Category World News

The two main contenders for Poland’s presidential election on Sunday locked horns over Europe and traded personal barbs this week as they each made final bids for the support of floating voters.

The winner will take over from current President Andrzej Duda, of the nationalist conservative Law and Justice party, at a crucial point when neighbouring Ukraine is battling Russia, and when cooperation between the government and the president is vital to push through reforms.

Looking visibly tired at his rally on Tuesday, Rafal Trzaskowski of the ruling centre-right Civic Platform, stood on a platform at Krakow’s central Market Square amid a large crowd cheering his name, blue European flags fluttering beside the white-and-red Polish ones.

“I didn’t think it would be necessary to remind all of us, especially my main competitor, that honesty is the most important thing, human decency is the most important thing, and selflessness is the most important thing,” said Trzaskowski, referring to a recent news story about his competitor Karol Nawrocki, an independent candidate supported by the opposition Law and Justice party, which ruled Poland between 2015 and 2023.

Nawrocki allegedly purchased a flat in Gdansk belonging to an elderly man in exchange for a promise to provide him with care. According to the man’s family, the promise was not fulfilled, and he was placed in a state nursing home.

In response, Nawrocki has said he will donate the flat to charity and pointed out that under Trzaskowski’s mayorship, families had been evicted from state accommodation in Warsaw.

Nawrocki’s rally in Zabrze took a different tone – and featured a special guest. Alongside George Simion, the ultranationalist winner of the first round of Romania’s presidential election on May 4, Nawrocki took aim at the EU.

“Together with Romania, when George Simion wins and when we win on May 18, we will build a Europe of Homelands, in which we will not allow the European Union to centralise and turn Poland and Romania into its provinces,” Nawrocki said.

Simion, together with the crowd, chanted “Donald Trump!” and called the United States president “a symbol of the fight for freedom which will transform the whole Europe”. Earlier this month, Nawrocki, who argues that Poland should focus on an alliance with the US rather than the EU, met with Trump in the White House and allegedly received his backing.

Embracing anti-migrant rhetoric – on all sides

In the race for floating votes, both candidates have eased up on some of their parties’ more traditional positions. Nawrocki has abandoned Law and Justice’s commitment to a welfare state in exchange for a message of free market liberalism.

The more liberal Trzaskowski, for his part, has kept relatively quiet about women’s and LGBTQ rights, and embraced a harder line on security and immigration by promising to cut benefits for unemployed Ukrainians who have taken refuge in Poland from the war with Russia and endorsing his government’s suspension of asylum rights last year over what Poland sees as Belarus facilitating migrants to cross their shared border.

Security and anti-migrant rhetoric have been a key feature in this election, as both main candidates lean closer to the views of the populist Slawomir Mentzen, a tax adviser turned leader of the ultranationalist, conservative Confederation party. He has called for migrants crossing from Belarus to be fired upon, is opposed to welfare payments for Ukrainians and is likely to emerge as third in the presidential race.

“In public opinion polls and focus groups, among all voters, including voters of the new left, there has been a visible anti-Ukrainian trend, which has social and economic rather than cultural roots,” said Bartosz Rydlinski, a political scientist from Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw.

“Poles are not angry at Ukrainians for living separately or not speaking Polish. [But] in a country with highly limited access to public services, there is an irrational sense of injustice. There is a sense that Ukrainians do not work, but use healthcare. Which is nonsense, because most Ukrainians work and pay taxes.”

‘I want to live in a normal country’

At the Krakow meeting, amid the sea of Polish and European flags, the crowd rallied for value-based politics – and change.

“I want to live in a normal country, I want my daughter to grow up in a normal country, in a country with a positive attitude, without any negative emotions. Poland deserves to develop, to be respected in the world and that is why I came here today,” Anna Szol, a 48-year-old entrepreneur, who joined Trzaskowski’s rally with her daughter, told Al Jazeera.

When asked about the situation at the Polish-Belarusian border – where, since 2021, thousands of migrants to Europe have crossed – and the suspension of asylum rights, Szol, just like her candidate, said she agrees that the move is justified.

“This is the result of Putin’s and Lukashenko’s actions to send to the border poor people who are not aware of what’s going on. Human traffickers are often involved. This is a NATO border and it simply has to be extra secure,” Szol said.

However, Rydlinski said such a suspension of human rights would embolden the far-right agenda in the longer term and weaken liberal parties.

“The difference between liberal and populist parties should be that liberal parties treat human rights seriously,” Rydlinski says. “Research shows that when liberal and left-wing parties accommodate far-right issues, they do not win populist voters, but lose their own.”

