Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had a back-and-forth with Donald Trump online amid the ongoing row between Washington and Tehran, which once again escalated over the weekend.
In a series of tweets on Monday, Zarif called members of the US president's administration the "B-team" and criticised the United States for pursuing "endless wars".
Zarif also said that while Trump is right to question the "military-industrial complex", the president has surrounded himself with people who "trash diplomacy & abet war crimes".
"Goaded by #B_Team, @realdonaldTrump hopes to achieve what Alexander, Genghis & other aggressors failed to do. Iranians have stood tall for millennia while aggressors all gone. #EconomicTerrorism & genocidal taunts won't 'end Iran'," he tweeted.
Goaded by #B_Team, @realdonaldTrump hopes to achieve what Alexander, Genghis & other aggressors failed to do. Iranians have stood tall for millennia while aggressors all gone. #EconomicTerrorism & genocidal taunts won't "end Iran". #NeverThreatenAnIranian. Try respect—it works!
Tensions between Washington and Tehran have been on the rise this month after the United States accused Iran of unspecified "threats" and deployed a carrier group and B-52 bombers to the Gulf to send a message to the Iranian government.
Iranian leaders have decried the US's recent moves as "psychological warfare", while saying that a direct military confrontation between the two countries is in no one's interests.
A United Nations spokesman said on Monday that the international body was "concerned about the rising rhetoric".
"We would ask all parties to lower the rhetoric and lower the threshold of action as well," said Stephane Dujarric, as reported by AFP.
Dujarric also said UN officials were in contact with both countries at various levels in an effort to calm the ongoing tensions, but he did not provide more details about those efforts.
Also on Monday, the Associated Press reported that Iran announced a four-fold production increase of uranium enrichment.
The spokesman for Iran's nuclear agency, Behrouz Kamalvandi, told the country's Fars and Tasnim news agencies that Iran alerted the International Atomic Energy Agency that it would reach 300 kilograms of enriched uranium "within weeks", AP said.
That amount is the limit Iran can acquire under a 2015 nuclear deal, which the US pulled out of last May, AP reported.
That multilateral accord, which several European countries remain committed to, saw Iran agree to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions.
War of words
Trump on Monday reiterated his call for Iranian leaders to get in touch with him, saying that Iran "will call us if and when they are ever ready".
"In the meantime, their economy continues to collapse - very sad for the Iranian people!" he tweeted.
America first vs America only: How John Bolton is fuelling Iran 'hysteria'
But only a day earlier, Trump threatened Iran with war, saying that "if Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran".
According to former US officials and analysts, Trump's hawkish national security adviser John Bolton is pushing the Trump administration to take a hardline position on Iran.
"He's been an advocate of regime change in Iran for decades, and that's one of his main goals," Peter Bergen, director of the national security studies programme at the New America Foundation, told Middle East Eye last week.
Trump himself said recently that he has to "temper" Bolton.
Still, since he took office, the US president has authorised a series of measures that aimed to exert "maximum pressure" on the Iranian government, including a series of harsh economic sanctions on Iran's oil and metals industries.
Last week, the Trump administration ordered non-essential diplomatic staff out of Iraq, citing threats from Iranian-backed armed groups.
On Sunday, a Katyusha rocket was fired into Baghdad's Green Zone, which houses government offices and embassies, including the US mission. It was not immediately clear who was behind the attack.
Zarif downplayed the prospect of a new war in the region on Saturday, saying Tehran opposed it and no party was under the "illusion" that Iran could be confronted.
"We are certain... there will not be a war since neither we want a war nor does anyone have the illusion they can confront Iran in the region," Zarif told state-run news agency IRNA at the end of a visit to China.
Scientists say that as global warming nears an irreversible level, the president has been promoting business growth, not climate fixes.(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
More than a dozen states are moving to strengthen environmental protections to combat a range of issues from climate change to water pollution, opening a widening rift between stringent state policies and the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.
