Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Sign up here. July 9, 2024 |
|
|
France, 'Back From the Far-Right Brink' |
"C'est ouf," read the front-page headline of the left-leaning French daily Libération: "That's crazy." Indeed, the mainstream reaction to France's election result seemed to be surprise and relief.
After the far-right National Rally (RN) had surged in European Parliament elections last month, and again in the first round of snap elections called by President Emmanuel Macron in response to that result, it seemed the RN was poised to secure a legislative majority in the runoff round of voting on Sunday and form a government. Instead, the opposite happened. Agreements between the leftist New Popular Front (NFP) and Macron's centrist Ensemble coalition saw various candidates drop out to avoid splitting the anti-RN vote, and the far right ultimately finished third, with the NFP in first and Ensemble in second.
France has "edge[d] back from the far-right brink," the Financial Times declares in an editorial. Macron will have to reckon with his opponents as colleagues in government for the first time, but for the French president, "The predicted catastrophe did not occur," Nathalie Segaunes writes for the center-left French daily Le Monde.
And yet, it's not clear what comes next. New York Times Paris Bureau Chief Roger Cohen notes that Macron had sought "clarification" by calling snap elections, but instead parliamentary deadlock could follow, as the various factions try to sort out a governing coalition. Unlike other European parliamentary democracies, Cohen notes, France has no tradition of forging such compromises. "Instead of waking up on Monday to a country dominated by the far right," Cohen writes, "France awoke to becoming Italy, a country where only painstaking parliamentary negotiation may eventually yield a viable coalition government."
Some, in fact, argue that by losing, the RN has positioned itself for success in the 2027 French presidential election. By falling short of a legislative majority, far-right icon Marine Le Pen did herself "a favour because none of what is now unfolding is her fault," Jonathan Miller writes for The Spectator. "The chaos was authored by president Macron. Le Pen will reap the rewards." The FT's editorial board suggests the same, writing: "Despite its third place in the second round, the RN is nonetheless a strengthened force. It is the largest single party, as opposed to bloc or alliance, in the parliament. It will now receive millions of euros in additional state financing. And either a protracted power vacuum or a destabilising, tax-and-spend leftwing government could play into its hands." |
|
|
July 4 elections in the UK, by contrast, produced the widely predicted outcome: a landslide win for Labour and the collapse of the Conservatives' majority. Labour regained its so-called "red wall" of working-class constituencies that had swung toward the populist Conservative Boris Johnson in 2019.
Taking a granular look at the results, Marcus Ashworth writes for Bloomberg Opinion that the vote didn't reflect the rise of Labour so much as a strong showing by smaller parties that tipped the outcome: "The most notable winners … were the UK's smaller political parties, winning their biggest share of the votes in more than a century. The emergence of three distinct new political forces—the Green Party, the Reform Party and pro-Palestine independent MPs—has cracked, if not broken, the traditional Westminster mold, casting a weirdly European vibe over the UK political map. … No party in UK electoral history has won this big a majority with so few votes—[Labour] secured two-thirds of the seats with just one-third of the vote." Indeed, Labour's vote share (34%) only rose by about two percentage points from its devastating loss in 2019 (32.1%).
Some commentators are puzzling over how new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer will deliver on his promise of "change," given an unambitious campaign platform that proposed neither major fiscal redirection nor any effort to undo Brexit. At Project Syndicate, Anatole Kaletsky observes that Labour "holds positions that are indistinguishable from the defeated Conservatives" on spending and borrowing, relations with the EU, the challenges posed by Russia and China, and the UK's democratic system.
Before the vote, Philip Collins, a former speechwriter for the transformative Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, wrote for CNN Opinion that Starmer's Labour Party appears far less bold and different than Blair's did. Casting doubt on the degree of change Starmer's new government will bring, Collins concluded: "It may be that he has the momentum to win well but lacks the goodwill on which governments rely, especially when times are hard as, sadly, they will be." Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf observes: "Starmer's challenge, and that of his chancellor Rachel Reeves, is quite simple: he has promised to make things better while also changing very little. This caution was self-evidently excessive and will now make it far harder to govern." |
|
|
In yet another notable election result, Iranians chose the reformist heart surgeon and former health minister Masoud Pezeshkian over his hardline conservative opponent in Friday's presidential-election runoff. Analysts disagree over how much this result will mean.
In Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei makes the biggest decisions and retains ultimate power. (And elections, it should be noted, are not considered free or fair.) But before the vote, Ana Palacio argued in Project Syndicate that "the world should be paying attention. At a time of deep tensions and shifting alliances, the results will reverberate across the region and beyond." Iran may remain a nuclear-threshold state and may not seek any rapprochement with the US, Palacio wrote, but its revival of ties with Arab states last year moved its foreign policy into an interesting moment. The war in Gaza and the danger of another conflict between Israel and the Iran-allied Lebanese Islamist militia Hezbollah mean Iran's decisions will carry high stakes.
The Middle East Institute's Marjan Keypour is skeptical that much will change, writing: "Pezeshkian's election is unlikely to bring about significant domestic changes as key issues, like Iran's long-standing economic problems and the compulsory hijab rule, reflect the regime's priorities; there may be a glimmer of opportunity for Western nations interested in potential diplomatic engagement with Tehran though." In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Sanam Vakil of the British international-affairs think tank Chatham House noted various implications. For one, Vakil argued, low voter turnout showed that Iran is now a "status-quo power," not a vibrant revolutionary regime. Pezeshkian's election may provide a kind of opening for Western powers to deal with Tehran differently, in Vakil's view, but it will not usher in any wave of new rights for Iranian women. |
|
|
In Washington this week, NATO is holding a summit that coincides with the alliance's 75th anniversary. Uncertainty is deep, and tasks are tall. In a Foreign Policy preview, Robbie Gramer, Amy Mackinnon and Jack Detsch write: "[T]he birthday celebrations will be muted as Russia's war in Ukraine continues unabated and European allies simmer in quiet anxiety over the U.S. elections, President Joe Biden's frailty, and the prospect of a second term for former President Donald Trump." Attention will turn to the creation of a new command to coordinate assistance for Ukraine, questions over Ukraine's ambition to join NATO, Biden's struggling reelection campaign, and China's rise in importance (including as a partner for Moscow), they write.
On Ukraine's position at the summit, David J. Kramer, John Herbst and William Taylor write for Foreign Policy: "The more weapons, technology, and assistance provided to Ukraine and the faster it is done, the more successful Ukraine's outlook will be in defeating Russia. Success for Ukraine is difficult but by no means impossible. Failure is not an option." NATO may strain to find a way to offer Kyiv a "bridge" to future membership, and M.E. Sarotte writes for Foreign Affairs that NATO's Article 5 commitment—to defend any member against attack—is the crux of the problem with that. Were Ukraine a member of NATO, all allies would be obligated to join its war with Russia. Sarotte suggests a workaround: getting Kyiv to define provisional borders and promise to attack beyond them only for defensive purposes. |
|
|
| You are receiving this newsletter because you signed up for Fareed's Global Briefing.
To stop receiving this newsletter, unsubscribe or sign up to manage your CNN account | |
® © 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved.
1050 Techwood Drive NW, Atlanta, GA 30318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario