and national identity — came only fourth in the league table of popular concerns.

"There is a disconnect between the public debate — both the campaign and the media — and the reality of the everyday lives of people and especially blue-collar workers," Laurent Berger, head of the moderate French trades union confederation, the CFDT, told newspaper JDD.

Macron, who has yet to formally enter the race, has been watching the situation with rising disquiet — even alarm.

His government has intervened to block the huge rises in electricity prices seen in other European countries. By forcing the state-owned electricity giant EDF to raid its financial reserves and sell to its retail competitors at a loss, Macron hopes to keep the rise in power bills to 4 percent this year.

That's not all. His prime minister, Jean Castex, announced last week a 10 percent increase in the tax break given to people who need to use a car to get to work. A €100 "cost of living" subsidy to all poor and middling households, promised last October, has been arriving in bank accounts all over France in the last two weeks.

The cost of living crisis is scarcely Macron's fault. Similar problems face all developed nations, as the world economy adjusts to the apparent retreat of the COVID pandemic. But "it's not my fault" is not an argument that goes down well during an election.

You don't have to cross the Atlantic to find historical precedents for an incumbent president unseated by the economic distress inflicted on ordinary lives by global events.

President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was defeated in 1981 after the oil-price shocks of the 1970s caused rampant "stagflation" — a previously unseen cocktail of inflation, low growth and unemployment.

President Nicolas Sarkozy lost in 2012 after the markets and euro crises of 2008-11 generated a double spike in unemployment and the "real" cost of living.

Sarkozy, just as Macron does now, pointed to official figures showing that the French grew richer each year during his mandate. Poorer and middling French voters, then as now, looked at their end-of-month bank balances and saw no sign of increased prosperity.

Macron has several factors on his side. Unemployment is falling, not rising as it was in 1981 and 2012. In the elections in those years, economic distress helped to bring Socialist presidents to power. This year the French left remains scattered and weak, despite promising big increases in social payments and the minimum wage.

What of Macron's other rivals? The far-right pundit turned politician Eric Zemmour is interested only in what he sees as the long-term decline of France, not a short-term decline in "real" wages.

The other far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, does make "le pouvoir d'achat" (purchasing power) part of her platform. She wants, inter alia, to cut taxes on fuel of all kinds (while claiming that she is committed to action against climate change).  

The center-right candidate, Valérie Pécresse, has promised a 10 percent increase in all salaries below €36,000 a year — although she seems to be quietly scaling back on that promise — while calling for less state intervention in the economy.

Neither idea has set the campaign alight. On the economy at least, Macron is fortunate in having unconvincing opponents — for now.  

He remains comfortably ahead of the pack in "horserace" polls for the first round of voting on April 10. His approval ratings are, however, beginning to deflate.

A recent poll by IFOP for the Journal du Dimanche showed approval of Macron falling by 4 points in a week to 37 percent — with the cost of living given as one of the principal reasons. 

When he does enter the race formally, probably next week, Macron will no doubt look for some way of sweetening the everyday lives of French citizens. But what?

Any money he spends before April would look like a raid on public funds to help his campaign. Any longer-term promises might seem too vague and ephemeral.

Macron's France has (with some reason) been hailed by the New York Times and Financial Times as an economic "star" and the unexpected, new "locomotive" of European growth. None of that pays the nation's gas bills.

From Lantau to Ealing: Hong Kong’s homesick exiles in Britain greet the Year of the Tiger

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 07:00 PM PST

LONDON — For many newly arrived Hong Kongers in Britain, this will be their first Lunar New Year away from home.

As families across the Chinese-speaking world gather to celebrate the advent of the Year of the Tiger on February 1, the Cantonese festivities across the U.K. in the coming days will often be a bitter reminder of separation from loved ones and from the places where they grew up.

The exodus from Victoria Harbour to the Thames swells by the day. Some 90,000 people have already applied for a new visa scheme that Britain introduced in January 2021, months after Beijing imposed its National Security Law on the former British colony. This new legal weapon — coupled with other, sometimes colonial, laws — is widely used by Hong Kong’s government with Beijing’s blessing to crack down on opposition politicians, media businesses and civil society organizations.

If they all come, those 90,000 Hong Kongers — equivalent to the population of an English town like Hastings or Hartlepool — will add to an already significant Cantonese community and join the West Indians, South Asians and Eastern Europeans as the latest wave of newcomers to help reshape the fabric of modern Britain after World War II.

Beijing criticized the U.K. scheme for turning Hong Kongers into “second class citizens,” but many see flight to Britain as the only lifeboat available to them.

Carmen Lau, 26, is one of the new arrivals and has moved to suburban Ealing in West London. It’s a world away from the fishing village where she would normally celebrate New Year.

“My family was a traditional fishing family in Tai O on Lantau Island,” she explained over dim sum and fried rice in a restaurant in London’s Chinatown. “During the Lunar New Year, we always got together back in the boathouse where my mother grew up. I also grew up there and we used to have those celebrations together, but here, I do not have any relatives."

Many of those who have just moved to the U.K. have first-hand experience of the massive protests of 2019, when 2 million Hong Kongers took to the streets — some clashing with the police — to call for the local government to withdraw an extradition bill, which could have seen Hong Kong citizens sent to mainland China for criminal trials.

Lau, barely two when Britain handed over its colony to China in 1997, was a member of an idealistic youthful generation caught up in the political showdown with the Communist party in Beijing.

With a degree in politics, she became an assistant to a pro-democracy lawmaker. Shortly after the 2019 protests broke out, applications for the District Council elections opened up. She found herself in a new movement hoping to break the tradition of widespread pro-Beijing influence in these local bodies, which run daily matters like setting up new libraries and pensioners’ centers — to say nothing of organizing lion dances during the Lunar New Year.

The pro-democracy camp won an overwhelming and unprecedented landslide — and it didn’t take Beijing long to react to stamp out that political threat. Lau bought a one-way ticket last summer when she sensed that she was about to become the subject of a government probe into electoral manipulation. She was quite right to be worried — with human rights groups and Western governments criticizing the Hong Kong authorities of launching a political persecution.

Two and a half years on from the start of the protests, the pro-democracy councillor is still affected by a strong sense of loss.

“Moving to a new country or settling in a new country is one thing, but I think the bigger challenge is that we face a failure, and we need time to recover,” she said.

“For us the younger politicians, we got into politics because we saw hope that Hong Kong might have a chance to be a democratic society one day. But within a year, the government’s attitude had changed,” she lamented. “Not even resigning was enough to stop further action from them. When I decided to leave, only my parents knew. I didn’t tell any of my friends and they were shocked when I told them I’d already left Hong Kong.”

She dreams of going home — even if she concedes that return may be 20 or 30 years way.

Democratic flame

For many of those who have left Hong Kong — but certainly not all — there is a desire to keep alive something of the flame from the protest movement. While demonstrations have been mostly banned in Hong Kong (where the police have repeatedly cited coronavirus restrictions as a reason to outlaw them), Hong Kongers have organized protests in Manchester, Bristol and Birmingham in recent weeks to show support for jailed pro-democracy supporters back home.

There is also a desire to preserve the unique and brash cultural heritage of Hong Kong and not allow Beijing to snuff it out.

New groups have been formed teaching “Hong Kong-style Cantonese” and screening (made-and-banned-in-Hong Kong) documentaries chronicling the 2019 protests. A news presenter who used to work in Hong Kong’s largest broadcaster has set up a YouTube channel with Cantonese news about Britain. The British government has also offered funds to campaigners providing assistance and counseling services to recent migrants from Hong Kong.

Nathan Law, once Hong Kong’s youngest-ever lawmaker, is now the most prominent pro-democracy voice in Britain, where he arrived with refugee status.

He has put culture high on the list of the community’s priorities. After all, observers say, China’s ruling Communist party would like nothing more than for Hong Kong’s democrats in exile to forsake their identity and dissolve into innocuous English exile.

"It's clear that the government is trying to erase protest memory by banning the movies and arts. As we are now living overseas, it's crucial for us to preserve them, as well as our culture and identity. These are our weapons to fight against the authoritarianism," he said. He noted that many Hong Kong cultural festivals have taken place in the U.K. "It is really a good sign that we facilitate integration and mutual understanding with the local community by cultural exchange. As long as we keep doing this, the spirit of Hong Kong will never die."

Crucially, though, unity is not a given. Hong Kongers are wary of each other because of potential clashes over political allegiance. The fact that someone has come to Britain does not necessarily mean that they are in the pro-democracy camp. The new British visa is not a refugee scheme, which means that there’s no political assessment on the applicants. For many who’ve arrived, the most pressing concerns focus on integration and the practicalities of life.

