Arab analysts pan US presidential debate for ‘lack of substance’ on Middle East issues

Short Url
Updated 28 June 2024
Follow

Arab analysts pan US presidential debate for ‘lack of substance’ on Middle East issues

Arab analysts pan US presidential debate for ‘lack of substance’ on Middle East issues
  • Commentators say there was ‘little actual debate on the big issues around US foreign policy’
  • Believe event was notable for a lack of vision, personal attacks, and lackluster performances

ATLANTA, Georgia: Prominent US-based Arab commentators have reacted to Thursday night’s debate between President Joe Biden and challenger Donald Trump with a mixture of disapproval and disappointment, saying that the first head to head of the election campaign “lacked substance.”

Biden and Trump took part in a debate hosted by CNN at the network’s Atlanta headquarters without a studio audience present and in a format that cut microphones when candidates exceeded their speaking time or interrupted one another.

Amal Mudallali, a former Lebanese journalist and diplomat serving as the permanent representative of Lebanon to the UN, was disappointed by the performance of both candidates, calling it “the saddest debate I’ve ever seen in my life in America.

“It was not really a debate,” Mudallali told Arab News. “It was just name calling, and it was personal attacks.”




Amal Mudallali. (Supplied)

She added: “Even when you had questions about very important issues, the answers were either the candidate stumbling or the other one changing the subject or not answering the question.”

Indeed, many of the few exchanges on Middle East issues appeared to be personal attacks, lacking in depth and genuine policy discussion.

During the debate, Trump criticized Biden’s border policy, claiming it allowed terrorists into the US. “We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now,” he said. 

“All terrorists all over the world, not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere, all over the world. They’re pouring in. And this guy just left it open.”

Trump also highlighted the people his administration had killed while he was president, including Daesh leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi and Iran’s Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani. 

Biden fired back at Trump, saying: “Iran attacked American troops, and he didn’t do a thing.” 

Trump also claimed Hamas would never have mounted the Oct. 7 attack on Israel had he been president because the Palestinian militant group’s Iranian backers would not have had the means under his strict sanctions regime. 

“Israel would have never been invaded in a million years by Hamas. You know why? Because Iran was broke with me,” he said. “I wouldn’t let anybody do business with them. They ran out of money. They were broke. They had no money for Hamas. They had no money for anything. No money for terror.”

The approach to US policy on Iran does appear to be an area in which Biden and Trump differ, with the former preferring to try and contain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions through the Obama-era deal he helped broker and the latter favoring a “maximum pressure” campaign.

“The point of greatest difference between a President Trump versus a President Biden is certainly Iran,” Firas Maksad, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Arab News. 

“One favors more pressure and containment, while the other prefers diplomacy and attempting to accommodate Tehran’s regional ambitions.”

Given the tone of the debate, Mudallali felt that neither contender won.




Displaced Palestinians evacuate the Mawassi area in southwest Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on June 28, 2024, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. (AFP)

“There is no winner in this debate,” she said. “There’s only one loser, and it’s the United States of America that does not have a better candidate or better candidates that rise to its role in the world, to its importance, to its capability.”

Mudallali said that what “little was discussed” about the conflict in Ukraine and violence in the Middle East, including the war in Gaza and the armed exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah along the Lebanese border, was “the most disappointing part” of the debate.

“At a time when you have two major conflicts in the world, in Europe and in the Middle East, where you have thousands of people dying in Gaza, 37,000, and thousands and thousands of people in Ukraine, you see that a foreign policy debate in this debate was shallow. It was nonexistent,” she said.

“There was no debate, no vision for America’s role for peace, for how we’re going to end these wars, how we’re going to finish this tragedy that’s going on. It was really, very, very sad to see that, to see that there is no real foreign policy debate.

“There is no attempt to present a vision for the day after or the next day in the world, and how America and its role can contribute to ending these two conflicts.”