Pushing through reforms

The winner of this presidential election will be crucial for the current government, which has been hamstrung from carrying out reforms by the current president, who has used his power of veto to block them.

This includes the reversal of controversial judicial reforms introduced by the Law and Justice government during its eight-year rule. The European Court of Justice deemed several Law and Justice judicial reforms as contradicting EU law, especially regarding the independence of the judiciary, and imposed penalties on Poland beginning in 2021.

“What is at stake in the election is whether the current government is going to be able to carry out its programme in full. One of the key things that has been characteristic of the political scene over the last 18 months is that the government has been essentially blocked in a number of things that it has committed to do,” said Ben Stanley, a sociologist and political scientist at the SWPS University in Warsaw.

“If Nawrocki wins, it will certainly lead to the maintenance of the situation as it is currently with a hostile president vetoing or threatening to veto what the government wants to do. That will affect both the rule of law issues and also many of the elements on the government’s legislative agenda,” Stanley said.

A 23-year-old Mexican influencer, Valeria Marquez, was fatally shot while livestreaming on Tuesday.

Marquez, who had more than 113,000 followers on the platform, was broadcasting to her audience when the attack occurred.

According to a statement from the Jalisco state prosecutor’s office, the case is being investigated under femicide protocols, applied in instances where a woman is killed due to her gender.

What is femicide?

Femicide refers to gender-related killings against women and girls. According to the latest report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and UN Women, femicide is rising around the globe.

In 2023, a woman was intentionally killed every 10 minutes by a partner or family member.

Of the 85,000 women and girls killed across the world in 2023, 60 percent (51,000) were murdered by an intimate partner or a family member.

How common is femicide in Latin America and the Caribbean?

Honduras has the highest femicide rate with 7.2 women killed per 100,000 in 2023, followed by the Dominican Republic (2.4 per 100,000) and Brazil (1.4 per 100,000).

Mexico has the fourth-highest femicide rate in Latin America and the Caribbean, alongside Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia – all with 1.3 killings per 100,000 women in 2023.

In terms of absolute killings, Brazil saw the highest number of femicide cases with 1,463 women murdered. It was followed by Mexico, where 852 women were killed as a result of femicide in 2023. Honduras had the third-highest number, with 380 femicide cases.

Femicide is on the rise in Mexico

The rate of femicide is rising on the whole in the country, despite some fluctuations over the years.

It has become a major concern in Mexico with recorded cases rising significantly over the past decade. In 2015, femicides represented 19.8 percent of female homicides. This proportion had increased to 24.2 percent by 2024.

According to the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNCLAC), in 2015, the rate of femicide in Mexico was 0.7 women per 100,000. In 2023, that number now stands at 1.3 per 100,000 women – though that’s down marginally from a peak of 1.6 per 100,000 in 2021. Gender-based violence against women grew globally during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Mexico was no exception.

While statistics from UNCLAC show the rate of femicide in Mexico has declined over the past three years, it remains a pronounced and often silent issue due to underreporting, say experts.

In Mexico, some 85 percent of women aged 15 and over who have experienced physical or sexual violence did not file a complaint, according to Mexico’s National Survey on the Dynamics of Household Relationships.

Where in Mexico has the worst rates of femicide?

The killing of Marquez took place just days before another woman, a mayoral candidate in the state of Veracruz, was also shot dead during a livestream alongside three other people.

According to Mexico’s National Public Security System (SNSP), the national rate of femicide was 1.18 per 100,000 in 2024.

The state of Morelos, in south-central Mexico, had the highest rate of femicide with 4.7 women per 100,000 murdered, followed by Chihuahua (2.35 per 100,000) and Tabasco (2.22 per 100,000).

In Jalisco state where Marquez was killed, the femicide rate was 0.63 per 100,000 in 2024.

Lisbon, Portugal — Portugal is summoning its citizens to vote in their third general elections in three years on May 18, amid rapid shifts to the country’s political landscape that have left the country facing the prospect of yet another fractured mandate after decades of relative stability.

This year’s snap election comes at a moment when rising living costs, a housing crisis, the future of the national health service and perceptions of immigration are all significant issues on the public agenda – as is a corruption scandal that precipitated the upcoming vote.

The government of Prime Minister Luis Montenegro, the leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSD), fell in March, when parliament voted against a motion of confidence, triggering elections. It’s the second Portuguese government in a row that had left office under a cloud of corruption allegations.

Now, the country’s 10 million voters will need to choose the makeup of their next parliament, where 230 seats are up for grabs – and a divided mandate appears likely.

