ReportWire

Tag: Foreign policy

  • Trump will quit NATO, Hillary Clinton says, as anxiety mounts over U.S. commitment to the alliance

    Trump will quit NATO, Hillary Clinton says, as anxiety mounts over U.S. commitment to the alliance

    [ad_1]

    Former U.S. President and current GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the press at Mar-a-Lago on February 16, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    MUNICH, Germany — NATO members on Saturday weighed the U.S.’ possible withdrawal from the military alliance if Donald Trump returns to the White House, with Hillary Clinton saying he would waste no time in quitting if re-elected.

    Clinton urged delegates at the Munich Security Conference to take her one-time presidential rival’s tough talk “literally and seriously” as anxiety mounts over the future of the U.S.-led pact.

    “He will pull us out of NATO,” Clinton told attendees during a lunchtime session.

    Trump stoked fresh concerns over the U.S.’ commitment to NATO last weekend when he said he would “encourage” Russia to attack any member that doesn’t meet its spending targets. He has long criticized the alliance’s failure to ensure members make good on their obligation to contribute 2% of gross domestic product to defense.

    Amid such rhetoric, the U.S. Congress passed a bill in December aimed at preventing any U.S. president from unilaterally withdrawing from the alliance without congressional approval.

    U.S. Republican Senator Jim Risch, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on Saturday dismissed talk of the U.S. quitting NATO, saying: “We have answered that question.”

    “It would take a two-thirds vote in the United States Senate to get out — that is never going to happen,” he told CNBC in Munich.

    Clinton said, however, that Trump could actually just refuse to fund the alliance. “The U.S. will be there in name only,” she said.

    Trump versus NATO

    Concerns over the U.S. and Europe’s continued military coordination have dominated discussions at this year’s annual defense summit in Germany, as the specter of a second Trump presidency looms large and a contentious aid package for Ukraine hangs in the balance in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte earlier Saturday referenced constant “moaning and whining” at the event about the future of NATO under Trump.

    “Stop moaning and whining and nagging about Trump,” he said.

    He was one of many European voices, including that of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who said that Europe needed to become self-sufficient in the face of a more uncertain future with its closest diplomatic ally.

    NATO head says the U.S. won't withdraw from alliance: It makes them 'stronger'

    “No matter what happens in the U.S. … we have to be able to protect ourselves,” Frederiksen said.

    Indeed, Germany’s defense minister said that his country’s commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense should be just the start, noting that the threshold could rise to 3.5% if necessary.

    NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg struck a more sanguine tone on transatlantic coordination, however, saying that believes the U.S. will remain “a staunch and committed NATO ally” whatever happens in the upcoming election.

    “I expect that regardless of the outcome of the U.S. elections in November, the U.S. will remain a staunch and committed NATO ally,” he told CNBC’s Silvia Amaro.

    “It is in the security interests of the United States to have a strong NATO,” he added.

    Stoltenberg acknowledged Trump’s frustration with member spending, but said “that is now changing.” On Wednesday, NATO announced that 18 of the alliance’s 31 members will meet the 2% spending target this year.

    NATO member countries first committed to minimum spending targets in 2006, but by 2014 only three had met the threshold.

    The alliance will mark its 75th anniversary this year at an annual summit to be held in Washington in July.

    Senator Risch said he would like to see all members committing to meeting their target by that point.

    “Talk about it happening years in the future isn’t now, and we’re always interested in now,” he said. “That’s helpful to the relationship: everybody keeping the commitments that they made.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Real Difference Between Trump and Biden

    The Real Difference Between Trump and Biden

    [ad_1]

    Listen to this article

    Produced by ElevenLabs and NOA, News Over Audio, using AI narration.

    Americans likely face a choice this fall between two men they don’t want for president. Or they can stay home and get one of the two guys they don’t want for president anyway. The reasons for voter disdain are clear enough: Poll respondents say Joe Biden is too old, an impression reinforced by last week’s special-counsel report, and they have always been troubled by Donald Trump’s judgment and character (though a majority think he’s too old too.)

    Voters have genuine questions about both men. But we’ve seen each occupy the presidency. One thing the two administrations have made clear is that whereas Biden follows an approach to governance that seems to offset some of his weaknesses, Trump’s preferred managerial style seems to amplify his.

    Many people treat elections as a chance to vote a single individual into office; as a result, they tend to focus disproportionately on the personality, character, and temperament of the people running. But voters are also choosing a platform—a set of policies as well as a set of people, chosen by the president, who will shape and implement them. The president is the conductor of an orchestra, not a solo artist. As the past eight years have made very clear, the difference in governance between a Trump administration and a Biden administration is not subtle—for example, on foreign policy, border security, and economics—and voters have plenty of evidence on which to base their decision.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s consider the potential effects of Biden’s failures of memory and Trump’s … well, it’s a little tough to say what exactly is going on with Trump’s mental state. The former president has always had a penchant for saying strange things and acting impulsively, and it’s hard to know whether recent lapses are indications of new troubles or the same deficits that have long been present. His always-dark rhetoric has become more apocalyptic and vengeance-focused, and he frequently seems forgetful or confused about basic facts.

    To what extent would either of their struggles be material in a future presidential term? One key distinction is that Biden and Trump have fundamentally different conceptions of the presidency as an office. Biden’s approach to governance has been more or less in keeping with the traditions of recent decades. Biden’s Cabinet and West Wing are (for better or worse) stocked with longtime political and policy hands who have extensive experience in government. Cabinet secretaries largely run their departments through normal channels. Policy proposals are usually formulated by subject-area experts. The president’s job is to sit atop this apparatus and set broad direction.

    Read: The presidency is not a math test

    Biden doesn’t always defer to experts, and he has clashed with and overruled advisers on some topics, including, notably, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such occasional clashes are fairly typical—as long as they’re occasional. As my colleague Graeme Wood wrote this week, “The presidency is an endless series of judgment calls, not a four-year math test. In fact, large parts of the executive branch exist, in effect, to do the math problems on the president’s behalf, then present to him all those tough judgment calls with the calculations already factored in.”

    This doesn’t mean that Biden’s readily apparent aging doesn’t bring risks. The presidency requires a great deal of energy, and crises can happen at all hours and on top of one another, testing the stamina of any person. The oldest president before Biden, Ronald Reagan, struggled with acuity in his second term, an administration that produced a huge, appalling scandal of which he claimed to be unaware.

    In contrast to the model of the president as the ultimate decision maker, Trump has approached the presidency less like a Fortune 500 CEO and more like the sole proprietor of a small business. (Though he boasts about his experience running a business empire, the Trump Organization also ran this way—it is a company with a large bottom line but with concentrated and insular management by corporate standards.) As president, Trump had a tendency to micromanage details—the launching system for a new aircraft carrier, the paint scheme on Air Force One—while evincing little interest in major policy questions, such as a long-promised replacement for Obamacare.

    At times, Trump has described his role in practically messianic terms: “I alone can fix it,” he infamously said at the 2016 Republican National Convention. He has claimed to be the world’s foremost expert on a wide variety of subjects, and he often disregarded the views of policy experts in his administration, complaining that they tried to talk him out of ideas (when they didn’t just obstruct him). He and his allies have embarked on a major campaign to ensure that staffers in a second Trump administration would be picked for their ideological and personal loyalty to him. Axios has reported that the speechwriter Stephen Miller could be the next attorney general, even though Miller is not an attorney.

    Perhaps as a result of these different approaches to the job, people who have served under the men have divergent views on them. Whereas Biden can seem bumbling and mild in public, aides’ accounts of his private demeanor depict an engaged, incisive, and sometimes hot-tempered president. That’s also the view that emerges from my colleague Franklin Foer’s book The Last Politician. “He has a kind of mantra: ‘You can never give me too much detail,’” National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has said. “The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it, because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented and focused,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said last weekend. (As Jon Stewart noted on Monday night, the public might be more convinced were these moments videotaped, like the gaffes.)

    Former Trump aides are not so complimentary. Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly called Trump “a person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law,” adding, “God help us.” Former Attorney General Bill Barr said that he “shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.” Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper described him as “unfit for office.” Of 44 former Cabinet members queried by NBC, only four said they supported Trump’s return to office. Even allowing for the puffery of politics, the contrast is dramatic.

    Read: A Hail Mary to save ‘The Daily Show’

    None of this is to say that Biden’s memory lapses aren’t worth concern or that he is as vigorous as he was as a younger man. But someone voting for Biden is selecting, above all, a set of policy ideas and promises that he has laid out, with the expectation that the apparatus of the executive branch will implement them.

    Voting for Trump is opting for a charismatic individual who brings to office a set of attitudes rather than a platform. Considering the presidency as a matter of individual mental acuity grants the field to Trump’s own preferred conception of unified personal power, so it’s striking that the comparison makes the dangers posed by Trump’s mentality so stark.

    [ad_2]

    David A. Graham

    Source link

  • Former Finland PM Alexander Stubb wins presidential election 

    Former Finland PM Alexander Stubb wins presidential election 

    [ad_1]

    After attending school in Finland and later the U.S., Belgium and the U.K., Stubb entered politics in 2004 as a member of the European Parliament. He hit the Finnish big time in 2008 when — to his own surprise — he was named foreign minister.

    Praised by allies for his high-energy approach to politics, he was also criticized during his time in government for his occasionally hasty statements, and was forced to apologize after being accused of swearing at a meeting of the Nordic Council, a regional cooperation body. 

    During a difficult year as prime minister in 2014 he failed to reverse his NCP’s declining popularity, and lost a parliamentary election in 2015 amid an economic slump. After a subsequent spell as finance minister he quit Finnish politics in 2017, vowing never to return.

    During the five-month presidential election campaign, observers say, Stubb earned the support of voters by demonstrating a calmer and more thoughtful demeanor during debates than had been his custom, and for being at pains to show respect for his rivals. 

    “However this election goes, it will be good for Finland,” he said in a debate with Haavisto earlier last week. 

    Stubb has said he intends to be a unifying force in Finnish society, something the country appears to need after a series of racism scandals involving government ministers and, more recently, strikes over work conditions and wages that paralyzed public services.



    [ad_2]

    Charles Duxbury

    Source link

  • Trump Says He’d ‘Encourage’ Russia to Attack NATO Allies Who Don’t Pay Up

    Trump Says He’d ‘Encourage’ Russia to Attack NATO Allies Who Don’t Pay Up

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump has despised NATO since the 1980s, and when he was president, his aides believed he wanted to pull the United States out of the alliance completely. At a rally this weekend, Trump went even further, stating that he would encourage Russia to invade NATO allies who “didn’t pay.”

    Trump’s threat took the form of a story that is likely exaggerated or made up completely (one obvious sign of Trump’s fake stories is that he is always being called “sir” in them), but what he said nonetheless reveals his attitude toward the United States’ most important alliance:

    The president of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and are attacked by Russia, will you protect us?”

    I said, “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?”

    He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.”

    “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

    Trump has long depicted NATO as a protection racket, in which America’s allies pay up or else they get invaded by Russia. His defenders have sought to sanewash this disturbing idea by treating it as just Trump’s way of encouraging NATO allies to spend more on defense — see, Trump isn’t a Russia simp, they say, but a kind of hawk.

    During his presidency, many allies did implement an (already-planned) increase in military expenditures, and NATO supporters tried to sell this to him as a Trump “win” forcing the allies to pay their “dues.” But Trump has refused to take this win, because his goal isn’t actually a stronger NATO, but a weaker one.

    Trump has claimed that Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if he were still president. He has also insisted his presidency would put an end to wars. But it’s clear a second Trump term would create incentives for Vladimir Putin to undertake even more risky military adventures.

    The risk of a second Trump presidency bringing a destabilizing war in Europe is now enormous. Whether or not Trump actually would directly urge Russia to attack allied countries he considers to be deadbeats — or perhaps whose leaders merely fail to flatter him sufficiently — the fact that he has already publicly suggested this is provocation enough. He has now floated the idea that the United States would abandon its NATO allies. That bell can’t be unrung.



    [ad_2]

    Jonathan Chait

    Source link

  • Russia’s Vladimir Putin claims the Biden administration is ‘killing’ the USD by using it as a weapon — says ‘blow was dealt’ to America and even its allies are now ‘downsizing’ the dollar

    Russia’s Vladimir Putin claims the Biden administration is ‘killing’ the USD by using it as a weapon — says ‘blow was dealt’ to America and even its allies are now ‘downsizing’ the dollar

    [ad_1]

    Russia’s Vladimir Putin claims the Biden administration is ‘killing’ the USD by using it as a weapon — says ‘blow was dealt’ to America and even its allies are now ‘downsizing’ the dollar

    Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has once again taken aim at the U.S. dollar — accusing President Joe Biden’s administration of “killing [it] with [its] own hands” after using the currency as a weapon of foreign policy.

    In a new and highly divisive interview with Tucker Carlson, the Russian leader said: “The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States’ power… it is the main weapon used by the U.S. to preserve its power across the world.

    Don’t miss

    “As soon as the political leadership decided to use the dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power.”

    To illustrate that alleged decline in the dollar’s dominance, Putin — whose comments were translated live from Russian to English — pointed out that “even the U.S. allies are downsizing the dollar in their reserves.”

    Is this trend away from the greenback — known as de-dollarization — really as bad as Russia’s president makes it out to be?

    Was the writing on the wall?

    De-dollarization occurs when countries shift away from the dollar as a reserve currency, medium of exchange or unit of account. The U.S. has repeatedly dismissed any notions that this is a problem — instead deeming it a “natural desire [for countries] to diversify” their economies.

    But Putin implied Russia’s hand was forced to ramp up its de-dollarization plans after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which triggered a backlash of heavy sanctions by the U.S. and other Western powers. Russia was also kicked off the world’s main international payments network Swift.

    “Look at what is going on in the world,” Putin told Carlson. “Until 2022, nearly 80% of foreign transactions in Russia were settled in U.S. dollars or euros. Currently, it is now down to 13%… By the way, our transactions in yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of our transactions are made in rubles, and about as much, a little over 34%, in yuan.”

    While Putin blamed the sanctions in this most recent interview, many would argue the writing has long been on the wall regarding Russia’s de-dollarization.

    Russia is a founding member of BRICS, a group of emerging market economies — including China, India, Brazil, South Africa and many more — who are trying to settle major trades in their local currencies instead of the U.S. dollar. This movement is gaining momentum as countries try to reduce transaction costs, limit their exposure to global volatility and geopolitical risks and boost their local economies.

    Read more: Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now cash in on prime real estate — without the headache of being a landlord. Here’s how

    What does the de-dollarization data say?

    The Russian president’s warning about the greenback is well-timed. It comes amid heightened speculation around the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, in large part due to the nation’s historic $34 trillion mountain of debt.

    According to data from the IMF, the greenback’s share of global allocated foreign exchange reserves has fallen by around 6% since early 2016.

    However, the U.S. dollar still accounted for 59.17% of global allocated foreign exchange reserves in the third quarter of 2023 (the latest data set) — a stark contrast to the Chinese yuan’s 2.37% of reserves in the same period.

    Analysts at FXC Intelligence, who recently published a report on de-dollarization, stated: “Our research shows that de-dollarization is happening, but… it is by no means rapid.

    “It is instead currently on course to be a slow process over the next couple of decades as countries shift to a broader range of currencies, likely to provide greater hedging from future possible geopolitical shocks.”

    What to read next

    This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia’s war in Ukraine has had an unlikely consequence — it has revived the EU’s plans to get even bigger

    Russia’s war in Ukraine has had an unlikely consequence — it has revived the EU’s plans to get even bigger

    [ad_1]

    People hold a banner and Ukrainian flags during a rally to mark the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2023 in Belgrade, Serbia. As part of the Western Balkans block waiting for EU-membership, Serbia is caught in a geostrategic rivalry between its Western allies and Russia.

    Vladimir Zivojinovic | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Davos, SWITZERLAND — Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gave fresh political momentum to the European Union and its plans for enlargement in the strategically important Western Balkans. But whether the neighboring region is ready — and willing — to finally make the steps needed to join the union remains unclear.

    The Western Balkans, comprised of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Serbia, represent a notable gap in the map of EU membership in southeastern Europe.

    Though each has applied for — and been granted — candidate or potential candidate member status over the past two decades following the fall of the socialist federation of Yugoslavia in 1992, progress on accession has been generally slow.

    “I see the European Union more ready for the Balkans than the Balkans for the European Union,” Miroslav Lajčák, EU special representative for the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue and Western Balkans, told CNBC last month.

    Accession to the bloc is a rigorous and often lengthy process involving several phases of negotiations and reforms to ensure a candidate state meets the EU’s judicial, administrative and economic standards.

    Lajčák said that countries in the Western Balkans, in the past, had been hesitant to truly engage in such reforms because they “did not believe in a true European future” — or that they could realistically meet the requirements.

    But all that changed with the outbreak of war on Europe’s doorstep in February 2022.

    Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia brought a fresh energy and commitment – something that was almost lost in the Balkans.

    Miroslav Lajčák

    EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue and Western Balkans

    Within days of Russia’s invasion, Ukraine, neighboring Moldova and, soon after, nearby Georgia applied for EU candidate status. By late 2023, the EU launched accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova, and granted candidate status to Georgia, adding momentum to the European project and signaling renewed hope for other would-be members.

    “Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia brought a fresh energy and commitment – something that was almost lost in the Balkans,” Lajčák said. “Now, it’s very clear that the European Union is serious.”

    Though Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia are outside of the Western Balkans, constituting part of Europe’s former Eastern bloc, Lajčák said that progress should drive the region forward in accession talks. Negotiations are currently underway in every country except Kosovo, a potential candidate member, but Lajčák noted that that openness may not remain indefinitely.

    “The train is here and the train will leave the station. If they don’t board, they will miss a huge historic opportunity,” he said.

    An atmosphere of EU enlargement

    The EU’s accelerated enlargement comes as the bloc seeks to strengthen its assertiveness given Russia’s war in Ukraine and a fracturing of the U.S.-led world order. Lajčák said this has caused the atmosphere in Brussels to become “more political” than in the past.

    “Before, it was always said that enlargement means expanding the area where European values and rules apply. Now, it’s seen more geopolitically,” Lajčák said.

    “It makes us stronger, it makes us bigger, it makes our market bigger. So it’s less idealistic and more pragmatic.”

    It would be economically insane [for European countries] to look elsewhere.

    Miroslav Lajčák

    EU Special Representative for the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue and Western Balkans

    The heightened political emphasis has made foreign policy alignment more critical than ever to the accession process, with the EU’s unity already vexed by the intransigence of existing member Hungary. That could prove a sticking point for certain prospective members.

    Serbia, for instance — the largest country in the region — has been vocal in condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but has resisted imposing sanctions on the country. Indeed, Belgrade has often clashed with Western allies on foreign policy issues, and continues to maintain close ties with Russia and China.

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    Meanwhile, both Moscow and Beijing have sought to strengthen their economic and political influence in the Western Balkans in a potential bid to destabilize the wider region.

    Still, Lajčák insisted that neither country could compete with Brussels in terms of its investment and trade offering. “The credible enlargement process is the best answer to any third-party’s interference,” Lajčák said. “It would be economically insane [for European countries] to look elsewhere.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nikki Haley makes surprise ‘Saturday Night Live’ cameo asking ‘Trump’ questions

    Nikki Haley makes surprise ‘Saturday Night Live’ cameo asking ‘Trump’ questions

    [ad_1]

    Republican presidential candidate former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley delivers remarks at her primary night rally at the Grappone Conference Center on January 23, 2024 in Concord, New Hampshire. 

    Joe Raedle | Getty Images

    Nikki Haley made a surprise — and funny — appearance on “Saturday Night Live,” where she asked a cast member playing her Republican presidential primary opponent Donald Trump a series of zingers in the cold open.

    A beaming Haley also delivered the NBC show’s signature line, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday night!” at the end of the skit right after the show’s guest host, actor Ayo Edeberi, delivered a sharp joke that referenced Haley’s famously flubbed answer when she was recently asked about the cause of the Civil War.

    “Had a blast tonight on SNL,” Haley tweeted after her appearance.

    “Know it was past Donald’s bedtime so looking forward to the stream of unhinged tweets in the a.m.”

    Haley’s cameo came in the middle of the first skit at a CNN town hall where “Trump,” played by James Austin Johnson, was being asked a series of questions by audience members.

    Town hall host “Charles Barkley,” played by Kenan Thompson, said, “Our next question comes from someone who describes herself as a concerned South Carolina voter.”

    The live audience let out a whoop when Haley stood up.

    “My question is, why won’t you debate Nikki Haley?” Haley asked “Trump.”

    “Trump” exclaimed, “Oh, my god, it’s her! The woman who was in charge of security on Jan. 6. It’s Nancy Pelosi!”

    When “Barkley” pointed out that was not Pelosi.

    “Are you doing OK, Donald? You might need a mental competency test,” Haley said.

    “Trump” quickly assured her that he “aced” that test, and, “they told me I’m a 100% mental and I’m competent because I’m a man.”

    He added that women “should never run our economy. Women are terrible with money.”

    “In fact, a woman I know recently asked me for $83 million,” he said, referencing the amount of monetary damages a New York civil jury recently awarded writer E. Jean Carroll for the real Trump defaming her after she alleged he had raped her.

    Haley cracked, “And you spent $50 million in your own legal fees. Do you need to borrow some money?”

    “Trump” then went into a Trump-like search for nicknames for Haley — “Nikki-Tikki-Tavi,” “Nikki Don’t Lose that Number” — before landing on a mashup of her name with the star of “The Sixth Sense.”

    “Nikki Haley Joel Osman, we call her,” he said. ” ‘Sixth Sense,’ remember that one: ‘I see dead people.’ “

    Haley then said, “Yeah, that’s what voters will say if they see you and Joe [Biden] on the ballot.”

    “Trump” moaned “that;s not nice,” and insisted he was always nice to Haley except when he implied that she was not born in the United States.

    “Even though you were born in South Carolina, and I’m gonna beat you in your state,” he said.

    “And did you win your home state in the last election?” Haley asked.

    “Trump” replied, “I won Staten Island!”

    “And the parts of Long Island where the fist fights happen, where they get out of the cars if you honk your horn at them,” said Trump, who lost his home state of New York in both the 2016 and 2020 elections.

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    But then it was Haley’s turn to be the target of a pointed jibe when Edeberi, a star of the FX on Hulu series “The Bear,” stood up and asked her a question.

    “I was just curious, what would you say was the main cause of the Civil War, um, and do you think it starts with an ‘s’ and ends with a ‘lavery?’ ” Edeberi asked.

    Haley replied, “Yep, I probably should have said that the first time.”

    Comcast owns NBCUniversal, the parent of NBC and CNBC.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Speaker Johnson announces ‘standalone’ Israel funding package

    House Speaker Johnson announces ‘standalone’ Israel funding package

    [ad_1]

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) holds a news conference following a caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on January 30, 2024 in Washington, DC. 

    Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Saturday announced an Israel-only funding package to be voted on next week, another step in the deadlocked negotiations over emergency aid that President Joe Biden initially proposed in October.

    The House proposal comes as a challenge to a long-awaited Senate package that is expected to be released this weekend. The Senate’s bill is expected to include broader foreign aid than just Israel and address border security funding.

    But the Republican-majority House has voiced its intention to be hard on the Senate’s proposal, especially as Johnson tries to appease Republican hardliners who expect him to deliver on their ultraconservative wish list to limit spending and maximize border security.

    “While the Senate appears poised to finally release text of their supplemental package after months of behind closed door negotiations, their leadership is aware that by failing to include the House in their negotiations, they have eliminated the ability for swift consideration of any legislation,” Johnson wrote in a letter he addressed to “Friends.”

    “Next week, we will take up and pass a clean, standalone Israel supplemental package,” the speaker added.

    The House bill includes $17.6 billion for Israel’s military and U.S. military forces in the region as the war with Hamas in Gaza continues. If approved, this funding would add to the $14.3 billion that the House passed for Israel in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.

    This bill separates aid to Israel from Ukraine, Taiwan and the U.S. southern border, all of which were linked in Biden’s original $105 billion aid proposal. That initial bill included $61 billion for Ukraine, $14.3 billion for Israel, $6.4 billion for the U.S. border and $2 billion for Taiwan.

    But disagreements over how to address the U.S. border and whether to continue funding Ukraine’s defense against Russia stalled the passage of Biden’s October aid package.

    Democrats and Republicans have gone back and forth for months negotiating the proposal, leading to a near-miss government shutdown and eating into some lawmakers’ holiday break.

    Democrats argue that Ukraine funding is essential to preventing the further rise of authoritarian Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his threat to global democracy. Meanwhile, Republicans want to rein in Ukraine aid, claiming that without a clear end in sight, the nearly two-year war has led to U.S. overspending.

    The border has been another major sticking point, as the number of migrants crossing over to the U.S. reached record highs over the past few months. The influx has overwhelmed some cities, whose mayors say they do not have the resources or infrastructure to accommodate the incoming migrant population. That crisis has led Republicans to press even harder for their border security wish list, which includes policies that the Democrat-majority Senate would likely never pass.

    These clashes deadlocked the emergency aid package for months. Democrat and Republican lawmakers assured that they were working to find middle ground.

    Both sides appeared optimistic that they were making progress. For example, in January, Johnson and Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said they had a productive meeting with Biden where they assured they would be able to reach a bipartisan agreement to address the border, Ukraine and the rest of the president’s funding requests.

    However, in recent weeks, politics have hindered that progress. In closed-door meetings, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky reportedly told senators that former President Donald Trump wanted to torpedo the deal so as not to deliver Biden a campaign victory during an election year. Trump has regularly used the border crisis as a campaign talking point against Biden in his 2024 bid for re-election.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US starts retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria against Iran-linked targets

    US starts retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria against Iran-linked targets

    [ad_1]

    President Joe Biden arrives to board Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, on January 30, 2024.

    Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images

    The United States launched airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against more than 85 targets linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the militias it backs, reportedly killing more than 30 people, in retaliation for a deadly attack on U.S. troops.

    The strikes, which included the use of long-range B-1 bombers flown from the United States, were the first in a multi-tiered response by President Joe Biden’s administration to the attack last weekend by Iran-backed militants.

    More U.S. military operations were expected in the coming days.

    The strikes intensified a conflict that has spread into the region since war erupted between Israel and Hamas after the militant Palestinian group’s deadly assault on Israel on Oct.7.

    Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani said in a statement the U.S. attacks represented “another adventurous and strategic mistake by the United States that will result only in increased tension in instability in the region”.       

    Iraq also condemned the U.S. attacks, saying they had killed 16 people including civilians. In Syria, the strikes killed 23 people who had been guarding the targeted locations, said Rami Abdulrahman, director of the Syrian

    Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that reports on war in Syria.

    Joint Chiefs of Staff Director for Operations Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II arrives to brief members of the House of Representatives in a classified, closed-door briefing about Hamas’ attack on Israel in the Capitol Visitors Center Auditorium on October 11, 2023 in Washington, DC.

    Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    U.S. Lieutenant General Douglas Sims, the director of the Joint Staff, said the attacks appeared to be successful, triggering large secondary explosions as the bombs hit militant weaponry. He said the strikes were undertaken knowing that there would likely be casualties among those in the facilities.

    Despite the strikes, the Pentagon has said it does not want war with Iran and does not believe Tehran wants war either, even as Republican pressure has increased on the Biden to deal a blow directly.

    Iran, a backer of Hamas, has sought to stay out of the regional conflict itself even as it supports groups that have entered the fray from Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria – the so-called “Axis of Resistance” that is hostile to Israeli and U.S. interests.   

    ‘We do not seek conflict’ 

    U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said after the strikes that Biden had directed additional action against the IRGC and those linked to it. “This is the start of our response,” Austin said.

    “We do not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else, but the president and I will not tolerate attacks on American forces,” Austin said.   

    An Iraqi government statement said the areas bombed by U.S. aircraft included places where Iraqi security forces are stationed near civilian locations. It said 23 people had been wounded in addition to the 16 killed.

    The White House said the United States had informed Iraq ahead of strikes. Baghdad later accused the United States of deception, saying a U.S. claim of coordination with the Iraqi authorities was “unfounded”.

    The Syrian foreign ministry said the United States was fueling conflict in the region in a “very dangerous way”.

    On Friday, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said his country will not start a war, but it will “respond strongly” to anyone who bullies it.

    Hamas condemned the U.S. strikes and said Washington was pouring “oil on the fire”.

    Britain called the United States its “steadfast” ally and said it supports Washington’s right to respond to attacks.

    Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, arriving for an EU meeting in Brussels, said the U.S. strikes were the result of Iranian proxies “playing with fire”.  

    More than 160 attacks on U.S. troops   

    The strikes hit targets including command and control centers, rockets, missiles and drone storage facilities, as well as logistics and munition supply chain facilities, the U.S. military said in a statement.

    In Iraq, local residents said several strikes hit the Sikak Neighborhood in Al-Qaim, a residential area that locals said was also used by armed groups to store large amounts of weapons. Militants had left the area and gone into hiding in the days since the Jordan attack, local sources said.

    U.S. troops have been attacked over 160 times in Iraq, Syria and Jordan since Oct. 7, usually with a mix of rockets and one-way attack drones, prompting the United States to mount several retaliatory attacks even before the latest strikes.

    The United States has assessed that the drone that killed the three soldiers and wounded more than 40 other people in Jordan was made by Iran, U.S. officials have told Reuters.

    “Our response began today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing,” Biden said.

    The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, criticized Biden for failing to impose a high enough cost on Iran, and taking too long to respond.

    Iranian advisers assist armed groups in both Iraq, where the United States has around 2,500 troops, and Syria, where it has 900.   

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russian war critic poses an awkward challenge for Putin and the Kremlin as the election nears

    Russian war critic poses an awkward challenge for Putin and the Kremlin as the election nears

    [ad_1]

    Boris Nadezhdin, the Civic Initiative Party presidential hopeful, arrives at the Central Election Commission to submit signatures collected in support of his candidacy, in Moscow on January 31, 2024.

    Vera Savina | Afp | Getty Images

    Over President Vladimir Putin‘s 24 years in power, a systemic opposition has been wiped out in Russia with the Kremlin’s political opponents either jailed or in self-imposed exile or, in some circumstances, even dead.

    But a challenger to Putin’s long reign in office has emerged from an unlikely place — within Russia’s existing political establishment — in the form of Boris Nadezhdin.

    Standing on a platform for peace with Ukraine, friendly and cooperative global relations and fair elections, as well as a fairer civil society and smaller state, Nadezhdin submitted his bid to run for the presidency Wednesday.

    The Kremlin has sought to dismiss Nadezhdin’s potential to upset an election whose win for Putin is seen as a done deal. Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told CNBC Thursday that “we are not inclined to exaggerate the level of support for Mr. Nadezhdin.”

    Nonetheless, the fact that Nadezhdin is even attempting to stand for election on an anti-war platform — and has garnered a certain level of public support — shows there is public appetite for his views, and that’s likely to make the Kremlin nervous after it has staked its political legacy and future on a victory in Ukraine.

    Russian political analysts point out that Nadezhdin, 60, isn’t a political outsider or upstart but part of Russia’s political establishment — a former lawmaker who had been a member of political parties that endorsed Putin’s leadership at the start of his political career over two decades ago.

    His recent foray into frontline politics, and bid to run for the presidential election, has seemingly been tolerated by Russia’s political leadership and domestic policy makers, despite the misgivings of some pro-Kremlin activists, with Nadezhdin seen previously as a member of the system opposition that gives a veil of political plurality and legitimacy to Russia’s largely autocratic leadership.

    However, Nadezhdin’s recent growing popularity and prominence has changed that, political analysts say, and he now poses a challenge and a dilemma for the Kremlin as the election nears.