Indeed, many of the new arrivals who try to engage one another by joining groups on Facebook and WhatsApp are quick to realize that any talk of politics would be the exception, not the norm.

Lying low

“When we meet up, we only talk about which restaurants to go to, where to do shopping or look for a nice flat. No one feels safe enough to share political thoughts with strangers who’ve just known each other,” said Carol, a recent migrant who works in the tech industry. “There’s a lot of mutual suspicion.”

As Lau puts it: “Fear is a major thing, because you know you are never safe. Even in the U.K. there are spies or undercover from the [Chinese Communist Party] and because I still have friends and family back in Hong Kong, I am always aware of this.”

Indeed, even many of Lau’s cohort — ex-politicians who had a track record of speaking up — are keeping their heads down. Dozens of other pro-democracy politicians are currently taking refuge in Britain, but many of them refuse to talk to the media — or even publicly acknowledge the fact they’ve emigrated.

“We don’t know what might happen to our family members if we become too high-profile here [in the U.K.],” said one former elected politician, who now works as a waiter and prefers not to be named. “It’s better for us to lie low.”

The same unwillingness to speak publicly is also true of former journalists, half a dozen of whom requested anonymity to speak for this report. Many of them recalled the worsening level of press freedom, which, in the words of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, has been left “in tatters.”

Three independent media outlets, including the pro-democracy Apple Daily, have been shut down within the last seven months, while other media have seen the mass departure of journalists. Hong Kong’s police chief last week reminded those attending a press conference that “press freedom is not absolute.”

Unsurprisingly, media workers are among those who are worried enough to take up the new visa quickly. An ex-Apple Daily journalist, who moved to the U.K. about a year ago and spoke on condition of anonymity, said a return to Hong Kong would be out of the question.

“I think 70 percent of me wants to explore different countries, different cultures; 30 percent of me is thinking, like, I have to escape,” she said. “I think most of us agree that [the past few years] was a really painful experience. It’s like seeing your friends change into a different character. And you know that things will get worse.”

“It’s definitely not a nice thing to see.”

On the positive side, the community is showing solidarity in exile.

“There are some barriers, as not everyone speaks good English. And naturally the upheaval has had a toll on some people’s mental health, but I would say the signs feel encouraging to this point,” said Johnny Patterson, a campaigner who has spent the past few years with the Westminster-based Hong Kong Watch group. “I have been struck by how well some of the Hong Kongers have supported each other to integrate.”

The Hong Kongers even club together in their own football team that plays every weekend in south London.

Striking another nostalgic note, the Hong Kong team is named after the mountain that looms over the city’s Kowloon peninsula: Lion Rock United.

How Boris Johnson saved his job but lost his grip

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 03:21 PM PST

LONDON — Boris Johnson might have survived another day of Partygate — but he won’t be celebrating this time.

The U.K. prime minister was given a lifeline of sorts on Monday when senior civil servant Sue Gray delivered a damning but incomplete verdict on the slew of allegations that lockdown-busting parties were held in No. 10 Downing Street.

She found there was "a serious failure" to observe the standards expected in government in an update on her inquiry into potentially rule-breaking parties but could not write a meaningful report setting out all the evidence because the Metropolitan Police last week launched its own criminal investigation into the allegations.

Johnson badly misjudged Monday’s appearance in the House of Commons following Gray’s update, many of his own Conservative MPs said, but the police’s intervention gave the prime minister a stay of execution.

"We are waiting to see if the police are going to do anything more than just look at these parties, or whatever they were," a former Cabinet minister said, explaining the incomplete update does not provide the "moment" for Conservative MPs to force a vote of no confidence in Johnson — the most likely way he would leave office.

Having waited just over a month for Gray to issue some kind of verdict on the row that has dominated British headlines since December, Westminster is still waiting. And while Johnson may have survived Gray’s first interjection, the British prime minister emerges severely weakened.

His party — just beginning to repair itself after the bitter infighting of the Brexit years — looks increasingly divided again. The split between Johnson’s would-be assassins and his defenders throws the longer-term future of his premiership very much in doubt, making governing increasingly difficult, as his predecessor — now fierce critic — Theresa May found to her cost.

"It's quite difficult to find a positive in this [for the PM]," a second former minister said. "My feeling is that this can only get worse from here.”

