SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Dressed as corporate lobbyists, Friends of the Earth Europe and Oxfam constructed a huge blockade of leaky oil barrels and bags of coal, to symbolise the dirty energy companies blocking action on climate change. These polluting companies are spending millions every year to prevent the transition to a clean, community-controlled energy future. (Photo: FOE Europe/cc/flickr)
What's at Stake as EU Leaders Sit Down to Hammer out the Next Batch of Energy and Climate Targets?
Renewables targets, gas wars, power outages and nuclear subsidies - possibly the biggest energy issues over the past few years and all linked in one way or another to deals made in the EU over the direction of the continent's energy and climate policy.
Today EU leaders are sitting down to hammer out the targets for the next 15 years, through to 2030.
Oct 23, 2014
Renewables targets, gas wars, power outages and nuclear subsidies - possibly the biggest energy issues over the past few years and all linked in one way or another to deals made in the EU over the direction of the continent's energy and climate policy.
Today EU leaders are sitting down to hammer out the targets for the next 15 years, through to 2030.
Whether we like it or not (let's not go there right now) the decisions they make - each with their own veto - will have a bigger impact on our bills, our energy security and our emissions than anything which happens at a national level.
What's more, the targets they agree will have a big impact on the EU's negotiating position in Paris in a year's time when global leaders get together to try and cut a deal which will shift our energy use toward renewables and away from oil, gas and coal enough to avoid the more catastrophic effects of climate change.
So what's at stake today? Well much of the deal has already been decided and the devil will - as always - lie in the detail. Here's the skinny:
1. OK, so, broad brush strokes, what are we going to get?
It's all about targets. EU leaders are likely to agree 3 targets to be reached by 2030, including:
- A domestic 40% carbon dioxide reduction target, to be divided up amongst member states (compared to 1990 levels)
- A renewable energy target for something like 27-30%
- A target for a 30% cut in energy use through greater efficiency
2. Righto, is that a lot, a little?
It really depends where you are standing. If it's Warsaw then you might think this is a pretty ambitious package, given Poland has repeatedly threatened to veto any deal which undermines its coal industry.
If you are in, say, the Maldives (or a floodplain) it may not look so great. Here's the thing. In line with the scientific evidence on climate change - and global agreements about how to share the burden - the EU is committed to cutting emissions by 80-95% in 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) to reduce the risk of global temperatures going above 2 degrees and forcing you into a houseboat.
Cutting emissions by 40% (around 8% more than the commission estimates will happen anyway) by 2030 means you still have another 60% to go in just 20 years. Put another way, you have to cut the amount of oil, gas and coal you burn by two thirds in just two decades.
"I don't think many people have grasped just how huge this task is," Professor Jim Skea, a vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC.
"It is absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented. My guess is that 40% for 2030 is too little too late if we are really serious about our long-term targets."
The targets for renewable energy and efficiency are also hard to gauge because - as EU wide targets - it's not totally/at all clear how they will be implemented by the commission.
If you are sitting in a wind turbine factory you may note that the EU is already committed to a 20% renewable energy target and the commission's own analysis suggests that without any new policies at all it would reach 24% by 2030.
Indeed the new target would slow down the growth of renewables from 6.4% a year from 2010-2020 to 1.4% a year for the following decade (based on the commission's assessment).
As for efficiency analysis by E3G EU unit suggests that a 30% target would amount to a 12% saving on current demand projections - so, a cut, but not a huge one.
The commission has calculated that with an efficiency target of 40 per cent, the EU could reduce gas imports by 40% and oil imports by 19%, compared to 2010. A target of 30% would only cut Europe's gas imports by 22% and oil imports by 16%.
We're not sure if this will unduly trouble Gazprom.
3. But like it or hate it the deal's done, today is just a formality right?
Not quite. To start with, the Polish could yet veto everything - just to add a bit of frissant to proceedings.
Assuming things don't play out that way, there are some seemingly arcane arguments going on around the details.
The summit will agree the precise level of the targets on efficiency and renewables - with big impacts on energy imports and the clean energy sector.
It will also decide on some quite important wording. Will the target for emissions say "at least" 40%, suggesting the EU may be willing to negotiate something more ambitious during the global climate summit?
Will the EU renewables and efficiency targets be "binding" suggesting that even if they are not at national level some mechanism has to be found to force their implementation?
Consider the difference between a package which allows no room for change and has few mechanisms for implementation and one with at least a promise of implementation and the possibility of future negotiation. It's dull, but it does matter (whichever you prefer).
4. What does business think?
Actually that's something of a bone of contention. UK consumers will certainly see the difference either way - will they be buying gas or wind power in future? Will the UK's emissions targets be adjusted down, or up with all the changes that brings?
EU businesses are fairly split. Some large energy firms such as EDF, EON, RWE etc with very large existing investments in oil, coal and gas have publicly lobbied against what they see as excessive ambition at an EU level, especially in the form of renewables.
Firms with less to lose, or perhaps more to gain, from the growth of a "clean economy" such as IKEA and Philips have called for far more ambitious targets, whilst some energy firms with investments in renewables have called for a higher target there (albeit not much higher).
5. What isn't being agreed?
One sacrifice to Polish agreement on the deal is likely to be reform of Europe's largely moribund carbon market. If it goes unreformed it may mean continuing free allocations of carbon allowances for industries - and possibly Polish coal plants.
Whilst this may still allow the EU to meet its modest 2030 target it has the effect of reducing the incentive for these sectors (or countries) to make long term investments in cleaner energy making the dash to the finish after 2030 tricky.
Indeed an analysis by Sandbag suggests that coal burning may fall by around 23% through to 2030, a fairly modest fall compared to the 100% EU leaders are targeting shortly afterwards.
Indeed an analysis by CAN Europe, WWF and Greenpeace found the vast majority of the estimated 12bn euros of European allowances and transfers intended to tackle climate change and diversify the energy mix between 2013-19 will instead be spent on coal.
Further reading:
Billions in EU allowances spent on coal
EU's environmental policies could fail to limit coal burning
Can the UK cut it's reliance on gas imports
Policy Notebook: How can EU leaders tackle climate change, and UKIP
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
© 2023 Greenpeace
Renewables targets, gas wars, power outages and nuclear subsidies - possibly the biggest energy issues over the past few years and all linked in one way or another to deals made in the EU over the direction of the continent's energy and climate policy.
Today EU leaders are sitting down to hammer out the targets for the next 15 years, through to 2030.
Whether we like it or not (let's not go there right now) the decisions they make - each with their own veto - will have a bigger impact on our bills, our energy security and our emissions than anything which happens at a national level.
What's more, the targets they agree will have a big impact on the EU's negotiating position in Paris in a year's time when global leaders get together to try and cut a deal which will shift our energy use toward renewables and away from oil, gas and coal enough to avoid the more catastrophic effects of climate change.
So what's at stake today? Well much of the deal has already been decided and the devil will - as always - lie in the detail. Here's the skinny:
1. OK, so, broad brush strokes, what are we going to get?
It's all about targets. EU leaders are likely to agree 3 targets to be reached by 2030, including:
- A domestic 40% carbon dioxide reduction target, to be divided up amongst member states (compared to 1990 levels)
- A renewable energy target for something like 27-30%
- A target for a 30% cut in energy use through greater efficiency
2. Righto, is that a lot, a little?
It really depends where you are standing. If it's Warsaw then you might think this is a pretty ambitious package, given Poland has repeatedly threatened to veto any deal which undermines its coal industry.
If you are in, say, the Maldives (or a floodplain) it may not look so great. Here's the thing. In line with the scientific evidence on climate change - and global agreements about how to share the burden - the EU is committed to cutting emissions by 80-95% in 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) to reduce the risk of global temperatures going above 2 degrees and forcing you into a houseboat.
Cutting emissions by 40% (around 8% more than the commission estimates will happen anyway) by 2030 means you still have another 60% to go in just 20 years. Put another way, you have to cut the amount of oil, gas and coal you burn by two thirds in just two decades.
"I don't think many people have grasped just how huge this task is," Professor Jim Skea, a vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC.
"It is absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented. My guess is that 40% for 2030 is too little too late if we are really serious about our long-term targets."
The targets for renewable energy and efficiency are also hard to gauge because - as EU wide targets - it's not totally/at all clear how they will be implemented by the commission.
If you are sitting in a wind turbine factory you may note that the EU is already committed to a 20% renewable energy target and the commission's own analysis suggests that without any new policies at all it would reach 24% by 2030.
Indeed the new target would slow down the growth of renewables from 6.4% a year from 2010-2020 to 1.4% a year for the following decade (based on the commission's assessment).
As for efficiency analysis by E3G EU unit suggests that a 30% target would amount to a 12% saving on current demand projections - so, a cut, but not a huge one.
The commission has calculated that with an efficiency target of 40 per cent, the EU could reduce gas imports by 40% and oil imports by 19%, compared to 2010. A target of 30% would only cut Europe's gas imports by 22% and oil imports by 16%.
We're not sure if this will unduly trouble Gazprom.
3. But like it or hate it the deal's done, today is just a formality right?
Not quite. To start with, the Polish could yet veto everything - just to add a bit of frissant to proceedings.
Assuming things don't play out that way, there are some seemingly arcane arguments going on around the details.
The summit will agree the precise level of the targets on efficiency and renewables - with big impacts on energy imports and the clean energy sector.
It will also decide on some quite important wording. Will the target for emissions say "at least" 40%, suggesting the EU may be willing to negotiate something more ambitious during the global climate summit?
Will the EU renewables and efficiency targets be "binding" suggesting that even if they are not at national level some mechanism has to be found to force their implementation?
Consider the difference between a package which allows no room for change and has few mechanisms for implementation and one with at least a promise of implementation and the possibility of future negotiation. It's dull, but it does matter (whichever you prefer).
4. What does business think?
Actually that's something of a bone of contention. UK consumers will certainly see the difference either way - will they be buying gas or wind power in future? Will the UK's emissions targets be adjusted down, or up with all the changes that brings?
EU businesses are fairly split. Some large energy firms such as EDF, EON, RWE etc with very large existing investments in oil, coal and gas have publicly lobbied against what they see as excessive ambition at an EU level, especially in the form of renewables.
Firms with less to lose, or perhaps more to gain, from the growth of a "clean economy" such as IKEA and Philips have called for far more ambitious targets, whilst some energy firms with investments in renewables have called for a higher target there (albeit not much higher).
5. What isn't being agreed?
One sacrifice to Polish agreement on the deal is likely to be reform of Europe's largely moribund carbon market. If it goes unreformed it may mean continuing free allocations of carbon allowances for industries - and possibly Polish coal plants.
Whilst this may still allow the EU to meet its modest 2030 target it has the effect of reducing the incentive for these sectors (or countries) to make long term investments in cleaner energy making the dash to the finish after 2030 tricky.
Indeed an analysis by Sandbag suggests that coal burning may fall by around 23% through to 2030, a fairly modest fall compared to the 100% EU leaders are targeting shortly afterwards.
Indeed an analysis by CAN Europe, WWF and Greenpeace found the vast majority of the estimated 12bn euros of European allowances and transfers intended to tackle climate change and diversify the energy mix between 2013-19 will instead be spent on coal.
Further reading:
Billions in EU allowances spent on coal
EU's environmental policies could fail to limit coal burning
Can the UK cut it's reliance on gas imports
Policy Notebook: How can EU leaders tackle climate change, and UKIP
Renewables targets, gas wars, power outages and nuclear subsidies - possibly the biggest energy issues over the past few years and all linked in one way or another to deals made in the EU over the direction of the continent's energy and climate policy.
Today EU leaders are sitting down to hammer out the targets for the next 15 years, through to 2030.
Whether we like it or not (let's not go there right now) the decisions they make - each with their own veto - will have a bigger impact on our bills, our energy security and our emissions than anything which happens at a national level.
What's more, the targets they agree will have a big impact on the EU's negotiating position in Paris in a year's time when global leaders get together to try and cut a deal which will shift our energy use toward renewables and away from oil, gas and coal enough to avoid the more catastrophic effects of climate change.
So what's at stake today? Well much of the deal has already been decided and the devil will - as always - lie in the detail. Here's the skinny:
1. OK, so, broad brush strokes, what are we going to get?
It's all about targets. EU leaders are likely to agree 3 targets to be reached by 2030, including:
- A domestic 40% carbon dioxide reduction target, to be divided up amongst member states (compared to 1990 levels)
- A renewable energy target for something like 27-30%
- A target for a 30% cut in energy use through greater efficiency
2. Righto, is that a lot, a little?
It really depends where you are standing. If it's Warsaw then you might think this is a pretty ambitious package, given Poland has repeatedly threatened to veto any deal which undermines its coal industry.
If you are in, say, the Maldives (or a floodplain) it may not look so great. Here's the thing. In line with the scientific evidence on climate change - and global agreements about how to share the burden - the EU is committed to cutting emissions by 80-95% in 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) to reduce the risk of global temperatures going above 2 degrees and forcing you into a houseboat.
Cutting emissions by 40% (around 8% more than the commission estimates will happen anyway) by 2030 means you still have another 60% to go in just 20 years. Put another way, you have to cut the amount of oil, gas and coal you burn by two thirds in just two decades.
"I don't think many people have grasped just how huge this task is," Professor Jim Skea, a vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told the BBC.
"It is absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented. My guess is that 40% for 2030 is too little too late if we are really serious about our long-term targets."
The targets for renewable energy and efficiency are also hard to gauge because - as EU wide targets - it's not totally/at all clear how they will be implemented by the commission.
If you are sitting in a wind turbine factory you may note that the EU is already committed to a 20% renewable energy target and the commission's own analysis suggests that without any new policies at all it would reach 24% by 2030.
Indeed the new target would slow down the growth of renewables from 6.4% a year from 2010-2020 to 1.4% a year for the following decade (based on the commission's assessment).
As for efficiency analysis by E3G EU unit suggests that a 30% target would amount to a 12% saving on current demand projections - so, a cut, but not a huge one.
The commission has calculated that with an efficiency target of 40 per cent, the EU could reduce gas imports by 40% and oil imports by 19%, compared to 2010. A target of 30% would only cut Europe's gas imports by 22% and oil imports by 16%.
We're not sure if this will unduly trouble Gazprom.
3. But like it or hate it the deal's done, today is just a formality right?
Not quite. To start with, the Polish could yet veto everything - just to add a bit of frissant to proceedings.
Assuming things don't play out that way, there are some seemingly arcane arguments going on around the details.
The summit will agree the precise level of the targets on efficiency and renewables - with big impacts on energy imports and the clean energy sector.
It will also decide on some quite important wording. Will the target for emissions say "at least" 40%, suggesting the EU may be willing to negotiate something more ambitious during the global climate summit?
Will the EU renewables and efficiency targets be "binding" suggesting that even if they are not at national level some mechanism has to be found to force their implementation?
Consider the difference between a package which allows no room for change and has few mechanisms for implementation and one with at least a promise of implementation and the possibility of future negotiation. It's dull, but it does matter (whichever you prefer).
4. What does business think?
Actually that's something of a bone of contention. UK consumers will certainly see the difference either way - will they be buying gas or wind power in future? Will the UK's emissions targets be adjusted down, or up with all the changes that brings?
EU businesses are fairly split. Some large energy firms such as EDF, EON, RWE etc with very large existing investments in oil, coal and gas have publicly lobbied against what they see as excessive ambition at an EU level, especially in the form of renewables.
Firms with less to lose, or perhaps more to gain, from the growth of a "clean economy" such as IKEA and Philips have called for far more ambitious targets, whilst some energy firms with investments in renewables have called for a higher target there (albeit not much higher).
5. What isn't being agreed?
One sacrifice to Polish agreement on the deal is likely to be reform of Europe's largely moribund carbon market. If it goes unreformed it may mean continuing free allocations of carbon allowances for industries - and possibly Polish coal plants.
Whilst this may still allow the EU to meet its modest 2030 target it has the effect of reducing the incentive for these sectors (or countries) to make long term investments in cleaner energy making the dash to the finish after 2030 tricky.
Indeed an analysis by Sandbag suggests that coal burning may fall by around 23% through to 2030, a fairly modest fall compared to the 100% EU leaders are targeting shortly afterwards.
Indeed an analysis by CAN Europe, WWF and Greenpeace found the vast majority of the estimated 12bn euros of European allowances and transfers intended to tackle climate change and diversify the energy mix between 2013-19 will instead be spent on coal.
Further reading:
Billions in EU allowances spent on coal
EU's environmental policies could fail to limit coal burning
Can the UK cut it's reliance on gas imports
Policy Notebook: How can EU leaders tackle climate change, and UKIP
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Bombs Yemen After Houthis Revive Blockade on Israeli Ships
"U.S. officials are escalating deadly attacks on one of the poorest and most devastated nations in the Middle East, while recklessly pushing the U.S. toward a wider regional war with Iran," said one peace group.
Mar 15, 2025
This is a developing news story... Please check back for possible updates.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he had ordered the military to "launch decisive and powerful" action against the Houthis in war-torn Yemen, a glaring contradiction of what critics have called the Republican's "anti-war charade."
The U.S. bombing follows Trump redesignating the Houthis—also known as Ansar Allah—as a terrorist organization shortly after returning to office in January and comes just days after the group renewed a blockade on Israeli ships.
Shuaib Almosawa reported earlier this week for Drop Site News that "the military spokesperson for the Houthi-led government in Yemen on Tuesday announced the resumption of the naval blockade targeting Israeli ships traversing Yemen's waterways, following the expiration of its deadline for Israel to allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip."
"In a televised statement broadcast by Almasirah TV channel, Houthi spokesperson, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, said that the blockade on Israeli ships now covers Yemen's waterways in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait," according to Almosawa, a freelance journalist based in the Yemeni capital Sanaa.
Trump's lengthy Saturday post on his Truth Social platform did not explicitly mention Israel or Gaza. He said in part that "funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at U.S. aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies. These relentless assaults have cost the U.S. and World Economy many BILLIONS of Dollars while, at the same time, putting innocent lives at risk."
Almosawa reported Saturday that at least nine civilians have been killed in Trump's new bombing campaign.
According to The Associated Press:
The Houthi media office said the U.S. strikes hit "a residential neighborhood" in Sanaa's northern district of Shouab. Sanaa residents said at least four airstrikes rocked the Eastern Geraf neighborhood in Shouab district, terrifying women and children in the area.
"The explosions were very strong," said Abdallah al-Alffi. "It was like an earthquake."
The United States, Israel, and Britain have previously hit Houthi-held areas in Yemen. Israel's military declined to comment.
Trump noted the bombings under former U.S. President Joe Biden, saying Saturday that his predecessor's "response was pathetically weak, so the unrestrained Houthis just kept going."
The U.S.-based peace group CodePink called out another part of Trump's post, saying that he "claimed that the Houthis have waged an 'unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism' against America and other ships, aircraft, and drones. However, he conveniently ignores critical context behind these actions. The Houthis' attacks on foreign cargo ships began in response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza, aimed at deterring the continuation of Israel's ongoing plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine."
"This campaign ceased when a cease-fire was finally put in place, only to resume due to Israel's ongoing violations of the cease-fire agreement," CodePink continued, noting Israeli strikes that just reportedly killed aid workers and journalists in Gaza. "Instead of confronting the root causes of this violence, U.S. officials are escalating deadly attacks on one of the poorest and most devastated nations in the Middle East, while recklessly pushing the U.S. toward a wider regional war with Iran."
"CodePink and its allies demand an immediate halt to U.S. military intervention in Yemen and across the Middle East," the group concluded. "We call on the government to prioritize peace and justice by immediately ending all military aid and funds to Israel and holding Israel accountable for breaking the cease-fire."
Members of Congress across the political spectrum have a history of criticizing U.S. bombings of Yemen throughout its decadelong civil war as illegal. Justin Amash, a libertarian former Michigan congressman, slammed the Saturday strikes on social media.
"I'll say it again. It is unconstitutional for President Trump to engage in acts of war in Yemen," Amash explained. "It doesn't matter how appropriate you think it is for the U.S. to take on Houthis or terrorists or anyone. Congress has not authorized war in Yemen. Engaging in war there is unlawful."
Rubio Slammed for Expelling South African Ambassador Over Trump Criticism
"It underscores that his critiques of white supremacy in the Age of Trump are perceived as threatening for one simple reason: He's right."
Mar 15, 2025
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has faced a flood of condemnation since announcing on social media Friday that "South Africa's ambassador to the United States is no longer welcome in our great country."
"Ebrahim Rasool is a race-baiting politician who hates America and hates President Donald Trump," the secretary claimed. "We have nothing to discuss with him and so he is considered PERSONA NON GRATA."
In the post on X—the social media site owned by Elon Musk, Trump's South Africa-born billionaire adviser—Rubio linked to an article by the right-wing news site Breitbart about Rasool saying during a Friday webinar that the U.S. president is leading global a white supremacist movement.
As examples of Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement exporting its "supremacist assault," Rasool pointed to Musk elevating Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform U.K. party, and Vice President JD Vance meeting with the leader of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany party.
Responding to Rubio on X, North Carolina State University assistant teaching professor Nathan Lean said: "Ebrahim Rasool is a man of genuine decency, moral courage, and is a friend. This makes me absolutely embarrassed to be an American. And it underscores that his critiques of white supremacy in the Age of Trump are perceived as threatening for one simple reason: He's right."
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) similarly responded: "Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool is a principled leader who fought alongside Nelson Mandela against apartheid and has dedicated his career to democracy, interfaith cooperation, and justice. Baseless attacks like this only serve to divide. We stand by him and his lifelong commitment to building a more just and inclusive world."
Laila Al-Arian, executive producer of Al Jazeera's "Fault Lines," declared that "this administration is virulently and unabashedly Islamophobic, not even trying to hide how unhinged they are as they go after people for speech."
Rasool previously served as ambassador during the Obama administration and returned to the role shortly before Trump began his second term. Earlier this week, Semafor reported on his difficulties dealing with the current administration:
He has failed to secure routine meetings with State Department officials and key Republican figures since Trump took office in January, Washington and South African government insiders told Semafor, drawing frustration in Pretoria.
Rasool is likely to have been frozen out for his prior vocal criticism of Israel, a South African diplomat, based in Washington, told Semafor. "A man named Ebrahim, who is Muslim, with a history of pro-Palestine politics, is not likely to do well in that job right now," said one of them. While South Africa brought a case against Israel to the International Court of Justice in December 2023, accusing it of genocide in Gaza, Rasool is nevertheless widely considered to be among the government's most ardent pro-Palestine voices.
South African political analyst Sandile Swana told Al Jazeera on Friday that the "core of the dispute" with the diplomatic was the genocide case against U.S.-armed Israel. In the fight against apartheid, the U.S. "supported the apartheid regime," said Swana. "Rasool continues to point out the behaviour of the United States, even now is to support apartheid and genocide."
Other critics also pointed to the ongoing court battle over Israel's utter destruction of Gaza and mass slaughter of Palestinians.
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) national executive director Nihad Awad told Rubio: "Your declaration of Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool as persona non grata is a racist, Islamophobic, transparent act of retaliation for South Africa's opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza."
Imraan Siddiqi, a former congressional candidate in Washington who now leads the state's branch of CAIR, said that "he stood up firmly against apartheid, so it's no coincidence you're punishing him in favor of an openly apartheid state."
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's office said in a statement Saturday that "the presidency has noted the regrettable expulsion of South Africa's ambassador to the United States of America, Mr. Ebrahim Rasool.
"The presidency urges all relevant and impacted stakeholders to maintain the established diplomatic decorum in their engagement with the matter," the office added. "South Africa remains committed to building a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States of America."
The diplomat's expulsion follows Trump signing an executive order last month that frames South Africa's land law as "blatant discrimination" against the country's white minority. Writing about the order for Foreign Policy in Focus, Zeb Larson and William Minter noted that "his actions echo a long history of right-wing support in the United States for racism in Southern Africa, including mobilization of support for white Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as well as the apartheid regime in South Africa."
##
'Dark Day for American Democracy': Alarm Over Trump DOJ Speech
"It's increasingly clear that we're entering a modern McCarthy moment," said the head of the ACLU.
Mar 15, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign-like speech at the Department of Justice on Friday sparked a fresh wave of alarm over the Republican's attacks on his critics, disrespect for the rule of law, and plans for his second term.
Trump—who was convicted of 34 felonies in New York before returning to the White House—slammed his perceived opponents as "scum" and "thugs," called efforts to hold him accountable for alleged criminal activity "bullshit," and declared: "We will expel the rogue actors and corrupt forces from our government. We will expose... their egregious crimes and severe misconduct."
Trump's appearance with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and props promoting drug enforcement displayed his intent to remake the federal judiciary and fueled speculation that he will appoint Florida-based District Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed the classified documents case against him, to the nation's Supreme Court.
"Some of the most hallowed halls of justice in America were disgraced by the president of the United States, who has inappropriately installed his personal lawyers and other loyalists into leadership roles at the Department of Justice," said Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an adviser at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
"This reinforces what we knew: The independence of the department has been compromised. During his remarks, the president sought to undermine faith in our judicial system, attacked lawyers who support due process and the rule of law, and made it clear that he expects the attorney general and other leaders to use the full force and resources of the Justice Department to roll back our civil and human rights, target his enemies, and operationalize a worldview that perpetuates white supremacy," she said. "The anti-immigrant rhetoric that both he and the attorney general used was reprehensible and unacceptable."
Zwarensteyn stressed that "in our democracy, Justice Department lawyers—including the attorney general—are the people's lawyers, not the president's lawyers, and they have a sacred duty to enforce our nation's laws without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. The DOJ must be seen by the public—every member, from every community—as fair and independent arbiters of our legal system. Today's appearance at the DOJ by the president, during which he thanked and called out his appointees and personal lawyers, will further tarnish the public's trust of the department and undermine our democracy."
"This cannot be the way that the DOJ—the nation's signature agency for the enforcement of our federal civil rights laws—functions moving forward. We need a DOJ that is working for the people, not the president, and we demand better of our federal government and its leaders," she concluded, calling on the Senate to reject his nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to a key department post.
One of Trump's targets during the speech was Norm Eisen, who was involved with the president's first impeachment and previously served as White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic, and board chair of the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Eisen responded with a video on social media, highlighting his work with State Democracy Defenders Action, which he co-founded.
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a statement that "Ambassador Norman Eisen is a great American patriot, with an extraordinary career in public service. He has served the American people for decades inside and outside of government. He has worked to defend democracy at home and abroad."
"It is a sad day when the president of the United States personally attacks an individual of such character," Romero continued. "When charitable organizations like CREW, the ACLU, and others sue the federal government to uphold the law, we are playing a vital role in upholding American values."
The ACLU leader also warned that "it's increasingly clear that we’re entering a modern McCarthy moment. When the government is targeting a former ambassador, a legal permanent resident, law firms, and even universities and treating them like enemies of the state, it is a dark day for American democracy."
Since Trump returned to power in January, his administration has not only empowered billionaire Elon Musk to dismantle the federal government but also targeted news outlets, student protesters, and education institutions while signaling a willingness to ignore court orders—fueling calls for Congress to hit him with a historic third impeachment.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.