Rana Abtar, a Washington D.C.-based talk show host for Asharq News, echoed the view of many commentators, saying that the debate had, above all, shone a spotlight on Biden’s limitations as a candidate.

“It was obvious during this debate that President Biden was struggling with his speech and his performance,” Abtar told Arab News. “This will definitely not help him with the voters who have serious doubts and questions about his age.”




Rana Abtar. (Supplied)

However, Abtar said that Trump’s performance also had its shortcomings. “Trump, as usual, had a better performance. But he misstated a lot of facts,” she said. “This will not help him with independent voters. He needs their votes in order to win this election cycle.”

Abtar said that the debate was heavily focused on domestic issues. “As expected, we heard a lot about the economy,” she said. “This is the number one topic that the American voter cares about.

“We heard a lot of talk about immigration, a lot of attacks from President Trump on Biden, on the Biden administration’s performance when it comes to immigration, and we heard a lot of talk about abortion. This is mainly to attract the female vote. Both Trump and Biden are trying to win the female vote in order to also win the election in November.

“What was interesting also was a focus on the vote of African Americans, and this is also a very important vote for both candidates to win the election in November.”

As a result of the focus on domestic issues, Abtar said that neither candidate delved substantively into foreign affairs.

“Both candidates were asked a lot of questions regarding foreign policy,” she said. “We heard a lot of talk about Russia and Ukraine.

“Trump, as expected, attacked President Biden when it comes to his policy toward Russia. He claimed the war in Ukraine wouldn’t have happened on his watch. In return, Biden attacked back, and he talked about the threats of Trump leaving NATO during his presidency.

“But the main issue that was presented was obviously the Gaza war, and Trump wasn’t very clear on his stance regarding a Palestinian state.”

Abtar said that Biden was likewise vague on his Middle East stance, leaving regional watchers none the wiser about the likely direction the administration will take should the incumbent be returned to office.




Interceptions of rockets launched from Lebanon to Israel over the border, amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces. (Reuters)

“When it comes to Biden, he talked about his plan of a ceasefire, of the release of the hostages, but also his plan wasn’t clear in his statements,” said Abtar.

“So, in reality, we heard two very vague statements from the candidates, from the current president and the ex-president, without having anything substantial, any policy.”

Referring to the Biden administration’s Gaza peace plan, first presented in May but yet to be accepted by Israel and Hamas, Abtar said that little clue was given about potential next steps.

“Although Biden presented this plan, and this proposal, it seems that it has reached a dead end,” she said. “The answers were not clear in that regard.”

Highlighting his peace plan during the debate, Biden said “the first stage is to treat the hostages for a ceasefire” and the “second phase is a ceasefire with additional conditions.” 

He went on to say that he was supplying Israel with everything they needed, minus a 2000-pound bomb, because “they don’t work very well in populated areas. They kill a lot of innocent people. We are providing Israel with all the weapons they need and when they need them.”

Joyce Karam, a veteran journalist and senior news editor at Al-Monitor, was likewise struck by the lackluster performance from Biden.

“This was a very bad debate for President Joe Biden,” she told Arab News. “I can tell you as someone who had interviewed Biden when he was vice president and covered him in previous races, and had seen him in multiple debates, this was definitely his worst.




Joyce Karam. (Supplied)

“The decline in his performance was just obvious — the voice, the style, the delivery. The American president, he looked frail and he just looked weak.”

Karam believes that Trump came out on top in part due to the weakness of Biden’s performance.

“There is a consensus among observers that Donald Trump won this debate, and won it handily, not because he offered popular policies or visionary ideas, but because Biden was incoherent,” she said.

“You just couldn’t understand sometimes what he (Biden) was saying, and he just couldn’t finish a sentence.”

The question among many commentators now is whether the Democratic Party will rally behind Biden’s candidacy or seek a last-minute change to their nominee to run for the presidency in November.

“I’m not sure that these two men (Biden and Trump) will debate again, or that Biden will ultimately be the Democratic nominee,” said Karam.