Under attack

Johnson had two opportunities Monday to impress the 359 Tory MPs who now hold his fate in their hands. With the British system stacked so heavily in favor of incumbent prime ministers, a majority of his own side would have to actively vote against him in order to topple him. And with such a large Tory majority in parliament, that means a very large number of rebels.

The prime minister’s first outing in front of his foot soldiers, when he faced questions in the House of Commons, went down very badly with many on his own side. 

He accused Labour leader Keir Starmer of failing to prosecute the pedophile Jimmy Savile — a claim which has been fact-checked and disproven — and suggested Labour frontbenchers had indulged in illegal drugs. 

A long-serving MP in a traditional Tory seat said Starmer's response had been "dignified" in contrast to the "utterly wrong tone from the PM."

Johnson's refusal to say if he would publish Gray's findings in full after the Met had finished their work provoked further dismay among his colleagues — and a hasty rethink, with Downing Street later saying in a statement: "At the end of the process, the prime minister will ask Sue Gray to update her work in light of what is found."

Former International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, who played a role in getting Johnson on the Conservative party's candidate list 30 years ago, dramatically withdrew his support.

"I'm deeply concerned by these events and very concerned indeed by some of the things he has said from that despatch box, and has said to the British public and our constituents," Mitchell told the House of Commons.

Later in the evening at a private meeting with his own MPs, Johnson is said to have emphasized his track record of looking beyond the hyperbole of the Commons and toughing it out. He was, according to one of those present, "contrite about what had happened and punchy about the future," promising to change his top officials and also to refresh his Cabinet and reboot his relationship with the party.

Another said "the stay of execution was in place even before the report was published" as local Conservative associations were largely on Johnson's side, support firmed up by the dramatic defection of one Tory MP which had the unintended consequence of making many of Johnson’s critics pause.

"Whether or not today changes anything remains to be seen," said the MP. "But it bloody should. His prepared attack line on Starmer with the Savile smear was a disgrace and one more reminder that underneath the bonhomie he is deeply calculating."

Theresa May all over again

Johnson now faces the same fate he once sought to inflict on Theresa May, who made the most devastating intervention on her successor by any MP in the Commons on Monday. 

She stood up after Starmer to say the public "had a right to expect their prime minister to … set an example by following those rules" and "either [he] had not read the rules, did not understand them, or they didn’t think the rules applied to No. 10."

Even if he manages to swerve or survive a leadership challenge — as May once did — his actions have left the party divided, with Johnson no longer able to command unity among the footsoldiers who rallied behind the Brexit cry that won him the last election.

One MP elected in Johnson’s landslide victory in 2019 said there was "a hardening of opinions on both sides" for and against the PM and little anyone could do to bridge the gap. 

A former government aide who served under both May and Johnson said "the party has broken now into two camps, just as in the May era," and it would have a lasting effect on his ability to govern.

Another former No. 10 staffer said: "She and Boris couldn’t really be more different people, but there was a point where Theresa couldn’t quite assert her authority over the party but was also too strong to be removed outright. I think we're probably in the same sort of position."

Russia should abstain if UN votes on Ukraine, experts say

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 02:52 PM PST

Russia opened its public confrontation with the U.S. at the United Nations on Monday by trying to argue that the Security Council shouldn’t be talking about Moscow’s troop build-up on the Ukrainian border. The Russian ambassador even insisted on a procedural vote.

In fact, legal experts say, it's Russia that shouldn't have a vote on the Ukraine matter — at least not at this stage of the debate.

According to the U.N. Charter, Security Council members are supposed to abstain from voting when they are a party to a dispute and the U.N. is trying to broker a peaceful settlement.

So while Monday’s meeting on the Ukraine crisis offered a rare bit of public diplomatic drama, for international law mavens it was also a reminder of a longstanding problem: countries routinely violate U.N. rules — especially Article 27(3) of the Charter, which calls for abstentions on certain votes in the Security Council.

In the end, the only vote taken on Monday about Ukraine was the procedural one that Russia insisted upon — and Russia lost. But the issue could well surface again before the crisis subsides. It’s not likely to matter: Security Council members have been violating the rules routinely for a half-century or more.

The last time this legal issue came into sharp focus was in 2014 when Russia used its veto to block a resolution, supported by 42 countries, condemning the referendum organized by Moscow for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

"You have a provision in the charter that provides for a duty to abstain," one diplomat said. "This has not been applied consistently since the beginning of the 1950s."

