At 82, I have lived through countless political and social upheavals, enough to become somewhat inured to history's recurring cycles. But recent developments have left me profoundly shaken and afraid. The bedrock principles of international law, established in the aftermath of World War II, are being flagrantly undermined. The ban on acquiring territory by force, the obligation to protect civilians during conflict, the limitations on the right of self-defence, and the United Nations Security Council's mandate to "maintain international peace and security" are all unravelling, with little regard for the consequences. In Ukraine and Gaza, occupation has been weaponised as a means of settling disputes, with civilians used as cannon fodder and the right to self-defence distorted to justify acts of retaliation and revenge -- in Gaza, these actions border on genocide. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia routinely abuse their veto power at the UN Security Council, reducing it to a toothless body incapable of calling for a ceasefire in either conflict. Amid this geopolitical turmoil, extrajudicial killings, once universally condemned, are celebrated as triumphs. This breakdown reflects the rapid transformation of the multilateral security system into a multipolar order dominated by three major powers, each singularly focused on protecting its interests and expanding its sphere of influence, leaving the rest of the world increasingly insecure. In today's global landscape, the cardinal rule seems to be: With enough power, governments can get away with murder. The erosion of international rules and norms is compounded by glaring double standards. Western powers' unconditional support for Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon -- repeatedly justified by the refrain, "Israel has the right to defend itself" -- contrasts sharply with the harsh economic sanctions imposed on Russia. Admittedly, Russia initiated the war in Ukraine, just as Hamas did in Gaza, but Israel's violations of international law have been so numerous and egregious that it has effectively assumed the role of aggressor. These double standards have been acutely felt across the developing world, where the common perception is that major democracies' commitment to human rights ends at their own borders. Consequently, a profound sense of injustice and hypocrisy has intensified the long-standing distrust between the Global North and South. Alarmingly, geopolitical tensions are deepening just as humanity is grappling with three existential threats that require close international cooperation: climate change, the nuclear arms race, and the rise of artificial intelligence. The climate crisis has already escalated into a full-blown environmental catastrophe, marked by increasingly frequent and severe storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires. Without drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, global warming is projected to surpass the 2° Celsius threshold set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement and reach 3C by the end of the century. Yet the international community is unable to agree on the actions and financing needed to avert disaster. US President-elect Donald Trump, who withdrew from the Paris accord during his first term, is widely expected to do so again, jeopardising progress towards effective climate action. Similarly, efforts to mitigate the nuclear threat have regressed into a frantic arms race. In stark contrast to Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev's assertion that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought", some nuclear-armed states now openly flaunt their stockpiles. Russia, for example, has repeatedly threatened to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Adding to these dangers, the New START Treaty -- the last remaining agreement regulating the arsenals of the world's two largest nuclear powers -- is set to expire in early 2026. Like nuclear power, addressing the risks posed by AI requires global oversight and collaboration. But in today's climate of confrontation and brinkmanship, meaningful cooperation between the US, China, and Russia is highly unlikely. Rising inequality, both within and between countries, is another major driver of global instability. Economic disparities, coupled with growing public distrust of elites, have fueled the recent surge of populism. This is particularly concerning since history has shown that unchecked inequality creates fertile ground for the rise of authoritarian and fascist leaders. A new mindset is urgently needed. In the absence of an effective and inclusive security order, the global arms race will intensify, increasing the likelihood of nuclear war. Isolationism and trade wars, which would stifle economic growth and replace the rule of law with rule by force, are not the answer. Instead, governments must recognise that the only path forward is through cooperation and compromise. It is also necessary to recognise that globalisation, while not without its flaws, brings significant benefits. In the face of today's monumental challenges, we can either work to ensure freedom and security for all or watch the world descend into chaos. To those who would call this pie-in-the-sky idealism, here is some hardheaded realism: without a renewed commitment to freedom, equality, human dignity, and solidarity, we face the very real prospect of collective ruin. ©2024 Project Syndicate Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General Emeritus of the International Atomic Energy Agency and a former vice president of Egypt, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, jointly with the IAEA.
The City of Calgary is hiring for a ton of jobs and you could make $55 an hourBy REBECCA SANTANA WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It’s not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it’s possible, it’s a bad idea. Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: What Trump has said about birthright citizenship During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” What does the law say? In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn’t always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. So what could Trump do and would it be successful? Trump wasn’t clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he’d use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action.” He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Related Articles National Politics | Trump has flip-flopped on abortion policy. His appointees may offer clues to what happens next National Politics | In promising to shake up Washington, Trump is in a class of his own National Politics | Election Day has long passed. In some states, legislatures are working to undermine the results National Politics | Trump attorney Alina Habba, a Lehigh University grad, to serve as counselor to the president National Politics | With Trump on the way, advocates look to states to pick up medical debt fight Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade,” Nowrasteh said. “He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens.” Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution. Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.
Aaron Rodgers Reveals New Girlfriend After Shailene Woodley Split
Friendly reminder |
The authenticity of this information has not been verified by this website and is for your reference only. Please do not reprint without permission. If authorized by this website, it should be used within the scope of authorization and marked with "Source: this website". |
Special attention |
Some articles on this website are reprinted from other media. The purpose of reprinting is to convey more industry information, which does not mean that this website agrees with their views and is responsible for their authenticity. Those who make comments on this website forum are responsible for their own content. This website has the right to reprint or quote on the website. The comments on the forum do not represent the views of this website. If you need to use the information provided by this website, please contact the original author. The copyright belongs to the original author. If you need to contact this website regarding copyright, please do so within 15 days. |