‘A very serious case’

Montenegro led a right-wing minority government for less than a year before accusations of corruption emerged over a consultancy firm that he set up, called “Spinumviva”.

A string of media investigations into potential conflicts of interest revealed the firm had received thousands of euros a month in consultancy fees from previously undisclosed clients, including companies with government contracts.

When a defiant Montenegro appeared on national television back in March to issue his response, he insisted that he had not broken the law because he had transferred his shares in the company to his wife and sons before he became prime minister in 2024.

But his defence is controversial, say experts.

“Under Portuguese civil law, even if it was possible to sell shares to someone you’re married to, you’d still be a joint owner of them, and, therefore, still able to profit from them,” said Portuguese lawyer and political commentator Carmo Afonso. “Spinumviva is a very serious case – and revelations are still emerging.”

Just hours before a live debate a few weeks later with his main rival, the Socialist Party’s Pedro Nuno Santos, Montenegro submitted an updated declaration of his business interests to the national online transparency portal.

According to an investigation by the Portuguese newspaper Expresso, some of Spinumviva’s clients earned at least 100 million euros ($112m) a year in government contracts during Montenegro’s mandate alone. Montenegro, meanwhile, says that he has not been involved with Spinumviva since becoming prime minister in March 2024.

How the race is shaping up

Still, the attention on Spinumviva may not have damaged Montenegro’s chances of re-election. According to Portuguese political scientist Vicente Valentim, “perceptions of corruption in Portugal are traditionally high, but it may not to be a significant factor in how people vote”.

Despite the ongoing scandal, the conservative Democratic Alliance (AD) coalition, in which Montenegro’s Social Democratic Party (PSD) is the majority party, leads the race, and is polling at 34 percent.

And according to a poll by Lisbon’s Catholic University, a third of voters think the Spinumviva case and its potential legal ramifications are irrelevant to the elections.

Montenegro’s brief period in government has seen him enjoy the support of the professional class, riding on a budget surplus attained by the previous government of the centrist Socialist Party (PS) of Antonio Costa, who was prime minister from 2015-2024.

Meanwhile, “the loss of the charismatic Antonio Costa has affected the PS’s popularity,” says Afonso. “Costa is a hard act to follow.”

“Ironically, the more Spinumviva gets talked about, the better it is for Montenegro, is what some commentators are saying,” says Afonso, who believes Montenegro was well aware of this when the government collapsed. “Montenegro chose to bring a vote of confidence in parliament knowing full well that he would lose it, because there really couldn’t be a better time to hold elections – better for him, that is.”

The PS, by contrast, is polling several points below the AD at about 26 percent.

Currently, it looks highly improbable that any of the parties or alliances running will win an outright majority of 116 seats or more. That leaves two likely possibilities: either a post-electoral coalition of parties that forms a majority in alliance; or a minority government, which needs the tacit support of other parties in parliament to push through essential legislation, including budgets.

About half a dozen parties are serious contenders for the rest of the 230 seats in parliament. These include the traditional players such as the Communist Party-Greens alliance (CDU), the Left Bloc, and the People-Animals-Nature party, as well as new parties including the Europeanist-Socialist party Livre (“Free”), the radical right-wing Iniciativa Liberal (“Liberal Initiative”), and the extreme right Chega (“Enough”).

The rise of the far right

Chega, which opposes immigration, abortion, and LGBTQ rights, and has targeted minorities like Portugal’s substantial Romani population, won a surprising 50 parliamentary seats in the 2024 elections, with Andre Ventura as leader. It won 18 percent of the national vote.

The party is currently in third position in the polls and is predicted to win close to what it did in the last elections.

Valentim, the political scientist, warns against interpreting Chega’s support base as representing a protest vote.

“A lot of people who vote for them already held the ideas they espoused, long before the party actually appeared; generally, the rapid growth of radical right-wing parties is not down to them changing people’s ideas,” he said. “So, Chega going from 1 percent of votes, to 7 percent, to 18 percent over the course of the last three elections doesn’t mean that the number of people with right-wing ideas has grown in those proportions.”

What it means, he said, is that “more and more people who already had those ideas, but used to feel that they were not socially acceptable, and that they would be judged, or made social pariahs or disadvantaged professionally because of them, no longer feel that”.

With the campaign period now well under way, Chega has been appealing to potential voters who might normally abstain. While polls suggest the party might not make major gains compared with the 2024 election, Valentim said he believes it’s here to stay.

“Portugal was previously the exception in the European landscape, because no far-right party had had any notable success there; that’s no longer the case,” he said. “We can be fairly certain in saying that Chega is not going to just disappear, as suddenly as it appeared. The political landscape has changed, definitively.”

And that has a range of consequences, he said.

“Citizens and politicians feeling at greater ease to express extreme right-wing ideas in public,” he said. There’s “greater polarisation around specific issues such as immigration and minority rights, and, of course, the dilemma of how the more traditional centre right deals with the far right”.

Under Montenegro, the PSD has maintained it will not cut a deal with Chega. However, its options for forming a government are limited. According to Valentim, centre-right parties often try to overcome the popularity of new radical right parties by shifting further right themselves – including, at times, by forming partnerships with them.

That rarely actually works for the centre right, he said. “Power-sharing agreements with the extreme right legitimise those parties, without actually bring any long-term gains for the centre right,” he said. “Studies have shown that the rapprochement of the centre right to the far right neither takes votes away from the far right, nor does it bring more votes back to the centre right. But it does result in a normalising of extreme right discourse, turning extreme right-wing ideas like xenophobia more acceptable.”

This effect was visible even before election campaigning began on the issue of immigration, which Portugal has actively encouraged in recent years. Almost a quarter of Portuguese companies now employ foreign workers, according to the Bank of Portugal. According to a study by the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation in December, the number of immigrants in Portugal tripled between 2015 and 2023.

However, right-wing parties have also stirred a backlash against immigration, and in particular the presence of agricultural and shop workers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The FMS Foundation report showed that negative perceptions of migrants outweighed positive ones considerably – with 67 percent of the people they polled responding that they thought the presence of foreigners was associated with an increase in crime. Last year, Chega brought a motion to parliament for a national referendum on immigration but was voted down.

Earlier this month, Montenegro’s government notified 4,500 migrants that they would have to leave the country within 20 days. Following the permanent closure of the border agency SEF in 2024, the government cancelled a scheme that allowed migrants originating from outside the European Union to apply for residency once already working in the country. Some of those facing deportation have been waiting several years for a reply on their applications, and thousands more such notices are expected in the coming months.

These policies sit in contrast with Portugal’s demographic situation, with a falling birthrate, an ageing population and a declining fertility rate. In addition, it suffers from an ongoing trend of youth emigration – about 30 percent of the population between 15 and 39 is living abroad, one of the highest rates in the world.  A study from Porto University in December 2024 said that Portugal would need to ensure 138,000 immigrants arriving per year to guarantee economic growth over the next decade.

Housing and costs

Meanwhile, a housing crisis is the biggest ongoing issue in Portugal in the run-up to the elections. House prices rose by 106 percent between 2015 and 2023, according to the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation, compared with 48 percent in Spain and 8 percent in Italy. The increase in property value has been caused by deregulation, large influxes of foreign investment in properties, speculation on real estate and a tourism boom.

As a result, young people and professionals are increasingly unable to afford housing in cities like Lisbon and Porto, where soaring rents have also prompted the closures of small businesses, and left low-income tenants stretched to pay rents or facing eviction.

Rising housing prices have also contributed to a general increase in the cost of living, with energy and food prices rising. Factors such as the war in Ukraine – because of its effect on the global supply chain – have amplified this crisis.

What’s next?

As of Thursday night, almost 20 percent of voters were undecided, meaning a range of outcomes is possible after the Sunday vote: An AD-led minority government, a less likely PS-led minority government, or a coalition between a variety of political players.

If that happens, it would be the second time a row that Portugal will not have a majority government: The AD won 80 seats in 2024 out of 230, just ahead of the PS, which won 78.

To Valentin, this is no longer an anomaly – he expects this scenario to be repeated in future elections, too.

“Portuguese democracy went through a very long period of relative stability,” he said, reflecting on the fact that Portugal this year celebrated 50 years since its first fully free elections, following the overthrow of the Estado Novo dictatorship. “For decades it had a multiparty system that barely changed, with governments alternating between the centre left PS and centre right PSD, and some interventions by a small number of other parties.”

“But now there’s been a lot of changes in a short period of time, with more and more new parties having made it into parliament,” he added.

That has meant fewer votes for the mainstream centrist parties, the PS and the PSD, as newer parties like Chega eat into their traditional base.

In Syria, optimism abounds. The unexpected decision by United States President Donald Trump to lift sanctions on the country, announced in Riyadh on Tuesday, is a relief for Syrians. They hope that the move will reintegrate Syria into the global economy, and bring much-needed investment into a country trying to recover from more than 50 years of dynastic family rule, as well as a nearly 14-year-long war.

The impact of Trump’s statement, which he said would give Syria “a chance at greatness” after the December overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, had an almost immediate effect, as the Syrian pound strengthened against the US dollar by about 25 percent, in a boost to a country suffering through economic hardship.