“The chatter has already started on Biden perhaps forgoing a second term and announcing that he has changed his mind and will not run for reelection. And then we may see an open Democratic convention in Chicago.”




A child holds up Palestinian flags as protesters, mainly Houthi supporters, take part in a demonstration in Sanaa, Yemen in solidarity with Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, June 28, 2024. (Reuters)

Returning to the theme of Thursday night’s clash, Karam said that the 90-minute debate lacked “much substance” on many issues, including the Middle East and the conflict in Gaza.

“Most of the discussion was around the economy, social issues, healthcare, Medicare, the deficit, which is typical on these occasions,” she said. “What we saw, however, especially from Trump, was plenty of cliche statements, and from both candidates we didn’t see much, actually, of substance, when it came to the Middle East.

In one of the more memorable moments of the debate, Trump said Biden “has become like a Palestinian. But they don’t like him because he is a very bad Palestinian. He is a weak one.”

Reacting to the comment, Karam said: “Trump accusing Biden of being a ‘bad Palestinian’ is just another level, and Biden did not exactly have convincing responses when he was asked about ending the war in Gaza and supporting Israel. It was the same talking points from the candidates that we heard in the last few months on the campaign trail.”

Karam said there was “little actual debate on the big issues around US foreign policy” and on issues like how Trump would achieve his stated aim of ending the war in Ukraine. Instead there was a lot of “lofty talk, a lot of cliche statements, very little substance.”

There was also “little on the global power competition between the US and China. There was almost nothing on the future of the US presence and influence in the Middle East, and absolutely nothing that I heard on Iran’s nuclear program.”

No matter who ultimately secures the keys to the White House in November, Maksad of the Middle East Institute believes some kind of normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia will be a priority for any incoming administration.

“There are few things that enjoy bipartisan consensus in America these days, but for the importance of encouraging greater regional integration in the Middle East, with potential Saudi-Israeli normalization as its centerpiece,” he said.

 


Mounting economic costs of India’s killer smog

Mounting economic costs of India’s killer smog
Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

Mounting economic costs of India’s killer smog

Mounting economic costs of India’s killer smog
  • India’s capital New Delhi frequently ranks among the world’s most polluted cities
  • One study estimate India’s economic losses due to worsening air pollution at $95 billion yearly

 

NEW DELHI: Noxious smog smothering the plains of north India is not only choking the lungs of residents and killing millions, but also slowing the country’s economic growth.
India’s capital New Delhi frequently ranks among the world’s most polluted cities. Each winter, vehicle and factory emissions couple with farm fires from surrounding states to blanket the city in a dystopian haze.
Acrid smog this month contains more than 50 times the World Health Organization recommended limit of fine particulate matter — dangerous cancer-causing microparticles known as PM2.5 pollutants, that enter the bloodstream through the lungs.
Experts say India’s worsening air pollution is having a ruinous impact on its economy — with one study estimating losses to the tune of $95 billion annually, or roughly three percent of the country’s GDP.
The true extent of the economic price India is paying could be even greater.
“The externality costs are huge and you can’t assign a value to it,” said Vibhuti Garg, of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
Bhargav Krishna of the Delhi-based research collective Sustainable Futures Collaborative said “costs add up in every phase.”
“From missing a day at work to developing chronic illness, the health costs associated with that, to premature death and the impact that has on the family of the person,” Krishna told AFP.

A school teacher conducts an online class near a basketball court at Swami Sivananda Memorial Institute in New Delhi on Nov. 22, 2024. (AFP)


Still, several studies have tried to quantify the damage.
One by the global consultancy firm Dalberg concluded that in 2019, air pollution cost Indian businesses $95 billion due to “reduced productivity, work absences and premature death.”
The amount is nearly three percent of India’s budget, and roughly twice its annual public health expenditure.
“India lost 3.8 billion working days in 2019, costing $44 billion to air pollution caused by deaths,” according to the study which calculated that toxic air “contributes to 18 percent of all deaths in India.”
Pollution has also had a debilitating impact on the consumer economy because of direct health-related eventualities, the study said, reducing footfall and causing annual losses of $22 billion.
The numbers are even more staggering for Delhi, the epicenter of the crisis, with the capital province losing as much as six percent of its GDP annually to air pollution.
Restaurateur Sandeep Anand Goyle called the smog a “health and wealth hazard.”
“People who are health conscious avoid stepping out so we suffer,” said Goyle, who heads the Delhi chapter of the National Restaurant Association of India.
Tourism has also been impacted, as the smog season coincides with the period when foreigners traditionally visit northern India — too hot for many during the blisteringly hot summers.
“The smog is giving a bad name to India’s image,” said Rajiv Mehra of the Indian Association of Tour Operators.
Delhi faces an average 275 days of unhealthy air a year, according to monitors.

Piecemeal initiatives by the government — that critics call half-hearted — have failed to adequately address the problem.
Academic research indicates that its detrimental impact on the Indian economy is adding up.
A 2023 World Bank paper said that air pollution’s “micro-level” impacts on the economy translate to “macro-level effects that can be observed in year-to-year changes in GDP.”
The paper estimates that India’s GDP would have been 4.5 percent higher at the end of 2023, had the country managed to curb pollution by half in the previous 25 years.
Another study published in the Lancet health journal on the direct health impacts of air pollution in 2019 estimated an annual GDP deceleration of 1.36 percent due to “lost output from premature deaths and morbidity.”
Desperate emergency curbs — such as shuttering schools to reduce traffic emissions as well as banning construction — come with their own economic costs.
“Stopping work for weeks on end every winter makes our schedules go awry, and we end up overshooting budgets,” said Sanjeev Bansal, the chairman of the Delhi unit of the Builders Association of India.
Pollution’s impact on the Indian economy is likely to get worse if action is not taken.
With India’s median age expected to rise to 32 by 2030, the Dalberg study predicts that “susceptibility to air pollution will increase, as will the impact on mortality.”
 


Biden praises COP29 deal, vows US action despite Trump

Biden praises COP29 deal, vows US action despite Trump
Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

Biden praises COP29 deal, vows US action despite Trump

Biden praises COP29 deal, vows US action despite Trump
  • Biden hailed the goal as “ambitious,” though poorer nations quickly decried it as inadequate
  • As agreed, developed nations will pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters

WASHINGTON: US President Joe Biden praised the COP29 deal Saturday as a “significant step” to fighting global warming, and pledged continued action by America despite his incoming successor Donald Trump’s climate skepticism.
“While there is still substantial work ahead of us to achieve our climate goals, today’s outcome puts us one significant step closer,” Biden said in a statement.
After two exhausting weeks of negotiations in Azerbaijan, the pact hammered out commits developed nations to pay at least $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries green their economies and prepare for worse disasters.
Biden hailed the goal as “ambitious,” though poorer nations quickly decried it as inadequate.
The Baku meeting kicked off shortly after Trump won a new term in the White House, potentially setting the stage for him to undo actions by Biden’s administration.
Biden, who leaves office on January 20, said he was “confident” the United States “will continue this work: through our states and cities, our businesses, and our citizens, supported by durable legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act.”
“While some may seek to deny or delay the clean energy revolution that’s underway in America and around the world, nobody can reverse it — nobody.”
 


A $300B a year deal for climate cash at UN summit sparks outrage for some and hope for others

A $300B a year deal for climate cash at UN summit sparks outrage for some and hope for others
Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

A $300B a year deal for climate cash at UN summit sparks outrage for some and hope for others

A $300B a year deal for climate cash at UN summit sparks outrage for some and hope for others

BAKU, Azerbaijan: United Nations climate talks adopted a deal to inject at least $300 billion annually in humanity’s fight against climate change, aimed at helping developing nations cope with the ravages of global warming in tense negotiations.
The $300 billion will go to developing countries who need the cash to wean themselves off the coal, oil and gas that causes the globe to overheat, adapt to future warming and pay for the damage caused by climate change’s extreme weather. It’s not near the full amount of $1.3 trillion that developing countries were asking for, but it’s three times a deal of $100 billion a year from 2009 that is expiring. Some delegations said this deal is headed in the right direction, with hopes that more money flows in the future.
But it was not quite the agreement by consensus that these meetings usually operate with and some developing nations were livid about being ignored.
COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev gaveled the deal into acceptance before any nation had a chance to speak. When they did they blasted him for being unfair to them, the deal for not being enough and the world’s rich nations for being too stingy.

“It’s a paltry sum,” India negotiator Chandni Raina said, repeatedly saying how India objected to rousing cheers. “I’m sorry to say we cannot accept it.”
She told The Associated Press that she has lost faith in the United Nations system.
After a deal, nations express their discontent
A long line of nations agreed with India and piled on, with Nigeria’s Nkiruka Maduekwe, CEO of the National Council on Climate Change, calling the deal an insult and a joke.
“I’m disappointed. It’s definitely below the benchmark that we have been fighting for for so long,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey, of the Panama delegation. He noted that a few changes, including the inclusion of the words “at least” before the number $300 billion and an opportunity for revision by 2030, helped push them to the finish line.
“Our heart goes out to all those nations that feel like they were walked over,” he said.
The final package pushed through “does not speak or reflect or inspire confidence,” India’s Raina said.
“We absolutely object to the unfair means followed for adoption,” Raina said. “We are extremely hurt by this action by the president and the secretariat.”

Evans Njewa, an environmental officer at Malawi's Environmental Affairs Department, attends the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 23, 2024. (REUTERS)

Speaking for nearly 50 of the poorest nations of the world, Evans Davie Njewa of Malawi was more mild, expressing what he called reservations with the deal. And the Alliance of Small Island States’ Cedric Schuster said he had more hope “that the process would protect the interests of the most vulnerable” but nevertheless expressed tempered support for the deal.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a post on X that he hoped for a “more ambitious outcome.” But he said the agreement “provides a base on which to build.”
Some see deal as relief following tough talks
There were somewhat satisfied parties, with European Union’s Wopke Hoekstra calling it a new era of climate funding, working hard to help the most vulnerable. But activists in the plenary hall could be heard coughing over Hoekstra’s speech in an attempt to disrupt it.
Eamon Ryan, Ireland’s environment minister, called the agreement “a huge relief.”
“It was not certain. This was tough,” he said. “Because it’s a time of division, of war, of (a) multilateral system having real difficulties, the fact that we could get it through in these difficult circumstances is really important.”
UN Climate Change’s Executive Secretary Simon Stiell called the deal an “insurance policy for humanity,” adding that like insurance, “it only works if the premiums are paid in full, and on time.”

Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, speaks during a closing plenary meeting at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 24, 2024. (REUTERS)

The deal is seen as a step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases that are due early next year. It’s part of the plan to keep cutting pollution with new targets every five years, which the world agreed to at the UN talks in Paris in 2015.
The Paris agreement set the system of regular ratcheting up climate fighting ambition as away to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. The world is already at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) and carbon emissions keep rising.
Hopes that more climate cash will follow
Countries also anticipate that this deal will send signals that help drive funding from other sources, like multilateral development banks and private sources. That was always part of the discussion at these talks — rich countries didn’t think it was realistic to only rely on public funding sources — but poor countries worried that if the money came in loans instead of grants, it would send them sliding further backward into debt that they already struggle with.

Wopke Hoekstra, EU climate commissioner, speaks to members of the media at the COP29 UN Climate Summit,  on Nov. 24, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan. (AP)

“The $300 billion goal is not enough, but is an important down payment toward a safer, more equitable future,” said World Resources Institute President Ani Dasgupta. “This deal gets us off the starting block. Now the race is on to raise much more climate finance from a range of public and private sources, putting the whole financial system to work behind developing countries’ transitions.”
And even though it’s far from the needed $1.3 trillion, it’s more than the $250 billion that was on the table in an earlier draft of the text, which outraged many countries and led to a period of frustration and stalling over the final hours of the summit.
Other deals agreed at COP29
The several different texts adopted early Sunday morning included a vague but not specific reference to last year’s Global Stocktake approved in Dubai. Last year there was a battle about first-of-its-kind language on getting rid of the oil, coal and natural gas, but instead it called for a transition away from fossil fuels. The latest talks only referred to the Dubai deal, but did not explicitly repeat the call for a transition away from fossil fuels.
Countries also agreed on the adoption of Article 6, creating markets to trade carbon pollution rights, an idea that was set up as part of the Paris Agreement to help nations work together to reduce climate-causing pollution. Part of that was a system of carbon credits, allowing nations to put planet-warming gasses in the air if they offset emissions elsewhere. Backers said a UN-backed market could generate up to an additional $250 billion a year in climate financial aid.
Despite its approval, carbon markets remain a contentious plan because many experts say the new rules adopted don’t prevent misuse, don’t work and give big polluters an excuse to continue spewing emissions.
“What they’ve done essentially is undermine the mandate to try to reach 1.5,” said Tamara Gilbertson, climate justice program coordinator with the Indigenous Environmental Network. Greenpeace’s An Lambrechts, called it a “climate scam” with many loopholes.
With this deal wrapped up as crews dismantle the temporary venue, many have eyes on next year’s climate talks in Belem, Brazil.
 


Daesh group claims attack on Sufi shrine in Afghanistan

An Afghan policeman stands guard in Kabul. (AFP file photo)
An Afghan policeman stands guard in Kabul. (AFP file photo)
Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

Daesh group claims attack on Sufi shrine in Afghanistan

An Afghan policeman stands guard in Kabul. (AFP file photo)
  • A local resident, who said he knew victims of the attack, said worshippers had gathered at the Sayed Pasha Agha shrine on Thursday evening

KABUL: Daesh (IS-K), the terrorist group’s branch in Afghanistan, on Saturday claimed responsibility for a gun attack that left 10 people dead at a Sufi shrine in northern Baghlan province.
Taliban authorities in Kabul have repeatedly said they have defeated IS-K, but the group regularly claims responsibility for attacks, notably against Sufi or Shiite minorities, targets they consider heretical.
On Friday, interior ministry spokesman Abdul Matin Qani told AFP that a gunman opened fire on Sufis “taking part in a weekly ritual” at a shrine in a remote area of Nahrin district, killing 10 people.
A local resident, who said he knew victims of the attack, said worshippers had gathered at the Sayed Pasha Agha shrine on Thursday evening.
They had begun a Sufi chant when “a man shot at the dozen worshippers,” he said on condition of anonymity.
“When people arrived for morning prayers, they discovered the bodies,” he added.
The UN special rapporteur for human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, wrote on X: “Religious minorities remain under grave threat. More prevention, protection & justice needed.”
The Daesh group accuses Sufis of worshipping more than one god because of their devotion to saints.
In mid-September, the group claimed responsibility for an attack in central Afghanistan that killed 14 people who had gathered to welcome pilgrims returning from Karbala in Iraq, one of the holiest sites for Shiites.

 


India opposes COP29 finance deal after it is adopted

India opposes COP29 finance deal after it is adopted
Updated 24 November 2024
Follow

India opposes COP29 finance deal after it is adopted

India opposes COP29 finance deal after it is adopted

BAKU: India strongly objected to a climate finance deal agreed at the United Nations COP29 summit on Sunday, but their objection was raised after the deal was formally adopted by consensus.
“I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document,” Indian delegation representative Chandni Raina told the closing plenary session of the summit.