Day: June 10, 2024

The recent assassination attempt on Prime Minister Robert Fico has thrown Slovakia into the international spotlight, raising critical questions about its political trajectory and future within the European community.

Three weeks have passed since the shocking attempt on Prime Minister Fico’s life. Despite having been in critical condition, he has stabilized and is recovering at home.

This event has sent shockwaves through Slovakia and beyond. The young European nation was once part of Czechoslovakia, which embraced democracy following the dissolution of the Iron Curtain in 1989. Later, having parted amicably from its Czech brethren in 1993, Slovakia has typically enjoyed peaceful, albeit passionate, political discourse. Now, it finds itself at a pivotal moment.

Slovakia’s political landscape is sharply divided.

The war in Ukraine and the recent national election—which resulted in the accession of Fico, a political survivor and now four-time prime minister—has increasingly polarized Slovak society. Fico has expressed skepticism and concern over the trajectory of the war in Ukraine, contrasting with the broader EU and NATO support for continuing military aid to Ukraine. This has not only strained Slovakia’s relationships within the EU but has also sparked significant domestic opposition.

Akin to neighboring Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Fico maintains that his stance toward Russia and Putin is not explicitly pro-Russian but aims instead to be less confrontational compared to the unequivocally pro-Western, pro-NATO position of Brussels or the broader Western bloc.

These tensions are not confined to political arenas and media. They also stir strong emotions among everyday citizens, sparking weekly mass protests against the government. The assassination attempt underscores the volatile nature of Slovakia’s current political climate, highlighting deep-seated frustrations and divisions that threaten the stability and democratic fabric of this peaceful nation.

Slovakia emerged as an independent nation in 1993, bridging Slavic-speaking and Western Europe. Formerly part of the Soviet bloc and situated behind the Iron Curtain, Slovakia embraced democracy and freedom following the 1989 Velvet Revolution. Despite initial challenges in transitioning from a planned economy and totalitarian regime to a free-market economy and open democracy, Slovakia found its stride in the early 2000s. This progress culminated in its accession to the European Union in 2004, marking a significant milestone in its development.

Despite being a member of the Schengen Area, the Eurozone, and NATO, Slovakia and its leadership have grown increasingly skeptical of certain EU policies. This skepticism is particularly evident in the government’s stance on the migration crisis. During his third term, Prime Minister Fico firmly rejected the EU’s allocated migrant quotas among member-states, reflecting broader concerns about national sovereignty and the EU’s approach to overall migration management.

Another recent point of contention between Slovakia’s political views and those of Brussels is the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Prime Minister Fico has advocated for Ukraine to cede some of its territory to Russia, as a means to end the conflict, describing this as the only realistic solution.

Fico is also firmly opposed to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, arguing that such a move could provoke a broader conflict, potentially leading to World War III. Upon returning to power for the fourth time in October 2023, he vowed to halt Slovakia’s military aid to Ukraine, stating that doing the opposite only prolongs an unnecessary conflict. His government has opted to focus on humanitarian assistance instead.

All of these policies are contrary to the objectives of NATO and Ukraine’s Western allies.

On May 15, Prime Minister Fico was making a public appearance in the small town of Handlová, situated in the heart of Slovakia, following a government meeting. As he walked toward the crowd of sympathizers standing behind a railing, with an outreached and open hand, someone in the crowd shouted “Robbie (Robo) come here” and then fired five shots at him at close and in quick succession.

Fico was shot multiple times and gravely wounded.

The shooter, a 71-year-old writer, poet, and activist, was taken into custody and charged with attempted murder. His motives were ideologically driven, by his personal and political disillusionment with the new government’s policies, particularly the government’s opposition to providing military aide to Ukraine.

Immediately after the assassination attempt, there was a short period of national instability, as President Zuzana Čaputová and President-elect Peter Pellegrini used their influence to stabilize and calm the country amidst crisis and condone political violence. Both government and opposition forces were united in this stance. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Fico was moved from intensive care and is now undertaking treatment and working from his bedside at St. Michal’s hospital in Bratislava.

The deep divisions in Slovakia reflect the larger split in politics across the globe, between traditional and progressive worldviews. The attempted assassination has sparked broader questions and direct action by the government over which direction it should take in terms of dealing with political dissent and its potential to escalate into political violence.

Immediately after the shooting, emotions flared, particularly within Fico’s Smer Party and their coalition partners. Robert Fico has been a colleague, friend, and partner to some of them for decades. They were outraged and distraught at the attempted assassination, and at the man who self-identified with the opposition and its ideological values.

Concerns have been raised whether this is the beginning of a new wave of political violence. So far, all indications are that the situation is calming.;Meanwhile, in a pre-recorded 14-minute address to the nation released on the evening of June 5, Prime Minister Fico delivered an update to the Slovak people on the state his health and future plans. Despite suffering serious injuries from multiple gunshot wounds, Fico announced his intention to resume full-time work by the end of June or early July.

He opened his speech by recounting the harrowing incident on May 15. He forgave his assailant but also referred to him as a “messenger of evil and political hatred, which the politically unsuccessful and frustrated opposition has developed in Slovakia to unmanageable proportions.” Some have referred to his actions as further stoking the flames of Slovakia’s toxic political climate, rather than calming the situation. Immediately following the attack on the prime minster, the Slovak media signed a common statement condemning the violence. Likewise, the political opposition was quick to condemn the act and distance itself from the assailant. Nevertheless, in his address to the nation, Fico revealed that he had cautioned his colleagues about potential security threats in the weeks leading up to the attack.

As Slovakia navigates this turbulent period, the prime minister’s return could either reinforce stability or potentially inflame existing political tensions.

• This article was published at FPIF

There is an obscure mechanism by which fossil fuel companies maintain their global domination even as their products are destroying our futures. Most rank-and-file climate activists haven’t heard of it and most news media rarely discuss it in great detail. It is a tool that has its origins in colonialism and advantages corporate power over democracy. The technical term for such a tool is “Investor-state dispute settlement” or ISDS. And while it sounds boring and technical, it is crucial that we familiarize ourselves with it in order to dismantle it.

The;Global ISDS tracker, a newly launched online database, describes these as “secretive corporate tribunals.” When nations enter into trade agreements with one another, they usually include a clause on using the benign-sounding ISDS to resolve corporate disputes with national regulators. In other words, if a corporation originating in one nation sees its profits threatened by regulations or nationalization in another nation, it can sue that second government.

When applied to curbing carbon emissions in order to save our planet’s ability to sustain life, one can see that such tribunals can be extremely problematic. Country A decides to transition away from the oil and gas industry toward green, renewable energy. However, an oil company based in Country B sues via an ISDS agreement to extract its lost profits. That’s precisely what is happening, to the tune of $327 billion, according to the;Global ISDS Tracker. “[F]ossil fuel cases… can devastate public budgets or even bankrupt a country.”

For example,;Nigeria;is currently facing a massive set of damages determined by an ISDS tribunal to be paid to a UK-based company for a gas project to the tune of 30 percent of the entire nation’s foreign exchange reserves. And, foreign mining companies are demanding;$30 billion from the Republic of Congo;using ISDS tribunals. That’s twice the amount of Congo’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Former UN climate envoy and former Irish President;Mary Robinson, who said she was “outraged” when she found out about oil and gas companies using ISDS to extort nations, explained that “if countries do the;right;thing on climate, they have to compensate fossil fuel companies.”

Where did ISDSs come from and how are they remotely justifiable in an era when society broadly agrees on democracy as the best form of government? Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration;explained;in the context of the 2016 free trade agreement called the;Trans-Pacific Partnership, that “ISDS is specifically designed to protect American investors abroad from discrimination and denial of justice,” and that it is a “more peaceful, better way to resolve trade conflicts” compared to the “gunboat diplomacy” of earlier eras.

It is as if the United States’ only option has been to defend its corporations against other people’s democracies rather than allow private entities to fend for themselves. If only human beings were protected from “discrimination and denial of justice” to this extent!

According to a 2023;report;by David Boyd, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, “[o]f the 12 largest ISDS awards to date, 11 involve cases brought by fossil fuel and mining investors.” The $95 billion they extracted from nations using ISDS “likely exceeds the total amount of damages awarded by all courts to victims of human rights violations in all States worldwide, ever,” wrote Boyd.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning media outlet;Inside Climate News;prefers to call ISDS “economic colonialism,” especially given that “the majority of cases have been filed by corporations from the United States, Europe, and Canada against developing nations.” Colonialism is a fitting descriptor. Gus Van Harten explained in his 2020 book “The Trouble with Foreign Investor Protection,” that ISDS treaties “originate in the efforts of former colonial powers and international organizations, especially the World Bank, to constrain newly independent countries.” In other words, ISDS is a means by which to extend colonialism after the end of physical occupation.

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winning economist, prefers even harsher terminology. He called ISDS mechanisms “litigation terrorism,” because they “instill fear of environmental regulations, climate regulations because you know that it’s going to be costly” for governments.

British commentators had;pressured;the UK government to exit from treaties such as the “Energy Charter Treaty” (ECT) that require ISDS tribunals. In February 2024, the UK announced it would;quit;the ECT, following in the footsteps of France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands. Most recently Members of the European Parliament also;backed a proposal;to end its ECT membership. It was called a “historic” vote against a treaty seen as a “climate killer.”

It’s time for the U.S. to do the same. Last November, hundreds of climate justice and civil society groups;signed on to a letter;urging President Joe Biden to end ISDS mechanisms built into a trade agreement with nearly a dozen Latin American and Caribbean nations called Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. The signatories explained that ISDS was “a global governance regime that prioritizes corporate rights over those of governments, people, and the planet.”

This was followed by a similar;letter;in December 2023 signed by more than 40 lawmakers from the Senate and House urging Biden to remove ISDS provisions from all trade agreements. The signatories, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse, lauded Biden for his “powerful action when he shut down the Keystone XL pipeline project, preventing the construction of a tar sands oil pipeline,” and pointed out that “TC Energy (formerly known as TransCanada)—the company behind the now-defunct pipeline—has filed an ISDS claim for billions of dollars to be litigated not in an American court, but in a shady international tribunal.”

