Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
Aug. 25
The Washington Post says the U.S. is correct to weigh in as Mexico's rule of law is danger
This clash was long overdue. Last Thursday, the United States ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, published a statement lamenting President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s plan to emasculate the Mexican judiciary by ramming through “reform” legislation before his term ends Sept. 30. Mr. Salazar called the plan “a major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.”
AMLO, as the Mexican president is known, immediately fired back. At a news conference Friday, he denounced Salazar’s “unfortunate, imprudent statement,” which amounted to “a lack of respect for our sovereignty.” The Mexican foreign ministry sent a letter chastising the United States for intruding on topics “that are strictly the internal affairs of the Mexican State.”
They are not, though. At stake are judicial independence and the rule of law in a country that has known too little of either during its long history. Mr. López Obrador’s plan could also halt the economic integration of North America. Through their shared border and partnership in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, Mexico and the United States have mutual interests in issues spanning commerce, migration, organized crime and national security.
They justify Mr. Salazar’s concern that Mr. López Obrador’s “reform” lacks the “safeguards that will ensure the judicial branch will be strengthened and not subject to the corruption of politics” and “will threaten the historic trade relationship we have built, which relies on investors’ confidence in Mexico’s legal framework.” The United States had every right to weigh in, as did Canada, through its ambassador, Graeme Clark, who noted that Canadian investors are “concerned.” (Mr. López Obrador, unsurprisingly, said Mexico would also be sending a protest letter to the Canadians.)
Mr. López Obrador’s plan includes a scary expansion of the list of crimes for which the government can impose mandatory pretrial imprisonment. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, has previously argued that the practice violates human rights and demanded Mexico end the practice, which already accounts for about half of those incarcerated in Mexico. The plan would also dismantle several independent bodies established after the advent of multiparty democracy in 2000 to limit the power of the presidency.
The chapter that most worries Mr. Salazar and Mr. Clark would dismiss all current members of Mexico’s federal judiciary, including all the justices of the Supreme Court, then replace them via massive elections in 2025 and 2027. More than likely, Mr. López Obrador’s Morena party would win the lion’s share of the positions.
Mr. López Obrador is likely to get his way, however, because his party won overwhelming congressional majorities in June’s elections. He is within three (likely negotiable) Senate votes of the number needed to amend the constitution. His anointed successor as president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who won the presidency by a landslide, so far supports the plan.
Both claim the objective is to wring corruption out of the judiciary. This is a smokescreen. Mexico’s judiciary often dared to resist Mr. López Obrador’s more capricious policies, and those of his party. He wants to defeat it once and for all.
Judges, magistrates and federal court employees in Mexico have gone on strike to oppose the proposal. Judges outside of Mexico are also aghast. The Latin American Federation of Magistrates requested an audience with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to discuss “the critical state of judicial independence in the region.” Mr. López Obrador’s reform, the request argued, “aspires to subdue judges, infringing on the independence of the Judiciary.”
To be sure, Mexico’s justice system is dysfunctional and corrupt. But judges are the wrong target. As Human Rights Watch argued, Mr. López Obrador and Ms. Sheinbaum “should abandon their crusade against judges and commit to improving the weakest link in Mexico’s justice system: prosecutors’ offices.” Margaret Satterthwaite, U.N. special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, noted that politicizing Mexico’s judiciary increases the risk of corruption.
Ms. Sheinbaum still seems solidly behind her boss, posting about the election of some judges in U.S. states. That does not, however, offer much support for Mr. López Obrador’s cause. Voting for federal judges is extremely rare around the world, precisely because it undermines judicial independence.
Ms. Sheinbaum’s reluctance to disagree with Mr. López Obrador is perhaps understandable, given his control over the political apparatus on which her forthcoming presidency will depend. This is shortsighted, though. If her patron’s attempt to bring the judiciary to heel goes through, it will ensure that her first months, if not years, in office will be overshadowed by a fight over judicial independence. And it will threaten her avowed economic strategy, which hinges on integration with the North American economy.
In that sense, Mr. Salazar and Mr. Clark helped her cause. But she should find a way to disagree with this plan in her own voice. It would be a shame if judicial independence in Mexico died because Ms. Sheinbaum lacks political independence from Mr. López Obrador.
ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/25/mexico-judiciary-reform-usmca-democracy/
___
Aug. 25
The Wall Street Journal on the FTC case against Kroger-Albertsons merger
The Federal Trade Commission lawsuit to block the Kroger-Albertsons supermarket merger goes to trial this week, and the stakes are large for consumers. Chair Lina Khan is again contorting antitrust law and—get this— Kamala Harris is cheering this government bid to raise food prices.
Grocery competition has intensified with the expansion of dollar stores, limited-assortment discounters, warehouse centers and online retailers. Supermarkets such as Kroger and Albertsons have lost ground to lower-priced retailers. Their $24.6 billion merger aims to make them more competitive.
Kroger says the merger will save $1 billion for customers and $1 billion in higher wages and benefits for workers. Customer savings could be larger if competitors reduce prices in response. But Ms. Khan thinks the only good merger is a dead one, and she is using the case to test novel antitrust theories.
Start with how the FTC narrowly defines the market as traditional supermarkets. This excludes Walmart, Costco, Amazon, Trader Joe’s, Aldi and myriad other food retailers with different business models. The FTC says supermarkets offer “one-stop shopping.”
That’s true, but most people also shop around for variety and lower prices. Online commerce makes this easier. Consumers who shop at supermarkets typically frequent at least four other types of grocery retailers, such as club stores and supercenters. If Kroger raises prices, people have many alternatives.
The FTC’s claim that the merger will lead to excessive market concentration is also undermined by Kroger’s agreement to divest 579 of roughly 5,000 stores. Thus the agency is trying the novel argument that the merger will eliminate “head to head” competition. But this would mean competitors can never combine. No court has ever held this.
The FTC also offers the unprecedented theory that the merger violates antitrust law because it would reduce competition for “union grocery labor.” The Clayton Act forbids the monopolization of commodities and articles of commerce—not workers. The Supreme Court has said the government can’t use antitrust law to regulate labor relations.
The FTC says the merger would make it harder for unions to play Kroger and Albertsons against each other in collective bargaining since labor wouldn’t be able to leverage the threat of a strike at one store to encourage customers to shop at a unionized competitor. So the merger would result in less generous labor contracts.
Perhaps Ms. Khan doesn’t appreciate the irony of the agency’s argument. Collective-bargaining agreements and restrictive union work rules have made supermarkets less competitive. Supermarkets are merging to reduce costs with supply-chain efficiencies. The alternative might be to go out of business, as many have.
Progressives blame supermarket consolidation for higher prices. But grocery prices increased by a mere 13.4% in the decade before the pandemic, compared to 19% for prices overall and 17.5% for wholesale food prices. Competition and consolidation helped keep down prices until the Biden-era inflation.
Yet Ms. Harris has praised the FTC lawsuit, though a win for the agency would result in higher prices and potential job losses if stores close because they can’t compete. Ms. Khan doesn’t care. Her goal is to create legal uncertainty that discourages companies from even attempting to combine.
The FTC lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction against the merger while the agency tries the case in its administrative tribunal, which could take years. A delay could reduce the merger’s benefits, especially if stores close in the interim.
That’s why Kroger last week challenged the constitutionality of the FTC’s administrative process. Its lawsuit argues that the double for-cause removal protection for administrative law judges violates the Constitution’s command that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This extends the High Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010).
Kroger also cites the Court’s recent Jarkesy landmark to argue that only Article III courts can “adjudicate core private rights,” including the right of businesses to contract. This would mean the FTC can’t use its tribunals to adjudicate mergers or business deals it alleges are “unfair methods of competition.”
The Kroger countersuit won’t affect the federal trial, but it could result in curtailing the FTC’s power. The more Ms. Khan stretches the law, the more she undermines her agency’s authority.
___
Aug. 23
The Los Angeles Times says the honeymoon is over and Kamala Harris must make the case for her own presidency
In her speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris offered a withering indictment of her opponent that could constitute a case for her candidacy. Donald J. Trump, she rightly observed, is in many ways “an unserious man,” but the consequences of returning him to the White House “are extremely serious.”
She asked her audience to “consider the power he will have, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Just imagine Donald Trump with no guardrails, and how he would use the immense powers of the presidency of the United States. Not to improve your life, not to strengthen our national security, but to serve the only client he has ever had: himself.”
She introduced herself to voters who might not know her personal history and spoke of “a new way forward. Not as members of any one party or faction, but as Americans.” Harris did not focus on the fact that her election would mean elevating to the highest office in the land a woman of Black and Indian descent, a milestone for a country with a long history of excluding women and racial minorities from political power.
But now that the Democratic National Convention is over, the hard work for Harris begins. She must do more than repeat that Trump is unfit. She needs to make the complete case to the American people that she would do more to improve their lives and livelihoods. She must demonstrate her vision for the country and convince voters that she is prepared to be a “president for all Americans.”
