WASHINGTON: The International Monetary Fund on Friday said its executive board approved a $2.2 billion disbursement to Ukraine for budget support and urged external donors to keep up support for the war-torn country amid a deteriorating economic outlook.
The IMF’s approval of the fourth review of the four-year, Extended Fund Facility brings total disbursements to $7.6 billion, nearly half of the $15.6 billion program approved in March 2023.
The IMF said in a statement that Ukraine’s performance under the extended fund facility program remains strong despite challenging conditions, with quantitative targets met and structural benchmarks implemented on time or with a short delay.
While Ukraine’s economy performed strongly during the first quarter of 2024, the outlook for the second half of 2024 and into 2025 has deteriorated, amid increased Russian attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure and deteriorating consumer and business sentiment as the war evolves.
The fund adjusted downward its 2024 GDP growth forecast for Ukraine to a range of 2.5-3.5 percent, compared to a prior forecast of 3.2 percent in the April World Economic Outlook.
The IMF program is part of a package of external support, mostly from donor countries that it estimates at about $122 billion over the four-year program window. The IMF said a downside scenario would require $141 billion in external financing.
Neither estimate includes the potential proceeds from a
$50 billion loan
that the G7 industrial democracies have agreed to grant Ukraine, backed by the earnings from frozen Russian assets, said Gavin Gray, the IMF’s Ukraine mission chief.
Gray told reporters that the IMF would reassess Ukraine’s financing framework should the loan be completed, but it was important that the use of Russian assets has “sufficient legal underpinnings” and does not undermine the functioning of the global financial system.
“Above all, continued support from all external partners is essential for Ukraine to sustain the progress on growth and stability, which has been achieved over the past year,” Gray said. “Without these resources, the hard-won macro-stabilization gains could be jeopardized.”
Gray said that he did not expect the weaker economic outlook to have a material impact on Ukraine’s negotiations with bondholders to restructure its debt, which are based on a medium-term framework that remains largely unchanged. He added that there have recently been “intensifying discussions” with bondholders and the IMF expects a completion of the negotiations in coming weeks.
IMF approves $2.2bn disbursement to Ukraine after loan review
https://arab.news/89vt4
IMF approves $2.2bn disbursement to Ukraine after loan review
Hungary takes EU presidency echoing Trump but likely to lack bite
- In launching a Trump-like call to make to “Make Europe Great Again”, Hungary's PM promises to be an honest broker
- Hungary has a history of blocking or delaying funds and arms for Ukraine, as well as maintaining ties with Moscow
BUDAPEST/BRUSSELS: Hungary’s nationalist government launches its presidency of the European Union on Monday with a Trump-like call to “Make Europe Great Again” after EU lawmakers questioned whether it should be allowed to take on the role.
Their concerns are based on Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s many clashes with Brussels over democratic norms.
Hungarian diplomats say the country will be an honest broker, while analysts say Budapest’s actions at the forefront of EU policy-making are likely to be restricted given that Brussels is in a transition phase following elections in June.
The presidency’s role is to set the agenda, chair meetings of EU members in all fields except foreign or euro zone matters, seek consensus among EU member states and broker agreements on legislation with the European Parliament.
It will take months for a new European Commission and the new members of parliament to be in their stride, analysts say.
That means that, even though far-right gains politicians potentially sympathetic to Hungary’s priorities made gains in the EU elections, the presidency’s ability to drive policy through is limited.
“There’ll only be a small influence on the legislative agenda. That starts much later, possibly at the end of the year, possibly at the beginning of next year,” said Pavel Havlicek, research fellow at the Association for International Affairs.
Hungary has said its priorities include pushing western Balkan membership of the EU, illegal migration and economic competitiveness.
Critics note its enlargement push does not include Ukraine.
Hungary has a history of blocking or delaying funds and arms for Ukraine, as well as maintaining ties with Moscow. It has also criticized EU efforts to cut dependence on China.
Ahead of its assumption of the EU presidency, the bloc hurried through new sanctions against Russia and launched membership talks with Ukraine.
Susi Dennison, senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said a “ballsy” presidency launch suggested Hungary might seek to push its nationalist line.
Johannes Greubel, senior policy analyst at the European Policy Center, said some of priorities, such as on competitiveness, struck a chord with the rest of the EU, but this would likely be combined with right-wing rhetoric on migration, the Ukraine war and the rule of law.
“It is a presidency of a mixed narrative, but far-right elements will prevail.”
Explainer: How the French snap election runoff works and what comes next
- If the National Rally or another political force than his centrist alliance gets a majority, Macron will be forced to appoint a prime minister belonging to that new majority
- In such a situation — called “cohabitation” in France — the government would implement policies that diverge from the president’s plan
PARIS: French voters face a decisive choice on July 7 in the runoff of snap parliamentary elections that could see the country’s first far-right government since the World War II Nazi occupation — or no majority emerging at all.
Projections by polling agencies suggest the far-right National Rally stands a good chance of winning a majority in the lower house of parliament for the first time, but the outcome remains uncertain amid the complex voting system.
In Sunday’s first round, the National Rally arrived ahead with an estimated one-third of the votes. The New Popular Front coalition that includes center-left, greens and hard-left forces came out in second position, ahead of President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist alliance.
Here’s a closer look:
How does it work?
The French system is complex and not proportionate to nationwide support for a party. Legislators are elected by district.
Over 60 candidates who won at least 50 percent of Sunday’s vote have been elected outright.
In addition, the top two contenders, alongside anyone else who won support from more than 12.5 percent of registered voters, are qualified for the second round.
In many districts, three people made it to the second round, though some tactics to block far-right candidates have already been announced: The left-wing coalition said it would withdraw its candidates in districts when they arrived in third position in order to support other politicians opposed to the far right. Macron’s centrist alliance also said some of its candidates would step down before the runoff to block the National Rally.
This makes the result of the second round uncertain, despite polls showing that the National Rally party has a good chance to win an absolute majority, that is at least 289 out of the 577 seats.
The National Assembly, the lower house, is the more powerful of France’s two houses of parliament. It has the final say in the law-making process over the Senate, dominated by conservatives.
Macron has a presidential mandate until 2027, and said he would not step down before the end of his term.
What’s cohabitation?
If the National Rally or another political force than his centrist alliance gets a majority, Macron will be forced to appoint a prime minister belonging to that new majority.
In such a situation — called “cohabitation” in France — the government would implement policies that diverge from the president’s plan.
France’s modern Republic has experienced three cohabitations, the last one under conservative President Jacques Chirac, with Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, from 1997 to 2002.
The prime minister is accountable to the parliament, leads the government and introduces bills.
“In case of cohabitation, policies implemented are essentially those of the prime minister,” political historian Jean Garrigues said.
The president is weakened at home during cohabitation, but still holds some powers over foreign policy, European affairs and defense because he is in charge of negotiating and ratifying international treaties. The president is also the commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces, and is the one holding the nuclear codes.
“It’s possible for the president to prevent or temporarily suspend the implementation of a certain number of the prime minister’s projects, since he has the power to sign or not sign the government’s ordinances or decrees,” Garrigues added.
“Yet the prime minister has the power to submit these ordinances and decrees to a vote of the National Assembly, thus overriding the president’s reluctance,” he noted.
Who leads defense and foreign policies?
During previous cohabitations, defense and foreign policies were considered the informal “reserved field” of the president, who was usually able to find compromises with the prime minister to allow France to speak with one voice abroad.
Yet today, both the far-right and the leftist coalition’s views in these areas differ radically from Macron’s approach and would likely be a subject of tension during a potential cohabitation.
According to the Constitution, while “the president is the head of the military, it’s the prime minister who has the armed forces at his disposal,” Garrigues said.
“In the diplomatic field also, the president’s perimeter is considerably restricted,” Garrigues added.
Far-right leader Jordan Bardella, who could becomes prime minister if his party wins the majority of the seats, said he intends “to be a cohabitation prime minister who is respectful of the Constitution and of the President of the Republic’s role but uncompromising about the policies we will implement.”
Bardella said that if he were to become prime minister, he would oppose sending French troops to Ukraine — a possibility Macron has not ruled out. Bardella also said he would refuse French deliveries of long-range missiles and other weaponry capable of striking targets within Russia itself.
What happens if there’s no majority?
The president can name a prime minister from the parliamentary group with the most seats at the National Assembly — this was the case of Macron’s own centrist alliance since 2022.
Yet the National Rally already said it would reject such an option, because it would mean a far-right government could soon be overthrown through a no-confidence vote if other political parties join together.
The president could try to build a broad coalition from the left to the right, an option that sounds unlikely, given the political divergences.
Prime Minister Gabriel Attal hoped Sunday to be able to have enough centrist lawmakers to build “a majority of projects and ideas” with other “Republican forces,” which may include those from the center-left and the center-right.
Experts say another complex option would be to appoint “a government of experts” unaffiliated with political parties but which would still need to be accepted by a majority at the National Assembly. Such a government would likely deal mostly with day-to-day affairs rather than implementing major reforms.
If political talks take too long amid summer holidays and the July 26-Aug. 11 Olympics in Paris, Garrigues said a “transition period” is not ruled out, during which Macron’s centrist government would “still be in charge of current affairs,” pending further decisions.
“Whatever the National Assembly looks like, it seems that the Constitution of the 5th Republic is flexible enough to survive these complex circumstances,” Melody Mock-Gruet, a public law expert teaching at Sciences Po Paris, said in a written note. “Institutions are more solid than they appear, even when faced with this experimental exercise.”
“Yet there remains another unknown in the equation: the population’s ability to accept the situation,” Mock-Gruet wrote.
Joe Biden’s disastrous debate blamed on bad preparation, exhaustion
- As Biden and his aides settled in at Camp David six days before the debate, aides figured he had a lot to accomplish, more than his opponent
President Joe Biden’s train-wreck debate with Republican opponent Donald Trump followed a series of decisions by his most senior advisers that critics now point to as wrong-headed, interviews with Democratic allies, donors and former and current aides show.
Trump, 78, repeated a series of well-worn, glaring falsehoods during the 90-minute debate on Thursday, including claims that he actually won the 2020 election.
Biden, 81, failed to refute them and his fumbling, halting performance has sparked calls from Democrats for him to end his quest for a second term and for “soul-searching” or resignations among top aides.
“My only request was make sure he’s rested before the debate, but he was exhausted. He was unwell,” said one person who said they appealed to Biden’s top aides in the days before, to no avail. “What a bad decision to send him out looking sick and exhausted.”
Others were even more pointed.
“It is my belief that he was over-coached, over-practiced. And I believe [senior aide] Anita Dunn... put him in a venue that was conducive for Trump and not for him,” said John Morgan, a Florida-based attorney and major Biden fundraiser.
Morgan suggested Dunn and other aides “be fired forever and never let back anywhere near the campaign.”
Biden’s debate strategy was signed off on by campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon, who helped him win in 2020 and was appointed in January to boost an uneven reelection campaign. Dunn, a longtime Biden aide and former Barack Obama campaign strategist, backed that strategy.
Confidence going into the event was high. Trump was convicted of falsifying documents by a jury in New York on May 31, while Biden held back-to-back visits in Europe.
To the surprise of some Biden aides, his stubbornly low poll numbers began to inch up nationally in the weeks that followed.
Advisers set up a rigorous debate prep calendar, with Biden sequestered at Camp David for six days.
An inner circle, some close to Biden for decades, were involved: Ron Klain, his first White House chief of staff, Dunn, former White House counsel and Dunn’s husband Bob Bauer and long-time adviser Mike Donilon, as well as about a dozen other policy and political experts.
Biden’s campaign said on Friday that no staff shake-up was under consideration. A spokesman for Dunn said multiple aides were involved in the preparation, and noted that Morgan was not there.
In an email to supporters Saturday, O’Malley Dillon said internal polls and focus groups showed no change in voters’ opinions in battleground states after the debate. She warned “overblown media narratives” may drive “temporary dips in the polls,” but said she was confident Biden would win in November.
FACTS AND ZINGERS
Biden’s trips abroad, especially to France earlier this month, generated Republican social media clips poking fun at his age but, his team believed, it also showed him as a strong leader on an international stage.
White House aides who traveled with the president were in a good mood as he headed to Camp David on June 21. They believed Biden was going into the debate with the most precious political asset: momentum, the wind at his back.
Biden had flown to France, back to the United States, to Italy, and to the West Coast, among other travels, over a 14-day period before taking just a few days to rest at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
He was dragging, according to several people who observed him during this period.
As Biden and his aides settled in at Camp David six days before the debate, aides figured he had a lot to accomplish, more than his opponent. Trump could just complain about the present administration — and Biden would need the facts and some zingers at his fingertips.
They expected Trump would be far more disciplined and prepared than he had been in 2020 and believed that they would need to counter a string of rapid-fire lies.
In lengthy prep sessions, they peppered Biden with details, then followed them up with mock debates.
Critics say now that the preparation should have focused on the bigger vision he needs to sell to the country, and that Biden had insufficient rest headed into the debate.
Run down, Biden would also catch a small cold, White House aides said, as he has regularly during his term after long stretches of time zone-bending work.
The result, critics say, was candidate Biden at his worst: He appeared on stage with his face wan, his hair straggly at his collar and his voice hoarse. He was frequently incoherent.
“I’ve never seen him perform that way before,” said Michael LaRosa, former special assistant to President Biden and press secretary for first lady Jill Biden.
“He can run circles around most people on matters of complex policy,” LaRosa said. “This was always going to be a matter of presentation and cosmetics, and superficial judgments that were going to be made about his performance. And he wasn’t able to clear the bar.”
NEW DEBATE FORUM
Earlier this year, some Biden aides discussed whether he should debate Trump at all, arguing that it could give Trump a broad public platform that would disadvantage Biden.
Then Biden himself, in an April interview with shock jock Howard Stern, delivered a decision on debating Trump that was a surprise to some advisers. “I am, somewhere,” he said.
The triumphant memory of his State of the Union address in March fresh in their minds, Biden’s team geared up to debate but took radical steps to control the terms.
They decided to reject three long-scheduled presidential debates in September and October organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, still smarting over the group’s handling of the 2020 debates.
Trump repeatedly violated the rules of what would be a chaotic first debate in 2020, showing up despite having tested positive for COVID-19, and talking over Biden relentlessly.
His team tried to set the contest on their own terms, with what they saw as a more pliant host in CNN. No audience cheering Trump’s invective. Networks and moderators inclined to challenge Trump. No Robert F. Kennedy Jr. A mute button.
The day after the debate, Biden bounced back with a forceful speech in North Carolina, and a pledge to keep going. Many donors and Democrats are rallying around him.
But the damage has been done.
Asked on Sunday whether the Democratic Party was discussing a new 2024 candidate, Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin told MSNBC: “There are very honest and serious and rigorous conversations taking place at every level of our party, because it is a political party and we have differences in point of view.”
Raskin added: “Whether he’s the candidate or someone else is the candidate, he’s going to be the keynote speaker at our convention.”
UK govt, British Airways sued over 1990 Kuwait hostage crisis
- British government files released in November 2021 revealed that the UK ambassador to Kuwait informed London about reports of an Iraqi incursion before the flight landed but the message was not passed on to BA
LONDON: Passengers and crew of a British Airways flight who were taken hostage in Kuwait in 1990 have launched legal action against the UK government and the airline, a law firm said Monday.
People on BA flight 149 were taken off the Kuala Lumpur-bound plane when it landed in the Gulf state on August 2 that year, hours after Iraq’s then leader Saddam Hussein invaded the country.
Some of the 367 passengers and crew spent more than four months in captivity, including as human shields against Western attacks on the Iraqi dictator’s troops during the first Gulf war.
Ninety-four of them have filed a civil claim at the High Court in London, accusing Britain’s government and BA of “deliberately endangering” civilians, said McCue Jury & Partners.
“All of the claimants suffered severe physical and psychiatric harm during their ordeal, the consequences of which are still felt today,” the law firm added.
The action claims that the UK government and the airline “knew the invasion had started” but allowed the flight to land anyway.
They did so because the flight was used to “insert a covert special ops team into occupied Kuwait,” the firm added.
“We were not treated as citizens but as expendable pawns for commercial and political gain,” said Barry Manners, who was on the flight and is taking part in the claim.
“A victory over years of cover-up and bare-faced denial will help restore trust in our political and judicial process,” he added.
British government files released in November 2021 revealed that the UK ambassador to Kuwait informed London about reports of an Iraqi incursion before the flight landed but the message was not passed on to BA.
There have also been claims, denied by the government, that London knowingly put passengers at risk by using the flight to deploy undercover operatives and delayed take-off to allow them to board.
The UK government refused to comment on ongoing legal matters.
British Airways has always denied accusations of negligence, conspiracy and a cover-up.
The airline did not respond to a request for comment from AFP but said last year that the records released in 2021 “confirmed British Airways was not warned about the invasion.”
McCue Jury & Partners had announced in September its intention to file the suit, saying then that the hostages “may claim an estimated average of £170,000 ($213,000) each in damages.”
In 2003, a French court ordered BA to pay 1.67 million euros to the flight’s French hostages, saying it had “seriously failed in its obligations” to them by landing the plane.
US justice department wants Boeing to plead guilty to fraud over fatal crashes, lawyers say
- Boeing will have until the end of the coming week to accept or reject the offer
- Families of the 346 people who died in the 2018 and 2019 crashes want Boeing to face a criminal trial and to pay a $24.8 billion fine
The US Justice Department is pushing Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud in connection with two deadly plane crashes involving its 737 Max jetliners, according to several people who heard federal prosecutors detail a proposed offer Sunday.
Boeing will have until the end of the coming week to accept or reject the offer, which includes the giant aerospace company agreeing to an independent monitor who would oversee its compliance with anti-fraud laws, they said.
The case stems from the department’s determination that Boeing violated an agreement that was intended to resolve a 2021 charge of conspiracy to defraud the US government. Prosecutors alleged at the time that Boeing misled regulators who approved the 737 Max and set pilot-training requirements to fly the plane. The company blamed two relatively low-level employees for the fraud.
The Justice Department told relatives of some of the 346 people who died in the 2018 and 2019 crashes about the plea offer during a video meeting. The family members, who want Boeing to face a criminal trial and to pay a $24.8 billion fine, reacted angrily. One said prosecutors were gaslighting the families; another shouted at them for several minutes when given a chance to speak.
“We are upset. They should just prosecute,” said Massachusetts resident Nadia Milleron, whose 24-year-old daughter, Samya Stumo, died in the second of two 737 Max crashes. “This is just a reworking of letting Boeing off the hook.”
Prosecutors told the families that if Boeing rejects the plea offer, the Justice Department would seek a trial in the matter, meeting participants said. Justice Department officials presented the offer to Boeing during a meeting later Sunday, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Boeing and the Justice Department declined to comment.
The plea deal would take away the ability of US District Judge Reed O’Connor to increase Boeing’s sentence for a conviction, and some of the families plan to ask the Texas judge to reject the deal if Boeing agrees to it.
“The underlying outrageous piece of this deal is that it doesn’t acknowledge that Boeing’s crime killed 346 people,” said Paul Cassell, one of the lawyers for victims’ families. “Boeing is not going to be held accountable for that, and they are not going to admit that that happened.”
Sanjiv Singh, a lawyer for 16 families who lost relatives in the October 2018 Lion Air crash off Indonesia, called the plea offer “extremely disappointing.” The terms, he said, “read to me like a sweetheart deal.”
Another lawyer representing families who are suing Boeing, Mark Lindquist, said he asked the head of the Justice Department’s fraud section, Glenn Leon, whether the department would add additional charges if Boeing turns down the plea deal. “He wouldn’t commit one way or another,” Lindquist said.
The meeting with crash victims’ families came weeks after prosecutors told O’Connor that the American aerospace giant breached the January 2021 deal that had protected Boeing from criminal prosecution in connection with the crashes. The second one took place in Ethiopia less than five months after the one in Indonesia.
A conviction could jeopardize Boeing’s status as a federal contractor, according to some legal experts. The company has large contracts with the Pentagon and NASA.
However, federal agencies can give waivers to companies that are convicted of felonies to keep them eligible for government contracts. Lawyers for the crash victims’ families expect that would be done for Boeing.
Boeing paid a $244 million fine as part of the 2021 settlement of the original fraud charge. The Justice Department is likely to seek another, similar penalty as part of the new plea offer, said a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing to discuss an ongoing case.
The deal would include a monitor to oversee Boeing — but the company would put forward three nominees and have the Justice Department pick one, or ask Boeing for additional names. That provision was particularly hated by the family members on the call, participants said.
The Justice Department also gave no indication of moving to prosecute any current or former Boeing executives, another long-sought demand of the families.
Lindquist, a former prosecutor, said officials made clear during an earlier meeting that individuals – even CEOs – can be more sympathetic defendants than corporations. The officials pointed to the 2022 acquittal on fraud charges of Boeing’s chief technical pilot for the Max as an example.
It is unclear what impact a plea deal might have on other investigations into Boeing, including those following the blowout of a panel called a door plug from the side of a Boeing Max 9 during an Alaska Airlines flight in January.