Experts have long warned that rule violations are eroding the U.N.’s institutional credibility, but countries have rarely put up a fight. And the five permanent members of the Security Council — China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. — arguably have the least incentive, since they are the most likely to be required to abstain.

"There is no reason that can't change in the future, even now, if we look at the situation," the diplomat added. "But, of course, someone has to take the initiative."

The abstention rule does not apply in cases where the Security Council is voting to take some action, such as authorizing military force or imposing sanctions. In those cases, there is no obligation to abstain, and the five permanent members of the Security Council — even one directly involved in a dispute — can wield their veto to block action.

In 2014, a nonprofit group called Security Council Report, which tracks the work of the council, described the importance of the abstention rule: “The U.N. Charter not only enshrines the veto power of permanent members, but also institutes a limitation of this power through the principle of obligatory abstentions,” the group wrote.

In the U.N.'s early years, countries routinely respected Article 27(3) and abstained from voting on matters in which they were directly involved, according to legal scholars. But according to Security Council Report, adherence to the abstention rule has been “inconsistent since 1946, and basically inexistent since 17 April 2000.” In its paper, the group noted: ‘With the exception of the U.K. in 1947, permanent members have never shown an interest in raising the matter, and non-permanent members have only done so sporadically.”

That was the case in 2014 during the debate over Crimea. "Quite interestingly, none of the States intervening in the debate, even those flatly condemning the 'abuse' of Russia's veto on political grounds, raised the issue," Enrico Milano, a law professor at the University of Verona in Italy, wrote in a paper that described the routine violations of the abstention provision.

In his paper, Milano noted that between 1946 and 1951 there were eight different times when a member of the Security Council abstained from voting citing Article 27(3).

This time, diplomats say, only Ukraine has raised the issue of Russia’s conflict of interest. But since Ukraine does not currently hold a seat on the Security Council there is virtually nothing it can do.

Ukrainian diplomats declined to comment on the matter. But some diplomats following the issue closely said that even Ukraine was reluctant to make a fuss about forcing Russia to abstain, fearing that any procedural debate would distract attention from the substantive discussion of the Kremlin's huge and menacing military build-up.

The U.S., which pushed for Monday’s debate, seemed more intent on drawing public attention to the Russian military moves and to portraying the Kremlin as having little international support for its actions. The U.S. did not call for the adoption of a resolution. But given that China sided heavily with Russia in Monday’s debate, it’s likely the U.S. would have seen such a move blocked even if Russia had been blocked from voting.

Questions about failure to adhere to the U.N. Charter have been raised since at least the early 1990s. Yehuda Z. Blum, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.N., even wrote a book, titled, "Eroding the United Nations Charter."

Blum identified at least 16 instances between 1952 and 1990 when the abstention rule was violated. One turning point was apparently a refusal by France to respect the rule during a debate in 1976 on a Security Council referendum regarding the island of Mayotte, which broke from the Indian Ocean nation of Comoros to retain its status as a French territory. In that case, France insisted on wielding its veto, and challenges to its right to vote were rejected for procedural reasons.

But concerns about violations of the U.N. Charter have largely been ignored, despite efforts by officials at the highest levels to urge compliance.

In October 1956, outraged by the attack on Egypt by Israel, Britain and France, then U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld made a strong statement urging U.N. member countries to respect the Charter. "The principles of the Charter are, by far, greater than the Organization in which they are embodied, and the aims which they are to safeguard are holier than the policies of any single nation or people,” Hammarskjöld said. “All Member nations honor their pledge to observe all Articles of the Charter"

Nearly a half-century later, in May 2003, Nabil Elaraby, a judge with the International Court of Justice, urged the Security Council to obey the rule. “The Council should consider the strict and faithful application of Article 27, paragraph 3, which provides that ‘in decisions under Chapter VI … a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting,'” Elaraby said. “A State should not be allowed to be party, judge and jury at the same time.”

Mona Ali Khalil, a former senior legal officer in the U.N.’s Office of Legal Counsel, who wrote a report in 2020 about the need for Security Council reform, said that refusing to adhere to the U.N. Charter was a small indication of broader disrespect for the mission to preserve world peace.

"The U.N.’s founding fathers were not naïve idealists but wide-eyed realists and war-hardened superpowers,” Ali Khalil said. “They created the U.N. to save us from the scourge of war and the mass slaughter of innocent civilians. They entrusted the Security Council, and its members, with responsibility not prerogative and called upon them to act in accordance with the U.N.’s Purposes and Principles. And yet, the continuing erosion of the rule of law and serious violations by the permanent members themselves, including the US-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, have revealed that those entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security have been responsible for some of the most consequential threats to the rule of law and to international peace and security."

Boris Johnson stresses UK support for Ukraine ahead of Kyiv trip

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 02:42 PM PST

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson vowed Monday evening to continue to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty on the eve of a crucial diplomatic trip to Kyiv.

Johnson will meet President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in the Ukrainian capital Tuesday for talks on the range of strategic U.K. support for Ukraine amid mounting tension over Russia's military build-up at the border.

As part of that support, the U.K. government announced they would commit an additional £88 million in funding aimed at reducing Ukrainian reliance on Russian energy supplies.

“It is the right of every Ukrainian to determine how they are governed. As a friend and a democratic partner, the U.K. will continue to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty in the face of those who seek to destroy it,” Johnson said in a statement.

He added: “We urge Russia to step back and engage in dialogue to find a diplomatic resolution and avoid further bloodshed."

The British PM was due to speak to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin earlier Monday until Johnson was forced to cancel the phone call because of the release of an inquiry into alleged lockdown-busting parties held by his government.

The prime minister’s spokesman said officials were “looking to finalize the time” for a rescheduled call, while the government confirmed Monday evening Johnson hopes to speak to Putin and other world leaders later this week.

Ahead of his visit to Ukraine, the U.K. government unveiled a new sanctions regime aimed at hitting Russian individuals and businesses supportive of Putin’s regime if Moscow went ahead with an invasion. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss told the House of Commons the move amounted to the “toughest sanctions regime against Russia” the U.K. has ever had.

Truss was due to join Johnson and Zelenskiy for talks in Ukraine, but tested positive for coronavirus on the eve of the trip.

Poland’s bison-unfriendly border barrier

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 12:58 PM PST

WARSAW — Poland is building a border wall to keep out illegal migrants, but the barrier will also cut through one of the Continent's most significant wild areas, scientists warn.

The planned wall slashes through the Białowieża Forest, regarded as one of the last surviving patches of the primeval forest that once covered Europe. 

Part of the forest lies in Poland, and some areas are covered by the EU's Natura 2000 environmental protection network, while the rest is in Belarus. It is also a cross-border UNESCO World Heritage Site, one of just 218 such sites worldwide.

But Białowieża Forest became the site of a border crisis last year after Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko encouraged people to fly to Minsk and try to enter the EU. Poland declared a state of emergency along the frontier and put up a temporary wire fence, which is now being replaced by a 5.5-meter steel wall with surveillance equipment.

Poland’s right-wing government is coming under fire for racing the project through without due regard for EU nature protection rules.

In a letter sent to the Commission on Monday, more than 600 scientists and researchers called on Brussels "to take all the possible measures to immediately halt the construction of the wall."

"The construction of the wall will create a barrier with devastating consequences, leading to permanent interruption of the functional connectivity of the ecological corridors of the Natura 2000 network on the national and European scale," the letter said.

The government has pledged that construction works will strive for minimal impact and that "in places of naturally occurring migration corridors, passages for animals will be provided," the ministry of environment and climate said on January 21. Border Guard officials said that trees will only be cut where “absolutely necessary.”

But the government is so keen to build the wall fast that it has exempted the construction from water and environmental laws.

Heavy equipment started work on January 25 on the 186-kilometer-long wall, including roughly 50 kilometers through the Białowieża Forest National Park. The construction of the 1.6 billion złoty (€350 million) wall is expected to take 150 days.

"I hope that the wall won't ever get built and if the worst happens and it will get built, we will want to dismantle it after the next election," MP Urszula Zielińska, the co-leader of the Polish Greens, told POLITICO. The Greens are part of the Civic Coalition, Poland's largest opposition party.

Commission concern

The European Commission is also calling for caution.

"These type of projects, due to their potential impact on the Natura 2000 sites, should be subject to an appropriate assessment pursuant to the Habitats Directive. In line with the directive, the authorities can approve the project if it is confirmed that it would not have significant negative effect on the integrity of the sites concerned," said a Commission spokesperson.

Experts worry that negative effects are inevitable. Even if the migration gates for animals are installed, already vulnerable species like wolves and lynx will be further in danger. The forest is also home to one of Europe’s last populations of wild bison.

"The result will be a decrease in the already low genetic variability of species like lynx or wolf. Small and isolated populations are more vulnerable and the loss even of a single individual, especially a reproducing female, could prove an existential threat," said Rafał Kowalczyk, professor of zoology at the Polish Academy of Sciences' Mammal Research Institute based in Białowieża. 

Kowalczyk also says that the wall will effectively end the existence of a single forest straddling the Polish-Belarusian border — which could threaten the forest’s UNESCO status.

Poland's environmental NGO Naturalists' Club lodged a complaint with the European Commission last fall, arguing that the wall will breach the Habitats Directive.

In theory, Poland could argue that the project is of overriding public interest, allowing Warsaw to dodge the directive. The Commission spokesperson said: "The authorities have to first prove lack of other suitable alternatives and implement appropriate compensatory measures." 

The letter from researchers said the project "should be subject to a substantive and in-depth analysis."

"While understanding the need to protect the integrity of the European Union border and being aware of other aspects of the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border, we take the firm view that this project must be implemented in accordance with European Union law," they said.

Alternatives do exist, said Zielińska.

"We don't need walls in the 21st century, there is technology that could be used for monitoring illegal migration if need be, without damaging the environment," she said. 

It's not the first clash between Poland and Brussels over Białowieża.

Logging in the forest landed Poland in the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2017. The CJEU ruled the following year that Poland had failed to ensure that the management plan for the Białowieża Forest would not adversely affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites in the area.

Poland eventually suspended logging but is expected to send to the Commission new management plans early this year.

This article is part of POLITICO's Sustainability Pro service, which dives deep into sustainability issues across all sectors, including: circular economy, waste and the plastics strategy, chemicals and more. For a complimentary trial, email pro@politico.eu mentioning Sustainability.

UK’s Liz Truss tests positive for coronavirus on eve of Ukraine visit

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 12:57 PM PST

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tested positive for coronavirus Monday evening just hours before a planned trip to Ukraine.

“Thankfully I’ve had my three jabs and will be working from home while I isolate,” Truss said on Twitter.

Truss had been due to travel to the eastern European country Tuesday for talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, amid mounting tensions over Russia’s military build-up at the border. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is still due to make the trip.

Truss is the second U.K. cabinet minister to contract coronavirus in a matter of days after the Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi confirmed he had tested positive Sunday.

Earlier Monday the foreign secretary addressed the House of Commons, announcing a toughened sanctions scheme aimed at hitting Russian individuals and businesses if Moscow goes ahead with an invasion of Ukraine. She also sat three seats along from Johnson without a mask while he answered questions about the civil servant Sue Gray’s report on the “partygate” scandal.

According to Sky News, Truss also attended a meeting of the 1922 committee of backbench Tory MPs on Monday evening, along with Johnson and several other cabinet ministers.

England set to U-turn on mandatory vaccines for health care staff

Posted: 31 Jan 2022 11:08 AM PST

The U.K. government will review its plan to make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory for health and social care workers in England with a view to axing the policy.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid told the House of Commons Tuesday that mandatory vaccination was no longer “proportionate," amid rising immunity in England and the “intrinsically less severe” nature of the Omicron variant when compared to previous strains of coronavirus.

“While vaccination remains our very best line of defense against COVID-19, I believe that it is no longer proportionate to require vaccination as a condition of employment through statute,” Javid said. The shift will be subject to a consultation.

Under the original plans, all frontline healthcare workers were required to have received all three doses of the vaccine by April 1. Around 77,000 staff — or around 5 percent — are yet to receive a single dose.

The government had come under pressure from some groups representing healthcare workers, who warned the requirement could put hospitals and care homes under fresh staffing pressure.

The Royal College of Nursing director Patricia Marquis said ahead of the announcement: “It was never in the interests of patient safety to threaten tens of thousands with dismissal in the middle of a staffing crisis."

But Jeremy Hunt, the former U.K. health secretary, criticized the government’s planned U-turn.

“I am yet to meet a single [healthcare worker] that believes that anyone in contact with patients has a right to put them at increased risk by not having a vaccine,” Hunt said. “Isn’t the real reason that we’ve made this decision because we're having a staffing crisis and the government still hasn't brought forward plans to address this?”
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

BREAKING: North Carolina automotive group acquires 7 Upstate dealerships

Breaking news from GSA Business Report Click here to view this message in a browser window. ...