She showed she is capable of this task with her commanding performance that gave the lie to Trump’s childish denunciation of Harris as “ a low IQ individual ” and conveyed a seriousness that Americans expect in their president.
Harris was especially forceful in promising that as commander in chief she would ensure that “America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” In a deserved dig at Trump, she added that “I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families, and I will always honor and never disparage their sacrifice.”
On the war in Gaza, Harris said that “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself,” and she noted that she and President Biden are “working around the clock” to secure a cease-fire and the return of hostages.
But she also said that “what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating.” Significantly, she added that she and Biden sought an outcome that would allow the Palestinian people to “realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.” Her remarks may have fallen short of what some antiwar activists would have liked, but they signaled a sensitivity to Palestinian lives that is too rare in Washington.
Harris also promised to revive a bipartisan border security bill that Trump sabotaged and to sign a bill to restore reproductive freedom and reverse the effect of the Supreme Court’s overruling of Roe vs. Wade. Trump, of course, has boasted that because of his three appointments to the court “ I was able to kill Roe vs. Wade. ” Finally, Harris promised that “building that middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency.”
As this compressed campaign continues, Harris will be pressed to provide additional details about her policies. She also must — and we’re confident she will — hold news conferences and sit down for interviews that will allow her to limn out her agenda. A televised debate with Trump on Sept. 10 will also offer her the opportunity to use her prosecutorial persuasion skills to contrast her vision for the country with that of the former president (such as it is).
But the challenge posed by Harris’ acceptance speech was to present herself to a national audience as a competent and committed leader who — unlike her unsavory opponent — can be trusted with the presidency. By that standard the speech was a resounding success.
___
Aug. 26
The Guardian says without a ceasefire deal in Gaza, the danger of regional war grows
The wave of Israeli air strikes in southern Lebanon on Sunday morning, and the hundreds of drones and rockets launched soon afterwards by Hezbollah, was the biggest exchange of hostilities across Israel’s northern border since the Hamas attacks of 7 October. As Gaza ceasefire negotiations continue to stall, and the appalling Palestinian death toll in that territory surpasses 40,000, the nightmare scenario of a regional war encompassing Lebanon and involving Hezbollah’s patron, Iran, remains frighteningly possible.
For now at least, despite the weekend’s reciprocal show of force, all parties appear keen to avoid such an outcome. In the brutal choreography that governs Israel’s relations with Hezbollah, Sunday’s attack will have been factored in by Jerusalem following Israel’s assassination of one of the organisation’s top commanders last month. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, emphasised that a decision had been taken not to risk Israeli civilian casualties in the assault, which targeted military locations and the Mossad spy base near Tel Aviv.
For his part, Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, stated that Israel did not desire an all-out conflict, having acted pre-emptively to destroy around 40 rocket sites. The absence of civilian deaths on either side points to a desire to calibrate levels of escalation while keeping options open. Iran, which has yet to retaliate after the assassination of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, is also using the language of restraint while guaranteeing that a response will come.
The caution underlines the vertiginously high stakes and reflects calculated self-interest. Israel is reluctant to open another front in the north, which would be costly in Israeli lives, and Hezbollah does not wish to risk a catastrophic repeat of the second Lebanon war in 2006. But the risk of miscalculation and unintended consequences, as messages are delivered via the medium of explosives, is high.
As domestic pressure mounts on Benjamin Netanyahu over the 80,000 Israelis displaced from the north by Hezbollah activity, it seems likely that he will make good on his promise that Sunday’s air raids were “not the end of the story”. At what point Iran may judge it necessary to intervene on behalf of its proxy counts as a known unknown.
In this ominous and fissile context, this week’s Gaza ceasefire negotiations, mediated in Cairo by Egypt, Qatar and the US, take on added significance. An end to the relentless suffering being inflicted on the Gazan people, and the return of the remaining hostages taken on 7 October, would remove Hezbollah’s immediate casus belli, and offer an opportunity to defuse regional tensions more widely.
Depressingly, the immediate prospects for a deal look slim amid disagreement over the continued presence of Israeli troops in Gaza. Mr Netanyahu’s self-interest lies in prolonging the conflict, appeasing the extreme right in his coalition government and postponing a political reckoning following 7 October. Faced with the anger of a nation to placate, and corruption charges hanging over him, his instinct for self-preservation has become the biggest obstacle to moving out of the cycle of violence that Hamas began.
For as long as that cycle is sustained, and the unconscionable plight of Palestinians in Gaza is allowed to continue, the dangers of a regional conflagration – whether by accident or design – will grow. This weekend’s eruption on Israel’s northern border, in scale if not in lethality, represents another threshold crossed.
___
Aug. 22
The Boston Globe on Ukraine taking the fight to Russia
A meme has been going around on Ukrainian social media lately that, loosely translated, says if the United States will only let Ukraine use its long-range missiles a limited distance from the Russian border, well then, simply move the border.
After two and one-half years of war unleashed by Russian president Vladimir Putin, the Ukrainian people apparently find humor where and when they can.
But there is no mistaking the seriousness of intent in Ukraine’s recent counterattack on Russia’s Kursk region, nor the historic significance of this first major foreign incursion into Russia since World War II, when the same region was the scene of an epic tank battle between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1943.
The current successful offensive has certainly been a boon to the morale of Ukrainian civilians and troops, a shock to Putin, and a surprise to official Washington — presumably not an unhappy one — which had indeed kept the Ukrainian military on a short leash when it came to the deployment of US-donated weaponry at or near the Russian border.
The Biden administration imposed the handcuffs because it didn’t want to escalate the war or come into open conflict with nuclear-armed Russia. But the rules, which continue to limit the use of some types of US weapons on Russian territory, also have the effect of limiting Ukraine’s military options.
Counterattacking the nation that launched a war against it is fully within Ukraine’s rights. And while Ukraine claims to have captured 93 settlements and occupies some 490 square miles of Russian territory (a claim Russia disputes), there seems to be no intention for a permanent annexation, but rather an attempt to use the captured territory as a possible bargaining chip in future peace negotiations.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in his Sunday evening address, said the operation was intended to create “a buffer zone on the aggressor’s territory.”
“Everything that inflicts losses on the Russian army, Russian state, their military-industrial complex, and their economy helps prevent the war from expanding and brings us closer to a just end to this aggression,” Zelensky said.
John Kirby, the US’s national security communications advisor, said that if Ukraine’s incursion into the western Russian region made Putin uncomfortable, “there’s an easy solution: He can just get the hell out of Ukraine and call it a day.”
Kirby did confirm earlier that “There’s been no changes in our policy approaches,” relative to the use of US weapons.
“They’re using it in an area where we had said before that they could use US weapons for cross-border strikes. The end goal here is to help Ukraine defend itself.”
Critical to the success of the offensive thus far has been the US-provided High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), mobile and capable of lobbing rockets and destroying Russian weaponry within a range of about 50 miles.
But it’s often not enough — hence that popular meme. The United States has not given permission to use other weapons systems, limiting Ukraine’s ability to protect itself.
The day before the Ukrainian offensive began, Yehor Cherniev, deputy chair of the Ukrainian Parliament’s Committee on National Security, Defense, and Intelligence, told the Globe editorial board: “Historically, Russia has built its airfields near its western border, so we’ve been asking for the lifting of restrictions on the use of long-range weapons. They’ve been sending guided bombs over the border that we haven’t been able to intercept.
“Every day it’s the same,” he added, “We can’t survive in the trenches forever. We have the missiles but it’s like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.”
Cherniev had just come from Washington, where he was making his pitch to the White House and to members of Congress.
One specific on Ukraine’s agenda is allowing it to use the long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), capable of being fired from the HIMARS, but with a range of 190 miles. Cherniev’s fondest hope is that if the United States signs off on its use, France and Britain will also lift restrictions on use of weapons those countries have provided.
“Look, we’re not talking about reaching the Kremlin here,” Cherniev said.
Also on Cherniev’s Washington shopping list was a speedup of the delivery of already committed US military aid — munitions and air defense materials. And indeed, several days after the Kursk operation the Pentagon released a $125 million tranche of those supplies.
And then, of course, there are those newly arrived F-16 fighter jets — just 10 of them so far of an eventual fleet of 79 and still awaiting their newly trained pilots — but still a huge boost to Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. But they are useful only to the extent that the United States and the rest of the international community allow them to be useful.
The real lesson of the Kursk incursion is that Ukraine has, by all accounts, shown it can plan and carry out a successful offensive with one hand tied behind its back — an operational hindrance that it has now certainly earned the right to have removed by the West.
Ukraine still faces an existential threat — this moment of triumph notwithstanding. But at the very least it has provided not just a buffer zone, as Zelensky has acknowledged, but a valuable commodity in any future peace negotiation.
ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/08/22/opinion/ukraine-takes-fight-russia/