“Lifting sanctions on Syria represents a fundamental turning point,” Ibrahim Nafi Qushji, an economist and banking expert, told Al Jazeera. “The Syrian economy will transition from interacting with developing economies to integrating with more developed ones, potentially significantly reshaping trade and investment relations.”

Complex sanctions

While the announcement will likely lead to some imminent progress, there are still some stumbling blocks to the sanctions removal, analysts and experts told Al Jazeera.

US sanctions on Syria date back to 1979, when the country was under the iron grip of President Hafez al-Assad – Bashar’s father – and designated a “state sponsor of terrorism”. In the intervening years, additional sanctions were placed on the state and individuals associated with both the regime and the opposition, including current President Ahmed al-Sharaa – a result of his former association with al-Qaeda.

“There’s an entire building of a complex gamut of sanctions,” Vittorio Maresca di Serracapriola, sanctions lead analyst for Karam Shaar Advisory Limited, a consulting company with a focus on the political economy of the Middle East, told Al Jazeera.

Analysts said that Trump could remove certain sanctions through executive order, while some “foreign terrorist organisation” (FTO) designations could be removed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But other sanctions may be more complicated to end.

According to Maresca di Serracapriola, there are also a series of export controls, executive orders that target the banking sector, and acts that were passed by the US Congress.

“It is a huge moment for the country,” Maresca di Serracapriola said. “Of course, sanctions are very technical and complicated tools, so it’s still unclear how the US government will be able to implement what it promised.”

There are also questions about the timeline. The economic situation for many Syrians is dire, with 90 percent of the population living in poverty and approximately 25 percent jobless, according to the United Nations. The new Syrian authority is under extreme economic pressure, while at times struggling to exert its authority and provide security around the country.

Trump’s decision will come as a welcome reprieve, but Syrians may have to wait for sanctions relief to take effect. Analysts said the changes would come gradually and could take up to a year before “tangible results” are seen.

Sanctions relief alone will also not be enough. Analysts noted that Syria still needs banking reforms to comply and get off international monitoring lists. There will also need to be incentives from the US and other international actors to build trust among private investors looking to invest in Syria’s future.

“Achieving long-term growth requires implementing internal economic reforms, including improving the business environment, enhancing financial transparency, and developing productive sectors to ensure the Syrian economy effectively benefits from global opportunities,” Qushji said. “Lifting economic sanctions on Syria is a first step toward restructuring the economy, but it requires reform policies focused on sustainable development and global economic integration to ensure a real and productive recovery.”

Trump meets al-Sharaa

For months, everyone from Syria’s new leadership, analysts, and international actors has said there is a dire need for sanctions relief. But the US has previously taken an inflexible stance against al-Sharaa’s government, due to perceived ties to violence and armed groups.

Regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkiye, however, have built strong relations with the new government in Damascus. Before Trump’s pronouncement on Tuesday, multiple analysts told Al Jazeera they did not expect Syria’s sanctions relief to be high up on the agenda for the US or the Gulf states Trump visited during his three-country tour.

The US has taken a cautious, and at times conflicting, approach to Syria’s new authority since the fall of the Assad regime on December 8.

On March 9, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned Syria’s new government for their failure to prevent sectarian violence and massacres in the country’s coastal region. But then, three days later, Rubio praised the agreement between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian central government in Damascus that ostensibly would see the SDF integrate into state institutions.

Previously, the US provided Syria a list of demands that included destroying the remaining chemical weapons, cooperation on “counterterrorism”, and the removal of foreign fighters from senior roles in the new government or military. There have also been suggestions that Syria might throw in a Trump Tower deal in Damascus and that Trump wanted ties between Syria and Israel before any sanctions relief.

But by Tuesday evening, everything had changed. Trump announced he would remove sanctions on Syria without conditions.

“The key emphasis here is it’s a Saudi-US deal rather than something between the US and Syria,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in defence studies at King’s College in London.

Then, on Wednesday morning, Trump and al-Sharaa met for a little more than half an hour in the presence of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and with Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan phoning in. The meeting appeared to please Trump.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on his way to Doha, Trump called al-Sharaa a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.”

After the talks, the White House released a list of issues Trump discussed with al-Sharaa. They included some of the US’s prior demands on Syria, such as dealing with foreign fighters and “counterterrorism” cooperation. But Trump also brought up Syria recognising Israel, as well as taking over ISIL detention centres in northern Syria.

“These don’t appear to be preconditions, but they could slowroll the lifting [of sanctions],” Natasha Hall, a senior fellow with the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera.