Ukraine's Zelenskyy introduces new draft law after anticorruption protests
The country's anticorruption agencies quickly hailed the bill's introduction on Thursday, saying it would restore their 'procedural powers and guarantees of independence'.
The Ukrainian leader has contended with protests and condemnation from both within Ukraine and from its closest European allies after a separate controversial law was passed on Tuesday.
That law placed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) under the direct authority of the country's prosecutor general – a position appointed by the president.
Zelenskyy initially maintained that the law was needed to respond to suspected 'Russian influence' within the agencies amid Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
Critics, however, said the law would strip the bodies of their independence and could allow political interference, while failing to address any potential Kremlin-linked operatives.
On Tuesday, thousands of Ukrainians defied martial law – which has been in place since the beginning of Russia's war – to take to the streets of Kyiv and other major cities to protest against the law.
European officials also questioned the law, noting that addressing corruption remains a core requirement both for Ukraine's future European Union membership and in assuring aid flows to combat Russia.
Amid the pressure, Zelenskyy backed away from the new law, promising to submit new legislation that would assure 'all the norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be in place' and that there would be no Russian 'influence or interference'.
Opposition lawmakers have also separately prepared their own legislation to revoke the law passed on Tuesday.
'They heroically solved the problems that they created just as heroically. Grand imitators,' Yaroslav Zhelezniak, from the opposition Holos party, said on Telegram, criticising Zelenskyy and his allies about-turn.
Before the new draft bill's introduction, Zelenskyy spoke with the leaders of Germany and the United Kingdom on Thursday.
In a statement, Zelenskyy's office said British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had 'offered to involve experts who could contribute to long-term cooperation' on the issue.
In a post on X, Zelenskyy said he invited Friedrich Merz to 'join the expert review of the bill'.
'Friedrich assured me of readiness to assist,' he said.
It was not immediately clear when Ukraine's legislature, the Verkhovna Rada, would vote on the new bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
11 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Fact check: Did US go from ice cream trade surplus to deficit under Biden?
President Donald Trump's administration dished out a cold burn to Trump's ice-cream-loving predecessor, Joe Biden, saying he led the US ice cream industry down an economic rocky road. 'America had a trade surplus in ice cream in 2020 under President Trump's leadership, but that surplus turned into a trade deficit of $40.6 million under President Biden's watch,' the Office of the US Trade Representative wrote July 20 on X. The post included a chart that shows the US ice cream trade deficit with Japan, South Africa, the European Union, Brazil, Canada and Turkiye. The US ice cream trade balance did change dramatically in 2021, the year Biden took office. The trade balance officially flipped negative – which means imports outnumber exports – in 2022 and has remained so since then. But industry experts caution that US ice cream imports account for a minuscule fraction of all the US ice cream consumed in the US, and exports account for a tiny fraction of all US ice cream produced. The trade change was driven mostly by a jump in imports. Exports have remained largely unchanged since 2020. And the cherry on top? Disagreement over which products to classify as 'ice cream' also affects data, experts say. For example, the data referenced by the office of the US Trade Representative also includes 'edible ice', which some experts (and dairy defenders) say doesn't qualify as ice cream. Removing edible ice shows that 'the US is a net exporter by a significant margin of ($193 million) or +85% larger by value,' International Dairy Foods Association Executive Vice President Matt Herrick told PolitiFact via email. Ice cream imports increase causes US trade deficit From 1995 to 2020, the US had an ice cream trade surplus, ranging from about $20m to about $160m, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, an online economic data platform. Longtime customers include Mexico, followed by Saudi Arabia and Canada. In 2021, that surplus nearly vanished, and in 2022 and 2023, the US notched up an ice cream trade deficit of $92m and $33m, respectively. At first glance, importing frozen foods doesn't seem practical. 'Shipping refrigerated and frozen products overseas is expensive,' dairy economist Betty Berningat of HighGround Dairy said. 'Mexico is the top destination for US dairy exports.' But many US and European companies have tapped into global markets. 'Consumers may also want a specific treat that is styled after or known to be from another country,' Herrick said. Italy, the birthplace of gelato, is now the United States' largest single source of imported ice cream. Italian ice cream imports more than quintupled from about $12m to almost $65m between 2020 and 2021 alone, before decreasing somewhat in 2023, the last year for which data is available. Some of this stems from increased consumer demand for specialty pints. A report by Mordor Intelligence, a global market research firm, said 'product innovation and premiumisation' have become key in the US ice cream industry. 'This trend is particularly evident in the growth of premium pint offerings and individually wrapped novelties that cater to both indulgence and portion control preferences,' the report said. The US produces far more ice cream than it imports or exports To get to the pint: The vast majority of ice cream consumed in the United States is made there, not overseas. The Trump administration is cherry-picking stats from a fraction of a sliver of the US ice cream industry. According to US Agriculture Department data, US ice cream makers churned out 1.31 billion gallons of ice cream in 2024. This includes regular ice cream, low-fat and nonfat ice cream, sherbet and frozen yoghurt. By comparison, the US imported 2.35 million gallons of traditional ice cream in 2024 – that's 0.18 percent of the amount produced domestically, Herrick said. The US exported 16.4 million gallons of that domestic production, which is also a tiny fraction of 1.31 billion gallons of ice cream – a little more than 1 percent. Factoring in ice cream mixes, excluding 'edible ice' products Another caveat about the international trade data: It does not include 'mixes', which skews the totals, said Herrick of the International Dairy Foods Association. Mixes are used to make ice cream shakes and soft-serve products, and they account for a significant portion of US ice cream exports. 'Inclusion of such data points would change the picture quite significantly,' said Herrick. 'While it is true that traditional ice cream and edible ice exports have seen decreased exports, the same cannot be said for exports of mixes.' US milk-based drink exports increased 621 percent over the past five years, he said. In 2024, the US exported nearly $35m in mixes to the European Union. Americans and dairy-based ice cream: A centuries-old love affair melting away? The White House has churned out plenty of ice cream devotees. George Washington stocked the capital with ice cream-making equipment. Thomas Jefferson is credited as being the first American to record an ice cream recipe. Ronald Reagan declared July National Ice Cream Month in 1984. Barack Obama even slung scoops back in the day. Biden, who was often sighted with a cone in hand, proclaimed while visiting Jeni's Splendid Ice Cream headquarters in 2016: 'My name is Joe Biden, and I love ice cream.' But consumption of regular dairy ice cream – a category that does not include frozen yoghurt, sherbet or nonfat and low-fat ice creams – has been trending down for years. In 1975, Americans ate an average of 18.2 pounds each of ice cream per year. That figure fell to 11.7 pounds by 2023. Our ruling The office of the US Trade Representative purported a summertime scoop: 'America had a trade surplus in ice cream in 2020 under President Trump's leadership, but that surplus turned into a trade deficit of $40.6 million under President Biden's watch.' It's accurate that the US ice cream trade balance had a surplus for a quarter of a century before turning negative while Biden was president. But the US Trade Representative's statement makes the US ice cream deficit appear out of cone-trol. There are three scoops of context on this trade sundae: The change was driven mostly by a jump in imports. Exports have remained largely unchanged since 2020. US ice cream imports and exports are a negligible amount compared to domestic production. There's also disagreement over which products should or shouldn't be included in the data set, which can skew trend interpretations. Excluding edible ice products and factoring in ice cream mixes leaves the US with a surplus. The statement is accurate but needs a sprinkling of clarification and additional details, so we rate it Mostly True. Louis Jacobson contributed to this report.
Al Jazeera
14 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran is meeting European powers amid threats of renewed nuclear sanctions
Iranian diplomats are meeting their counterparts from Germany, the United Kingdom and France for renewed nuclear talks, amid warnings that the three European powers could trigger 'snapback' United Nations sanctions outlined under a previous 2015 deal. The meeting, which is underway in Turkiye's Istanbul on Friday morning, will be the first since Israel's mid-June attack on Iran, which led to an intensive 12-day conflict with the United States militarily intervening on Israel's behalf also attacking key Iranian nuclear sites. Israel's offensive – which killed top commanders, nuclear scientists and hundreds of civilians as residential areas were struck as well – also derailed US-Iran nuclear talks that began in April. Iran said on Friday that the meeting is an opportunity for with the so-called E3 group of Germany, UK and France, to correct their positions on Iran's nuclear issue. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in an interview with state news agency IRNA that Iran considers the talk of extending UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to be doubly 'meaningless and baseless'. The resolution, which cemented the 2015 deal Iran reached with world powers under which it curbed enrichment in return for much-needed sanctions relief, is due to expire in October. It enshrines the big powers' prerogative to to restore UN sanctions. Since then, the E3, have threatened to trigger the 'snapback mechanism', which would reinstate the sanctions on Iran by the end of August, under the effectively moribund 2015 nuclear deal which United States President Donald Trump unilaterally torpedoed in 2018 during his first term. The option to trigger the snapback expires in October, and Tehran has warned of consequences should the E3 opt to activate it. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who is attending the talks Friday, alongside senior Iranian diplomat Majid Takht-Ravanchi, warned this week that triggering sanctions 'is completely illegal'. He also accused European powers of 'halting their commitments' to the deal after the US withdrew from it. 'We have warned them of the risks, but we are still seeking common ground to manage the situation,' said Gharibabadi. Warning from Tehran Iranian diplomats have previously warned that Tehran could withdraw from the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty if UN sanctions are reimposed. Restoring sanctions would deepen Iran's international isolation and place further pressure on its already strained economy. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has urged European powers to trigger the mechanism. Israel's June 13 attack on Iran came two days before Tehran and Washington were scheduled to meet for a sixth round of nuclear negotiations. On June 22, the US istruck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz. Before the conflict, Washington and Tehran were divided over uranium enrichment, which Iran has described as a 'non-negotiable' right for civilian purposes, while the US called it a 'red line'. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is enriching uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent cap under the 2015 deal, which is well below the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade levels. Tehran has said it is open to discussing the rate and level of enrichment, but not the right to enrich uranium. A year after the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran reportedly began rolling back its commitments, which had placed restrictions on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Israel and Western powers accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons – a charge Tehran has consistently denied. Both US intelligence and the IAEA said they had seen no evidence of Iran pursuin a nuclear weapon in the build up to the June conflict. Enrichment is 'stopped' Iran insists it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called a source of 'national pride'. The full extent of the damage sustained in the US bombing remains unclear. Trump has claimed the sites were 'completely destroyed', but US media reports have cast doubt over the scale of destruction. Araghchi has noted that enrichment is currently 'stopped' due to 'serious and severe' damage to nuclear sites caused by US and Israeli strikes. In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and reiterated that its nuclear programme will continue within the framework of international law while adding the country had no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons. Since the 12-day conflict, Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of bias and failing to condemn the attacks. Inspectors have since left the country, but a technical team is expected to return in the coming weeks after Iran said future cooperation would take a 'new form'. Israel has warned it may resume strikes if Iran rebuilds facilities or moves towards weapons capability. Iran has pledged a 'harsh response' to any future attacks.
Al Jazeera
15 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
French court to decide if al-Assad can be tried for Syrian chemical attacks
France's highest court is set to rule on whether it can strip the state immunity of Bashar al-Assad, the toppled Syrian leader in exile in Russia, because of the sheer brutal scale of evidence in accusations documented against him by Syrian activists and European prosecutors. If the judges at the Cour de Cassation lift al-Assad's immunity on Friday, it could pave the way for his trial in absentia over the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta in 2013 and Douma in 2018. It could also set a precedent to allow the prosecution of other government leaders linked to atrocities, human rights activists and lawyers say. Al-Assad has retained no lawyers for these charges and has denied he was behind the chemical attacks. The opposition has long rejected al-Assad's denial, as his forces were the only side in the ruinous, nearly 14-year civil war to possess sarin. A ruling against al-Assad would be 'a huge victory for the victims', said Mazen Darwish, president of the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, which collected evidence of war crimes, quoted by The Associated Press news agency. 'It is not only about Syrians; this will open the door for the victims from any country and this will be the first time that a domestic investigative judge has the right to issue an arrest warrant for a president during his rule.' He said the ruling could enable his group to legally go after government members, like launching a money laundering case against former Syrian Central Bank governor and Minister of Economy Adib Mayaleh, whose lawyers have argued he had immunity under international law. Brutal crackdown For more than 50 years, Syria was ruled by Hafez al-Assad and then his son, Bashar. During the Arab Spring, rebellion broke out against their rule in 2011 across the country of 23 million, igniting a brutal civil war that killed more than half a million people, according to the the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). Millions more fled to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkiye and Europe. The al-Assad dynasty also fomented sectarian tensions to stay in power, a legacy driving renewed recent violence in Syria against minority groups, despite promises that the country's new leaders will carve out a political future for Syria that includes and represents all its communities. As the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for leaders accused of atrocities – such as Russia's Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza, and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines – the French judges' ruling could empower the legal framework to prosecute not just deposed and exiled leaders but those currently in power. The Syrian government denied in 2013 that it was behind the Ghouta attack, but the United States subsequently threatened military retaliation, then settled for a deal with Moscow for al-Assad to give up his chemical weapons stockpile, opening the way for Russia to wield huge influence in the war-torn nation. Al-Assad survived more than a decade longer, aided militarily by Russia and Iranian-aligned groups, including Hezbollah, before being overthrown by rebel groups.