In recent months, Hawaii, New York and California have moved to ban a widely used agricultural pesticide linked to neurological problems in children, even as the administration has resisted such restrictions. Michigan and New Jersey are pushing to restrict a ubiquitous class of chemical compounds that have turned up in drinking water, saying they can no longer wait for the Environmental Protection Agency to take action.
Colorado and New Mexico have adopted new policies targeting greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel drilling and limiting where these operations can take place. And more than a dozen states have adoptedpolicies that would force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars than required by federal standards.
The growing patchwork of regulations is creating uncertainty for American businesses as state lawmakers vie to change rules that, in past administrations, were more likely to be set at the federal level.
“At the end of the day, I think regulated entities want to know what the expectations are,” said Wendy Heiger-Bernays, an environmental health professor at Boston University. “They’d prefer not to have two different standards — one in one state and another in another state.”
Local officials say the jumble of policies also threatens to create disparities, not only in obligations placed on businesses but also in the level of protections guarding human health in different communities.
California is leading more than a dozen states to require higher gas mileage than the federal standard. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
“It is difficult to communicate to your customers that New Jersey or Minnesota or Vermont has evaluated the risk to their residents differently, and that one state places a lower value on protection of public health than another,” Brian Steglitz, the water treatment manager for Ann Arbor, Mich., said last week in testimony before a panel of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Since President Trump took office, his administration has scaled back numerous environmental rules enacted under President Barack Obama and declined to impose federal limits on some contaminants and pesticides. The Trump administration also has reversed course on climate change, refusing to embrace the limits on greenhouse gas emissions that the federal government previously had pledged to adopt under an international agreement.
In an interview, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the federal government regularly works hand-in-hand with the states, which often are the more appropriate forum for litigating such environmental matters. For example, he said, the Trump administration has allowed many states to shape their own strategies for meeting air quality standards, rather than imposing a federal plan.
“Overall, we try to defer to the states as much as possible,” Wheeler said — though he added that the administration would oppose state action that would “interfere with national commerce” or “create uncertainties for consumers or for businesses.”
At the Interior Department, which controls industry access to vast swaths of public lands, spokeswoman Molly Block said in an email that the administration views its more business-friendly approach as a key contributor to the nation’s vibrant economic growth under Trump.
“We will continue our work to advance President Trump’s deregulatory agenda, which has boosted the American economy,” she said.
In some states — especially those newly under Democratic control — the federal approach has created a vacuum that other officials have rushed to fill. For example, when New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) replaced a Republican in the governor’s mansion earlier this year, one of her first acts was to sign an executive order focused on climate change. It instructs regulators to develop statewide limits on greenhouse gas emissions and a more stringent renewable energy requirement for New Mexico’s power sector.
“A lot of what you see in that executive order reflects a lack of action on the federal level,” said Sarah Cottrell Propst, secretary of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. “The state is feeling like we need to fill the gap.”
In Oregon, Gov. Kate Brown (D) is expected to sign a bill this week to codify federal clean air and clean water standards that werein place before Trump took office, making them enforceable under state law even if the White House rolls them back. The Trump administration is poised to replace at least three major policies this year, and has delayed or altered many others.
States also are taking the lead on chemical and pesticide regulation, as the EPA in some cases has held off on setting exposure limits or banning some substances outright.
At least a half-dozen states have pushed forward with their own plans to limit a class of compounds known as polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, saying ample evidence exists to regulate them. The lab-made compounds have long been used in consumer products such as nonstick pans, water-repellent fabrics and firefighting foams.
Long-term exposure has been associated with an array of health problems, including thyroid disease, weakened immunity, infertility and certain cancers, though researchers continue to study the human health implications. Because PFAS do not break down in the environment, they have become known as “forever chemicals.”
Catherine McCabe, an EPA veteran, is now the top environmental official in New Jersey, which has proposed one of the nation’s most stringent standards for PFAS in drinking water. The state also is trying to compel five chemical manufacturers, including 3M and Dupont, to fund tests for the chemicals and to clean up contamination.
McCabe said it would be better for the nation and for industry if the federal government set a single national limit for PFAS in drinking water. “It doesn’t serve anybody’s interest for us all to be coming up with different numbers,” she said.
Given the health threat, however, McCabe said the need for action is urgent. “I would love to wait if [federal officials] were moving quickly, but they are not,” she said. “We can’t wait any longer.”
Companies such as 3M, which faces significant regulatory and cleanup costs, also have pressed for a national standard. “We support regulation rooted in the best-available science and believe that this plan may help prevent a patchwork of state standards that could increase confusion and uncertainty for communities,” the company said in a statement.
Wheeler said the EPA is acting with urgency, pointing to a long-term PFAS “action plan” released earlier this year. But he said the agency must undertake a “rigorous” review before settling on national standards that are legally and scientifically defensible.
One of the most pressing splits is unfolding in the auto industry, as the EPA and the Transportation Department prepare to finalize a rollback of tighter tailpipe standards for cars and smaller pickup trucks. Last year, the Trump administration proposed freezing federal mileage requirements between model years 2020 and 2026, rather than boosting them to require that vehicles get more than 50 miles per gallon, as was required under Obama administration rules.
California, which has received federal waivers in the past to set its own rules, has pledged to press ahead with the tighter standards regardless of what the White House decides. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia are poised to adopt California’s standards if they diverge from the federal government’s.
Automakers, who pressed Trump to revisit the mileage targets as soon as he took office, are pressing the two sides to reach a compromise rather than fracture the nation’s car market. Two different standards could lead companies to market a small variety of more-efficient vehicles in some states while offering their entire fleet in others, said Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist.
“That’s why there could be a stampede to buy popular larger vehicles in a neighboring state that follows the federal standard,” Bergquist said. “This is all new territory, so no one really knows how it will unfold, but it will be a headache for everyone involved, including consumers.”
Colorado and New Mexico are in the midst of rewriting the rules for how the oil and gas industry operates, such as limits on greenhouse gas emissions from drilling operations.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) recently signed a bill transferring a large portion of the state’s authority over drilling to local governments, and changing the orientation of its Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to emphasize public health and safety over extraction.
Even as the Interior Department has relaxed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions from drilling operations, Colorado is tightening its methane standards.
New Mexico, too, is drafting a new methane rule. Meanwhile, its land commissioner last month put nearly 73,000 acres in the northwest part of the state off-limits to drilling on the grounds that the area, known as the Greater Chaco Region, is sacred to the Pueblo and the Navajo tribes.
Interior had planned to auction off more than 4,000 acres of leases in the Greater Chaco Region last year but abruptly canceled the sale in the face of public criticism.
Robert McEntyre, spokesman for the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, said in an interview that his members are used to dealing with both state and federal regulators, and are engaged in discussions about how to curb methane that leaks or is deliberately released and burned off.
“Across the board, every operator in New Mexico recognizes that limiting methane emissions while continuing growth is a top priority,” McEntyre said, adding that EPA data show overall methane emissions dropping by 4 percent in the Permian Basin, which straddles New Mexico and Texas, even as production doubled between 2011 and 2017.
Erik Milito, vice president of upstream and industry operations for the American Petroleum Institute, said the industry recognizes the role of the states as regulators. But he said some changes, such as Colorado’s new limits on drilling, go too far.
“The localities should not have the authority to ban oil and gas operations,” said Milito, whose group is now working with regulators to help shape how the new law is implemented. “They should have the zoning authority they already have.”
Who’s right: Cassandra or Dr. Pangloss? Are we on the brink of serious trouble, as Cassandra of Greek myth prophesied, or is all for the best “in this best of all possible worlds,” as the fictional Pangloss insisted in Voltaire’s Candide? In recent decades, Cassandra-like warnings include Robert Kaplan’s The Coming Anarchy, the late Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, Bill McKibben’s gloomy environmental and social forecasts, and predictions from everyone who thinks U.S. President Donald Trump will end democracy as we know it. On the other side, the ranks of neo-Panglossians include Steven Pinker, Joshua Goldstein, and (on some issues) John Mueller, who stress the extraordinary progress humans have made over the past 500 years and believe that risk of violence or other major disruptions continues to shrink.