What good does it do Biden and the U.S. for him to be a climate champion if any steps he takes to undermine fossil fuel domination are countered by a powerful and secretive corporate weapon?

Momentum against ISDS provisions is growing. In April 2024, hundreds of academics in law and economics;also wrote to Biden;urging him to “eliminate ISDS liability from existing agreements,” and offering valuable expertise on how it can be done.

Biden had said in 2020 that he was against ISDS provisions—in spite of his role as Vice President to the pro-ISDS Obama. In a;letter;to the United Steelworkers union, he said “I oppose the ability of private corporations to attack labor, health, and environmental policies through the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, and I oppose the inclusion of such provisions in future trade agreements.” But what about current trade agreements?

It’s troubling that multinational corporations from the U.S. launched the;highest number of ISDS cases;worldwide. The U.S. is currently the;top producer;of crude oil in the world. U.S. oil and gas companies are reaping;extraordinarily high profits;while taking advantage of billions of dollars of public;subsidies;in the form of tax breaks. The least Biden can do to curb a deadly industry that is threatening our entire species is to take action against ISDS provisions in existing trade agreements.

• About the author: Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV (Dish Network, DirecTV, Roku) and Pacifica stations KPFK, KPFA, and affiliates. 
• Source: This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

By Laurent Geslin

(EurActiv) — Following the French parliament’s surprise dissolution announced by President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday [9 June], political manoeuvering has already started to form coalitions that could win the upcoming legislative election.

The election will be held in two rounds, on 30 June and 7 July, with candidacies expected to be put forward before Sunday 16th June.

Just twenty-four hours after the dissolution of the Assembly, time is already running out as there is an urgent need to reach broad political agreements.

The grand alliance of the far right

A few minutes after Macron’s announcement, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, whose party won resoundingly in the European elections, called on “the French people to come and join [her], to form around Rassemblement national a majority in the service of the only cause that guides our steps, France“.

Though in a strong position after winning 31.5% of the vote, Le Pen’s Rassemblement national (RN) still needs to broaden its electoral base to win legislative elections, in a two-round majority vote that will pit it directly against Macron’s party.

Le Pen’s niece Marion Maréchal, newly elected to the European Parliament under the banner of France’s second far-right party, Reconquête!, was careful during the campaign not to attack Le Pen head-on.

Last night, she was quick to explain “that the coalition of the right […] appears more necessary than ever“ to win the next elections, stressing that she had “always distinguished between opponents and competitors“.

Le Pen and her point man and rising political star, new RN leader Jordan Bardella, held a meeting with Maréchal already on Monday but no details were immediately disclosed.

The Republicans threatened with disintegration

The RN could also benefit from a wave of desertion among the conservative Les Republicans (LR, EPP), who are losing ground election after election. There are many examples of people defecting to the far right, starting with MEP Thierry Mariani, Nicolas Sarkozy’s former transport minister, who joined the RN in 2019.

The leader of the LR’s list for the European elections, François-Xavier Bellamy explained during the last presidential election that he felt closer to Reconquête! than to Macron.

“We obviously have no intention of forming an alliance, dissolving or denying ourselves“, he stressed to;Le Monde;on Sunday, feeling that the unity of his party could falter.

Macron is going to have to poach among the LR’s left wing. Rumours have been circulating for several weeks about the appointment of the President of the Senate, Gérard Larcher, to the job of prime minister, before the latter denied it.

But the Macron offensive is set to resume.

In an attempt to broaden Macron’s alliance-building potential, his minister for Europe and foreign affairs, Stéphane Séjourné, explained that Macron’s camp “will give the nomination“ to outgoing MPs, including opposition MPs, “who are part of the republican field“ and wish to “commit to a clear project“ around the presidential majority.

A fragile ‘popular front’

On the left, calls for the formation of a “popular front“ multiplied. Following the announcement of the dissolution, a few hundred activists from the Greens, the Socialist Party (PS, S&D), and the far-left La France Insoumise (LFI, The Left) gathered in central Paris to call for a “union of the left“.

Francois Ruffin, a member of parliament who sits with LFI but has retained freedom of tone that is relatively rare within the far-left party, also stressed the need to “stop the bullshit“ and unite the left;behind “a common banner“.

However, the broad leftist NUPES coalition, which won 25.66% of the vote in the first round of the 2022 parliamentary elections, broke up a long time ago.

In the meantime, differences between former leftist allies only increased in the EU elections, particularly on foreign policy issues such as the situation in Palestine and the war in Ukraine.

The socialist PS, led by Raphaël Glucksmann, once again became the leading left-wing party in the EU elections, with nearly 14% of the vote, and no one on the left seems ready to align with the disruptive positions of the leader of the Insoumis, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

“A rebalancing has resulted from the European elections and we have to take this into account“, Olivier Faure, the first secretary of the Socialist Party, explained on Monday (10 June) on;France Inter.

However, all the left-wing leaders are aware that they will be defeated if they fight isolated and that there are only a few days left to settle their differences.