I’m generally a fairly upbeat guy, despite my realist proclivities and my recurring frustrations at the embarrassing state of U.S. foreign policy. But today I’m going to indulge my inner Cassandra and describe the five bad things that worry me today. I hope I’m wrong.
We haven’t known about man-made climate change for very long, but alarming evidence of its negative consequences continues to accumulate. Moreover, the pace and extent of change appears to be closer to the worst-case end of the spectrum. We are virtually certain to see a rise of more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit in atmospheric temperature in the next 20 years, for example, and a major study by the United Nations scientific panel on climate change estimates that a rise of that magnitude would cause roughly $54 trillion (!) worth of damage.
But the troubling part is how tepid the response has been. A well-funded army of people rejecting mainstream climate science tried first to convince us the problem simply didn’t exist, and they have worked to block meaningful actions to address it. At the global level, profligate energy users mostly tried to make sure that somebody else got stuck with the costs of mitigation. When the president of the United States refuses to accept that climate change is even occurring and wants to resurrect coal (the dirtiest of all fossil fuels), you know we’re in trouble. And my guess—see here—is that adapting to this problem is going to affect politics and society in ways we’ve barely begun to imagine.
I’m not saying dealing with this challenge is easy. It’s always hard to get people to make sacrifices today for the sake of future generations, and there are big cross-generational and cross-national equity issues involved. In fact, I believe developing an effective global response to atmospheric warming is the single most vexing political test humankind has ever faced. And so far, we’re flunking it, and placing whole societies in risk. Boy, I hope I’m wrong.
Bad Thing #2: The Two-State Solution, R.I.P.
For nearly three decades, the idea of “two states for two peoples” has been the default solution to the long and bitter struggle between Israelis and Palestinians. It was the stated goal of three U.S. presidents, most Palestinian leaders, the recurring cycle of so-called Middle East peace processors, and a few (but not all) Israeli prime ministers. It wasn’t the perfect solution by any means, but it was the best compromise among the conflicting demands of Israeli and Palestinian nationalism, historical justice, and enduring security. And it gave U.S. officials an easy rote answer when they were asked what the United States’ goal was: They could solemnly intone “a two-state solution” even while declining to use America’s full leverage to bring it about.
I don’t know what sort of rabbit U.S. presidential advisor Jared Kushner intends to pull out of his hat one of these days, but it won’t be a serious path to two-state solution. Given the realities on the ground and the ever-rightward drift of Israel’s domestic politics, it is more likely to be the final nail in the coffin. The Trump administration has abandoned even the pretense of evenhandedness on this issue, having appointed a fervent backer of the settlement movement as U.S. ambassador to Israel, a man who last week told a crowd that Israel has a secret weapon: It “is on the side of God.” Now there’s an evenhanded diplomatic stance for you!
But as countless people (including former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert) have warned, the demise of the two-state solution leaves only worse alternatives. One option is apartheid, whereby Israel controls all of so-called greater Israel while denying its Palestinian subjects any meaningful political rights. Another is forceful expulsion (aka ethnic cleansing), which is a crime against humanity. A third possibility is a subtle version of the second: Over time, Israel gradually makes it more or less impossible for Palestinians to remain in their current communities as part of a long-term strategy to get them to go somewhere else. Call it ethnic cleansing in slow motion.
Make no mistake: If any of these scenarios unfolds as I’ve described it, it will be a major historical crime, and one in which the United States will have been fully complicit. Once again, America’s proud claims to be a principled defender of human rights will have been exposed as hollow. That’s where we are headed, folks, but I hope I’m wrong.
Bad Thing #3: The End of the European Union
I may be a realist, but I like the EU. The original concept was bold and creative, and the EU and its predecessors (the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community) fueled economic growth in Europe for many years, helped spread democracy and tolerance eastward after the Cold War, and did its part to prevent the full renationalization of European politics.
But as I’ve noted before, it’s hard to be upbeat about the EU’s long-term prospects. Britain is leaving (sooner or later), and the United States under Trump is openly hostile. Anti-EU populists are becoming more popular in several European countries—including in formerly stalwart members such as Italy and Germany—and Brussels has been unable to rein in illiberal nationalists such as Viktor Orban of Hungary or the ruling Law and Justice party in Poland. Repeated efforts to establish a genuine all-European voice on foreign policy or a common European defense force have gone nowhere (as Europe’s vocal but spineless response to U.S. threats to impose secondary sanctions over trade with Iran attest). Add to this growing pressure to retreat from the open borders of the Schengen Agreement, and it is easy to imagine a gradual retreat away from the goal of “ever deeper union” and a movement back toward something akin to the old Common Market.
To be sure, the EU has thus far proved more resilient than some observers expected, and the costs of abandoning the euro and moving back toward less-centralized arrangements would be considerable. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if the EU limps along for decades without collapsing entirely. But I certainly don’t expect it to thrive. Once more, I hope I’m wrong.
Bad Thing #4: A Nuclear Crisis With Iran
The primary purpose of the Iran nuclear deal was to keep Tehran a sufficient distance away from an actual nuclear weapon and to buy time to see if the United States’ other differences with it could be ameliorated. This approach was anathema to Israeli hawks, pro-Israel lobbying groups such as United Against Nuclear Iran and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wealthy Republican donors such as Sheldon Adelson, and countries such as Saudi Arabia and certain Gulf states.
Unfortunately, these groups managed to convince a gullible U.S. president that the deal was “terrible” and persuaded him to replace it with a policy of so-called maximum pressure. As I noted in my last column, it is not entirely clear what the administration hopes to gain from this approach or how it will be an improvement over what former President Barack Obama accomplished. At a minimum, Trump, National Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, etc. are trying to keep Iran in the penalty box, both to keep it as weak as possible and to prevent it from forging normal relations with others.
Here’s my concern: Maximum pressure won’t topple the regime, strengthen moderate voices in Iran, or resolve any of the other differences Washington has with Tehran. Instead, it is more likely to encourage Iran to resume nuclear development and eventually restart a nuclear weapons program, which it is not—repeat, not—doing at present. Think about it: North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has his relatives and rivals murdered and runs a brutal police state, and he gets to have private meetings with Trump, who says the two of them “fell in love” (whatever the hell that means). Why does Kim get treated this way? Because North Korea has a growing nuclear weapons arsenal.
By contrast, Iran is just a latent nuclear power—it could build a bomb if it wanted to but has not done so yet. Indeed, it remains fully compliant with the nuclear deal and is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. How does Washington respond to Iranian restraint? With ever-greater sanctions, cyberattacks, military threats, and not-very-veiled suggestions from top officials that America’s real goal is regime change. Washington still doesn’t have diplomatic relations with Tehran and has no regular channel of communication with it.
If and when Iran decides that cooperating with the United States (and others) and forgoing a nuclear weapon did not pay off, we’ll be back on the road to war. And because U.S. politicians and pundits have talked about preventive war against Iran for decades now, the whole idea has gradually become normalized in American culture. Last week, for example, a Washington Post headline suggested that Trump was “not convinced the time is right” for war with Iran, as if timing were the only thing that mattered.
I’m not saying war with Iran is inevitable, but, barring a more fundamental rethinking of the United States’ entire approach to the Middle East, it remains a live possibility. And because starting unnecessary wars in the Middle East hasn’t worked out so well for the United States in recent years, I hope I’m wrong.
Bad Thing #5: The Gradual Collapse of America’s Asian Alliances
For good, sensible, and old-fashioned realist reasons, the United States would like to maintain a significant security presence on the Asia-Pacific region. Why? To prevent China from becoming a regional hegemon in Asia. If China were to establish a position in Asia akin to the U.S. position in the Western Hemisphere—that is, one where China no longer had to worry very much about regional opposition—it would be free to project its rising power around the world, much as the United States does now. And those efforts might include significant security partnerships in Latin America, obliterating the Monroe Doctrine and forcing the United States to devote much more attention to matters closer to home.
In theory, preventing this outcome should be fairly easy. As balance-of-power (or more precisely, balance-of-threat) theory predicts, states whose power and ambitions are increasing tend to look threatening to others, leading the latter to join forces to deter or contain the rising power’s initiatives. Not surprisingly, China’s rise has alarmed a number of Asian countries and made most of them eager for continued security ties with the United States.
But managing a balancing coalition in Asia will not be easy, and the Trump administration is bungling the job. An anti-China coalition will be unwieldy and fragile because 1) the distances involved are vast, which tempts different Asian countries to ignore problems at some remove, 2) these states do not want to jeopardize their economic ties with China, and 3) some of them have significant disputes with one another. The situation calls for adroit and attentive alliance leadership, which the United States could supply if its leaders understood how important it is.
Unfortunately, Trump has done nearly everything wrong. He left the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have bolstered America’s position in Asia. He’s bullied South Korea and Japan on trade issues, while engaging in an erratic, poorly planned, and unsuccessful flirtation with North Korea. He began his presidency with a contentious and unfriendly phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, straining relations with a long-standing U.S. ally.
I don’t think China is interested in territorial expansion (save for those artificial islands it is building in the South China Sea), it just wants to establish a dominant position in its own neighborhood. Who can blame it? What sensible great power would want to be surrounded by a set of states that are formally allied with the United States, in arrangements that allow that Washington to deploy and operate powerful naval and air forces near Chinese territory?
For Beijing, addressing this situation means pushing the United States out of Asia. Not by fighting a war, but by convincing other Asian powers that the United States is too weak, distracted, capricious, unreliable, and incompetent to count on. And thus far, Trump and Pompeo are helping them make their case. Barring a serious effort to make a true pivot to Asia—which will depend as much on diplomacy and economic ties as on a bolstered military presence, by the way—I’d be bearish about the long-term future of America’s strategic position in Asia. But I hope I’m wrong.
I’ve left out a few other worrisome possibilities: a Taliban victory in Afghanistan, a growing refugee crisis driven by a combination of demography and climate change, and worsening political polarization in the United States. Just because things look bleak doesn’t mean they can’t get worse.
But I’ve been wrong before—though not that often—and Panglossians out there are free to take comfort from that possibility. Rest assured I’ll be humbly grateful if none of these dark prophecies comes to pass.
A march against racism in London in March. Photograph: Guy Bell/REX/Shutterstock
Robert Booth-
Ethnic minorities in Britain are facing rising and increasingly overt racism, with levels of discrimination and abuse continuing to grow in the wake of the Brexit referendum, nationwide research reveals.
Seventy-one percent of people from ethnic minorities now report having faced racial discrimination, compared with 58% in January 2016, before the EU vote, according to polling data seen by the Guardian.
The data comes amid rising concern at the use of divisive rhetoric in public before this week’s European parliament elections, where some leading candidates, including Ukip’s Carl Benjamin and the independent Tommy Robinson, have records of overt racism.
The survey by Opinium suggests racists are feeling increasingly confident in deploying overt abuse or discrimination. The proportion of people from an ethnic minority who said they had been targeted by a stranger rose from 64% in January 2016 to 76% in February this year, when the most recent polling was carried out of 1,006 people weighted to be nationally representative.
The trend appears in line with crime figures, which have shown that racially motivated hate crime has increased every year since 2013, doubling to 71,251 incidents in England and Wales in 2018, according to the Home Office.
David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham and a leading anti-racism campaigner, described the findings as “alarming”, while Omar Khan, the chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, a race equality thinktank, said it was now clear that Brexit, while not the source of racism, had led to higher levels of racism being expressed and that social media was “normalising hate and increasing division”.
How Ukip normalised far-right politics – video explainer
The poll comes amid a wave of headlines about racism in Britain, from the BBC’s sacking of Danny Baker for tweeting a picture of a couple with a chimp following the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s baby, to growing anger from professional footballers at racism online and in stadiums.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Labour have been tainted by allegations of Islamophobia and antisemitism respectively.
The survey found that at the end of 2016, 37% of people saw racism on social media on a day-to-day basis, but that has now risen to 50%, and is even higher for younger minority ethnic people aged 18 to 34.
Online racism has more than doubled since before the referendum, to 51%, and there were rises of about 50% in the number or people reporting hearing people ranting or making negative comments about immigration or making racist comments made to sound like jokes.
People from a black background reported the greatest increase in discrimination, with the proportion saying they had been abused or discriminated against rising from 59% in January 2016 to 65% the following October and to 74% this February and March, when the latest poll was conducted. Respondents from the east of England were most likely to say they had suffered racism.
Minority ethnic women also reported a sizeable increase, with 74% saying they had faced racial discrimination this year, compared with 61% in the latter half of 2016. This increase in racial discrimination is mainly down to racism from strangers. Looking at the types of racial discrimination faced, the proportion saying they have experienced someone making a racist comment in jest has risen to over half (55%) of people from ethnic minorities.
A supporter reacts during a rally after Taiwan's constitutional court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to legally marry, the first such ruling in Asia, in Taipei, Taiwan May 24, 2017. Reuters/Tyrone Siu
TAIWAN’S parliament began debating Asia’s first gay marriage law on Friday as conservative lawmakers launched a last-ditch attempt to scupper the most progressive bill in favour of a watered-down “civil-union” law.
Hundreds of gay rights supporters gathered despite heavy rain near Taipei’s parliament as a mammoth legislative debate got under way over an issue that has bitterly divided the island.
Parliament is up against a ticking clock.
Taiwan’s top court has ruled that not allowing same-sex couples to marry violates the constitution. Judges gave the government until May 24 this year to make the changes or see marriage equality enacted automatically. But they gave no guidance on how to do that.
With that deadline fast approaching, three bills have been tabled for Friday’s vote — which also happens to be the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.
The most progressive is the government’s bill, the only one to use the word “marriage” and to offer limited adoption rights.
It is backed — begrudgingly — by gay rights groups who see it as the closest thing to full equality with heterosexual couples, despite its limitations.
Opponents have tabled two other versions which avoid the word marriage, offering something closer to same-sex unions with no adoption rights.
Conservative and religious groups have been buoyed by a series of referendum wins in November, in which voters comprehensively rejected defining marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
Families divided
In a Facebook post President Tsai Ing-wen said she recognised the issue had divided “families, generations and even inside religious groups”.
But she said the government’s bill was the only one that respects both the court judgement and the referendum.
“Today, we have a chance to make history and show the world that progressive values can take root in an East Asian society,” she added in a tweet.
Tsai’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) holds the majority in parliament, occupying 68 out of 113 seats.
But there is no guarantee her own lawmakers will vote for the more progressive bill, especially as many fear being punished by conservative voters at the ballot box in January.
One of the rival bills was proposed by a DPP lawmaker. And a last-minute amended version of the government’s bill has been tabled by fellow lawmakers in the party, dropping the phrase “same-sex marriage”.
However, it still lets same-sex couples join an “exclusive permanent union” and apply for a “marriage registration” with government agencies.
LGBT community in limbo
Taiwan’s LGBT community has been left in limbo the last two years, with many couples planning weddings ahead of the May 24th deadline but unsure of what marriage equality will look like.
“The world is watching to see if Taiwan’s parliament will write a new page in gender equality or deal another blow to Taiwan’s hard-fought democracy, human rights and the rule of law,” said Jennifer Lu, a spokeswoman for Marriage Equality Coalition Taiwan.
“For the gay communities what matters the most is whether we can legally get married on May 24 and be listed as the spouse in ID cards, to be treated and respected as the ‘spouse’ in the whole legal system … and whether same-sex families can obtain legal parental rights for their children.”
Cindy Su was one of thousands of gay marriage supporters gathered outside parliament on Friday ahead of the debate.
“We are just a group of people who want to live well on this land and who love each other,” she told the crowd.
But opponents warn that “forcefully” passing a gay marriage law will intensify tensions.
“The cabinet’s bill ignores the referendum results and that is unacceptable,” said Lai Shyh-bao of the opposition Kuomintang party, who proposed one of the bills backed by conservatives.
Saudi Arabia has detained two foreign journalists, press freedom group Reports Without Borders (RSF) confirmed, but the pair's whereabouts and the reasons for their detention remain unknown.
The Saudi authorities detained Yemeni journalist Marwan al-Muraisi in June 2018, RSF confirmed on Monday, citing a tweet by al-Muraisi's wife from earlier this month.
She said she spoke to her husband by phone, but that she doesn't know where he is being held, RSF said in its statement.
Abdel Rahman Farhaneh, a Jordanian journalist in his 60s, went missing in late February in Dammam, a city in eastern Saudi Arabia, where he has lived for more than three decades, the group also said on Monday.
The group also said the Jordanian embassy received promises from the kingdom that Farhaneh will be released "soon", but it did not get an exact timetable.
More than 30 countries censure Saudi Arabia at UN rights forum
"As is the case with Muraisi, it is still not known where Farhaneh is being held," RSF said.
Saudi Arabia has not yet offically commented on the detention of either journalist, and it remains unclear why they were detained.
Farhaneh had written for Al Jazeera, the Qatari news outlet that was banned in Saudi Arabia after Riyadh broke ties with Doha in June 2017.
Saudi Arabia has come under increasing global scrutiny over its human rights record since the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year inside the kingdom's Istanbul consulate.
That pressure has mounted even more amid outrage over the continued detention of around a dozen Saudi women's rights activists.
They were detained last spring and summer as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman launched a massive purge of perceived political opponents, human rights activists, and others across the country.
The Gulf kingdom has one of the world's highest rates of executions, with suspects convicted of terrorism, homicide, rape, armed robbery and drug trafficking charges facing the death penalty.
In its statement on Monday, RSF called on the Saudi government to release 29 detained journalists and bloggers.
FILE PHOTO: General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, head of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and deputy head of the Transitional Military Council (TMC) delivers an address after the Ramadan prayers and Iftar organized by Sultan of Darfur Ahmed Hussain in Khartoum, Sudan May 18, 2019. REUTERS/Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah
MAY 20, 2019
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Talks between Sudan’s ruling Transitional Military Council and an alliance of protesters and opposition groups failed for the second day in a row to produce a breakthrough on the country’s political transition, the council said early on Tuesday.
Street protests and a sit-in outside the defence ministry compound in Khartoum have not ended even after the army ousted and arrested former President Omar al-Bashir on April 11.
Demonstrators are calling for a rapid transition to civilian rule, and demanding justice over the deaths of dozens of people since protests triggered by an economic crisis and decades of repressive rule spread across Sudan starting Dec. 19.
The TMC and the Declaration of Freedom and Change Forces (DFCF), an umbrella body of protesters and opposition groups, have agreed on a three-year transition before elections, but have been deadlocked over whether civilians or the military would control a sovereign council that would hold ultimate power.
That remained the main point of contention during talks that started Monday evening and ended early on Tuesday without a resolution, the TMC said in a statement.
“Aware of our historical responsibility, we will work toward reaching an urgent agreement ... that meets the aspirations of the Sudanese people and the goals of the glorious December revolution,” the TMC added, without giving a date for when talks would resume.
Both sides had signalled they were close to an agreement over a three-year transition. An agreement was also expected to come out of talks that started on Sunday, but no deal was made after more than six hours of negotiations at the presidential palace in Khartoum.
The Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), which spearheaded protests against Bashir and heads the DFCF, has accused the TMC of dragging its feet in the talks and has sought to increase pressure on the council by expanding protests.
It also held the TMC responsible for street violence over the past week.
Late last Wednesday, the TMC suspended the talks for three days.
The council accused protesters of not respecting an understanding on de-escalation while talks were under way.
Reporting by Nadine Awadalla; Writing by Lena Masri; Editing by Chris Reese
MEE staff- 20 May 2019