    “He has been always anti war and critical but he played the rules and respected the rules, so he didn’t dare [challenge the political status quo], he was absolutely a part of the systemic opposition … but he decided to go further,” Russian political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya told CNBC Thursday.

    “[As soon as] he believed that thousands of people were behind him or even hundreds of thousands, he decided to play another game,” Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center and the founder of analysis firm R.Politik, said.

    “And it doesn’t please domestic policy overseers at all. For them, this is a set up, this is a headache and a problem. Nadezhdin has now become a challenge,” she said.

    Skating on thin ice?

    Nadezhdin is a well-known face in Russia. A former State Duma lawmaker, he has made a name for himself on popular TV chat shows on which he’s become known for his critical views on Russia’s war against Ukraine, or what Moscow calls the “special military operation.” However, analysts note that he has been careful to stay within recent legislation that has made “discrediting” the armed forces a criminal offense that can lead to imprisonment.

    Nadezhdin has gained a popular following among sections of the Russian public and late last year he was nominated to stand in the election by the center-right Civic Initiative party.

    Formed just over 10 years ago, the party states in its manifesto that “its goal is the state to be man’s servant, not his master” and says it wants to restore individual freedoms in Russia, such as freedom of speech and the right to protest, and to revive relations with the West. Nadezhdin has said in interviews that he would end the war with Ukraine, describing the war as a “fatal mistake.”

    Those are brave words in Russia, and Nadezhdin himself has said he’s unsure why he has not yet been arrested for his views.

    Many of his supporters have queued in freezing temperatures to add their support and, crucially, their signatures to back his bid to stand in the Mar. 15-17 election.

    Candidates representing political parties in Russia must collect at least 100,000 signatures from at least 40 regions in Russia in order to be considered as an election candidate. Putin, running as an independent (and requiring at least 300,000 signatures), reportedly gathered over 3.5 million signatures.

    People queue to sign for the presidential candidacy of anti-war candidate Boris Nadezhdin. It is considered impossible that Nadezhdin could win the upcoming presidential election in Russia. However, the candidacy of the war opponent has met with unexpected approval from many Russians. 

    Picture Alliance | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

    Surrounded by his supporters and a gaggle of press as he delivered his bid to the Central Election Commission this week, Nadezhdin said 105,000 signatures had been submitted although just over 200,000 had been collected, his campaign website states. His campaign decided not to submit signatures collected from Russian citizens abroad, fearing they would be rejected.

    The Central Election Commission, which oversees electoral processes in Russia, will now review the eligibility of those signatures. Given the recent display of support for Nadezhdin, that could prove uncomfortable for the Kremlin, and there are concerns that the electoral authorities could find fault with a significant number of those signatures, meaning that a technicality — real or otherwise — could see him barred from running in the election.

    Stanovaya said that was a likely scenario, saying “it is really difficult for me to imagine that Nadezhdin will be allowed to run in the election, it would be absolutely weird.” Stanovaya believed it was likely that the CEC would not recognize a portion of the signatures that Nadezhdin has garnered.

    CNBC was unable to reach the CEC for a response to the comment.

    András Tóth-Czifra, a fellow in the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told CNBC that the Kremlin now had to weigh up the risks of letting Nadezhdin’s name onto the ballet paper, and the potential for him to perform better than expected in the vote, or to disallow his candidacy before any real reputational damage can be done — even while knowing that stopping Nadezhdin standing could also fan discontent.

    “Many have speculated, and I think this is true, that the original idea to let him stand as a candidate and collect signatures, and to express the mildly anti anti war message in his campaign, was to showcase how little support this position enjoys in today’s Russia,” Tóth-Czifra said.

    Boris Nadezhdin, Civic Initiative party’s candidate for Russia’s 2024 presidential election, bringing 105,000 signatures to the polling station in Moscow, Russia on January 31, 2024. 

    Boris Nadezhdin Press Service/Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images

    “Now … the question is how risky the Kremlin’s political technologists deem it to allow this to go further and to let Nadezhdin be on the ballot,” he told CNBC Thursday.

    “I’m pretty sure that the Kremlin will weigh these risks over the week while the Central Electoral Commission is verifying signatures … There are arguments for letting Naezhdin run and there are arguments for taking him off the ballot paper. There are risks associated with letting him run and there are risks associated with taking him off the ballot,” Tóth-Czifra said.

    “I believe, from what we have seen so far, that probably the Kremlin thinks that the risks associated with taking him off the ballot are lower than the risks associated with letting him run,” he added, particularly given that the Kremlin’s risk perception is likely to be elevated in a time of war.

    “I’m pretty sure that there are already people in the Kremlin who think that he has gone too far already,” Tóth-Czifra said.

    Even if Nadezhdin is allowed to stand, there are no illusions that he can win the election in a country where Putin’s approval ratings remain remarkably high and pro-Putin media dominate, and where political opponents are subject to extensive smear campaigns.

    Kremlin’s Press Secretary Peskov told CNBC last fall that Russian “society is consolidated around the president” and that the Kremlin was confident Putin would win another term in office.

    Stanovaya said Nadezhdin is running the risk of falling foul of Russian authorities now, having openly challenged its long-standing leadership.

    “He takes a lot of risks now, and I’m pretty sure that the Kremlin’s domestic policy overseers, who are very well acquainted with Nadezhdin, are now thinking of how to deal with this and how to signal to Nadezhdin that either he stops and really he rows backwards, or he will have troubles.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden faces demands from Republicans in Congress to strike Iran after U.S. troop deaths

    Biden faces demands from Republicans in Congress to strike Iran after U.S. troop deaths

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on August 05, 2022 in Washington, DC.

    Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

    Congressional lawmakers are demanding President Joe Biden strike Iran after three U.S. troops were killed Sunday night in Jordan in a drone strike claimed by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an Iranian-backed militia group.

    The deadly drone attack, which also injured at least 34 U.S. personnel, marks the first deaths of U.S. troops by enemy fire since the latest Israel-Hamas war began after Palestinian militant group Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel. Iran has not commented on the strike, while Jordan’s government denied it took place on its soil.

    “I am calling on the Biden Administration to strike targets of significance inside Iran, not only as reprisal for the killing of our forces, but as deterrence against future aggression,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a statement.

    “The only thing the Iranian regime understands is force. Until they pay a price with their infrastructure and their personnel, the attacks on U.S. troops will continue,” he added. “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.”

    Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the most senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: “We must respond to these repeated attacks by Iran and its proxies by striking directly against Iranian targets and its leadership. … The Biden administration’s responses thus far have only invited more attacks.” 

    Biden for his part vowed to retaliate, saying in a statement that “we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing.”

    An infographic titled ‘Three US service members killed, dozens injured in drone attack’ created in Ankara, Turkiye on January 28, 2024.

    Elmurod Usubaliev | Anadolu | Getty Images

    The attack marks another regional escalation in a war that the Biden administration has tried to contain.

    Already, conflict has spilled over into the Red Sea, with Yemeni Houthi rebels attacking ships in protest of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and Israel’s U.S. backer. The U.S. and U.K. have launched airstrikes against Houthi positions in Yemen, but so far have failed to deter the group’s activities.

    Meanwhile, Lebanese Shia militia group Hezbollah and Israel are exchanging fire along the Israeli-Lebanese border, while Iran earlier this month struck targets in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan. Only the Iraqi target was purportedly linked to Israel, but Tehran’s recent assertiveness is likely a signal to the U.S. and Israel about its capabilities. Both Hezbollah and the Houthis are supported by Iran.

    Despite this, numerous regional analysts warn that Iran does not necessarily have full control over the actions of the proxy groups that it arms around the Middle East.

    “Unlike Lebanese Hezbollah, which has been more measured in its response to the Gaza war, the Iraqi militias and the Houthis have displayed a high tolerance for direct confrontation with the United States,” Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets, wrote in an analysis note.

    The risk of wider conflict and deeper U.S. involvement led oil prices to jump Monday morning. Both Washington and Tehran have expressed their desire to avoid more kinetic involvement in the war, likely understanding the sheer scale of destruction a direct confrontation between the two adversaries would cause.

    “Striking Iran directly would be extremely costly, extremely risky for the U.S.,” Dominic Pratt, a senior country analyst for the Middle East and Africa at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC. Short of that approach, he said, would be for the U.S. to continue on its current path of attacking Iranian proxy groups in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, as well as expanding financial pressures like sanctions.

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    But that has clearly failed to deter the latest attacks on U.S. personnel in the region — there have been at least 160 attacks by Iran-backed groups on Middle Eastern bases where Americans are present during the more than 3½ months since the Israel-Hamas war began.

    “As long as the war in Gaza continues, we’re likely to see these attacks carry on,” Pratt said.

    “A lot of these groups have tied their attacks directly to Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and the U.S. support for it. … So for as long as this this war continues, we’ll continue to see an escalation of these attacks, or at least that these attacks will carry on as they are, which broadens the risk that there will be an escalation like what we’ve seen with the attack on the base in Jordan.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Beijing intensifies military pressure on Taiwan as U.S.-China talks resume

    Beijing intensifies military pressure on Taiwan as U.S.-China talks resume

    [ad_1]

    Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with U.S. President Joe Biden at Filoli Estate in the U.S. state of California, Nov. 15, 2023.

    Li Xueren | Xinhua News Agency | Getty Images

    Beijing sent dozens of military aircraft and naval ships toward Taiwan on Friday, the same day of a low-profile meeting between U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi aimed at stabilizing U.S.-China relations.

    From 6 a.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Saturday local time, China sent 33 military aircraft and six naval vessels toward Taiwan, according to Taiwan’s Defense Ministry. Thirteen of the planes crossed over the Taiwan Strait.

    The intensified military pressure comes as the U.S. and China are attempting to steer relations back on track after an icy couple of years. For example, at their meeting, Sullivan and Wang confirmed the plan to launch a collaborative U.S.-China “Counternarcotics Working Group” on Tuesday to address the fentanyl crisis.

    “Mr. Sullivan underscored during the meeting that the United States and the PRC are in competition but the United States does not seek conflict or confrontation, and there are areas of cooperation in the relationship,” a senior administration official said Saturday.

    But China’s military moves over the past 24 hours could complicate hopes for cooperation.

    China’s approach to Taiwan, which it considers its territory, is a sensitive sticking point in its precarious relationship with the U.S., which believes in Taiwan keeping its self-governing status. The contentious issue comes up at nearly every U.S.-China meeting, including the high-profile talks between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in November.

    During their two-day meeting in Bangkok on Thursday and Friday, Sullivan and Wang talked about reopening military-to-military communications, curbing the flow of fentanyl and mitigating the risks of artificial intelligence.

    Sullivan also reiterated the U.S. stance on maintaining the status quo of Taiwan’s sovereignty. But China has repeatedly rebuffed the U.S. position and has been vocal about its intention to “reunify” Taiwan with the mainland.

    China’s military pressure on Taiwan comes during what senior administration officials have called “a period of higher tension.”

    Taiwan voters recently elected Democratic Progressive Party candidate Lai Ching-te to be their next president. Lai was China’s least favorite candidate due to his support of maintaining Taiwan’s status quo.

    Ahead of that election, the U.S. prepared for a range of responses from China.

    “Anytime we’re heading into a period of higher tension, there are of course always contingency conversations in the U.S. government,” a senior administration official said at the time.

    “I don’t want to get into specifics on those, but of course, we have to be prepared and thinking through any eventuality … ranging from no response to the higher end.”



    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • World Court rules Israel must prevent genocide in Gaza, falls short of ordering a cease-fire

    World Court rules Israel must prevent genocide in Gaza, falls short of ordering a cease-fire

    [ad_1]

    The Peace Palace building of the International Court of Justice a few hours before the court delivers its ruling in the case brought by South Africa against Israel.

    Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    The U.N.’s highest court on Friday ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide against the Palestinian people, but fell short of insisting that Israel should implement a cease-fire.

    It comes as Israeli forces continue a military campaign in the Gaza Strip that has claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives.

    The court further ordered Israel to submit a report within one month on the steps it is taking.

    “Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the genocide convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts under article 2 of the convention, in particular, a) killing members of the group, b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, c) inflicting upon the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole and in part, and d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” a reading of the International Court of Justice decision said Friday.

    The court said it has jurisdiction to rule on the case and will not be dismissing it, despite Israel’s request to do so.

    “Israel must ensure, with immediate effect, that its military forces do not commit any of the aforementioned acts,” the reading continued, saying that Israel must also take measures to prevent the incitement of genocide against Palestinian people.

    The World Court judgment was issued in response to a full case submitted by the South African government on Dec. 29, which accused Israel of genocide against the Palestinian people. The court heard South Africa’s allegations on Jan. 11 and Israel’s response on Jan. 12.

    ICJ rulings are “binding upon the parties concerned,” final and allow no right of appeal. The World Court lacks the means to directly enforce its pronouncements, but its rulings can often deal heavy reputational blows to the accused.

    The court also said it was “gravely concerned” about the welfare of the over 200 Israeli hostages abducted by Palestinian militant Hamas during their Oct. 7 terror attacks that triggered Israel’s retaliatory military response in the Gaza Strip. The World Court called for the immediate release of the captives.

    Questions have mounted internationally over the proportionality of Israel’s military activity in the Gaza Strip and the extent to which it is minimizing civilian casualties.

    At least 23,000 Palestinian people have been killed in the Gaza Strip, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, while humanitarian agencies have rung alarm bells over the spread of diseases, overcrowded shelters and a critical lack of food and electric resources.

    Israel has denied the allegations and Israeli forces have repeatedly cited the right to self-defense. They sau that Hamas forces have intentionally entrenched themselves in non-combatant facilities in the Gaza Strip, such as schools and hospitals, and are using civilians as human shields.

    This is a breaking news item, and it is being updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Advance of far-right parties is the ‘biggest concern’ for Western democracies, Spain’s Prime Minister says

    Advance of far-right parties is the ‘biggest concern’ for Western democracies, Spain’s Prime Minister says

    [ad_1]

    Spanish acting Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez during the investiture debate at the Spanish Parliament on Nov. 15, 2023 in Madrid, Spain.

    Isabel Infantes | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    The rise of far-right political groups is the “biggest concern” for Western democracies, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez told CNBC.

    “I think that not only the [political] fragmentation, but the advance of the far-right, it is something … I would say [it is] the biggest concern for Western democracies,” Sanchez said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

    His comments come in a year set to bring voters to the polls in several countries worldwide, which will include European Parliament elections in June.

    Support for far-right groups has bolstered in some European nations. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party has grown in popularity in the polls, while Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party recorded a decisive victory in Dutch general elections in November.

    Speaking to CNBC on Tuesday, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said “centrist parties, like my party, right of center, have to be more successful — me myself, my party, [need] to explain we are there for the economy, we are there for collective safety.”

    Addressing a trend of political fragmentation, Sánchez noted how some right-wing parties in the European Union have had to form coalition agreements with far-right parties. In Spain, the conservative People’s Party forged an alliance with far-right Vox during Alberto Nunez Feijoo’s failed bid to gain parliamentary approval for his investiture as prime minister last year.

    Alliances are “the major decision that the popular party at the European level must take,” Sanchez said.

    The Spanish prime minister said it is “important that we stick to the previous agreement that we reached – the three biggest families, the largest families of the European Union politically which is the social democracy, the liberals and the popular party.”

    He said that having more progressive or center seats than far-right seats in the European Parliament would be “easier for all of us, the Commission, the Council and of course, the European Parliament.”

    Sánchez secured another term as Spain’s prime minister in November, winning parliamentary backing to assemble a new government.

    What is the World Economic Forum?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Korea scraps agencies managing relations with South as Kim Jong Un cites hostility with rival

    North Korea scraps agencies managing relations with South as Kim Jong Un cites hostility with rival

    [ad_1]

    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits Korean People’s Army Air Force headquarters on the occasion of Aviation Day in North Korea, in this picture released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on December 1, 2023.

    KCNA | Reuters

    North Korea has abolished key government organizations tasked with managing relations with South Korea, state media said Tuesday, as authoritarian leader Kim Jong Un said he would no longer pursue reconciliation with his rival.

    North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency said the decision to abolish the agencies handling dialogue and cooperation with the South was made during a meeting of the country’s rubber-stamp parliament on Monday.

    During a speech at the assembly, Kim blamed South Korea and the United States for raising tensions in the region. He said it has become impossible for the North to pursue reconciliation and a peaceful reunification with the South.

    He called for the assembly to rewrite the North’s Constitution in its next meeting to define South Korea as the North’s “No. 1 hostile country.”

    Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest point in years after Kim in recent months ramped up his weapons demonstrations. The United States and its allies Seoul and Tokyo responded by strengthening their combined military exercises and sharpening their nuclear deterrence strategies.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 'Taiwan is China's Taiwan': Beijing says Taiwan's ruling party is not representative of popular opinion

    'Taiwan is China's Taiwan': Beijing says Taiwan's ruling party is not representative of popular opinion

    [ad_1]

    Taiwan and China flags together textile cloth, fabric texture

    Oleksii Liskonih | Istock | Getty Images

    TAIPEI — China dismissed the outcome of Taiwan’s Saturday elections, saying its ruling Democratic Progressive Party does not represent mainstream public opinion after it failed to win a majority in the presidential and legislative votes.

    “Taiwan is China’s Taiwan,” Chen Binhua, the spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said on Saturday after DPP’s Lai Ching-te emerged as the winner of the self-governing island’s presidential contest with more than 40% of the popular vote.

    “This election cannot change the basic pattern and the development of cross-Strait relations, nor can it change the common desire of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to draw closer,” Chen added, according to a CNBC translation of a report from Xinhua, the official state news agency.

    Beijing has framed the self-ruled island’s election as a choice between “peace and war, prosperity and decline” — with Chinese President Xi Jinping regarding reunification with the mainland “a historical inevitability.” Beijing has repeatedly labeled Lai as a “stubborn worker for Taiwan independence” and a dangerous separatist.

    China has never relinquished its claim over Taiwan — which has been self-governing since the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang, fled to the island following its defeat in the Chinese civil war in 1949.

    The outcome of Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections will likely shape China’s posture toward the island, while also influencing China-U.S. relations and security in the broader Indo-Pacific region.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China skeptic Lai Ching-te wins Taiwan's presidential election

    China skeptic Lai Ching-te wins Taiwan's presidential election

    [ad_1]

    Taiwan’s President-elect Lai Ching-te (left) gestures beside his running mate Hsiao Bi-khim during a rally outside the headquarters of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taipei on January 13, 2024, after winning the presidential election.

    Yasuyoshi Chiba | AFP | Getty Images

    TAIPEI — Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party won an unprecedented third-straight presidential term, as incoming leader Lai Ching-te pledged to stay open-minded in his approach toward governance, while committing to forging consensus in a split legislature.

    The outcome of the presidential election on Saturday riled Beijing, which has repeatedly labeled Lai as a “stubborn worker for Taiwan independence” and a dangerous separatist. There are also fears this could in turn influence frosty China-U.S. relations and security in the broader Indo-Pacific region, with China having escalated military activity in the Taiwan Strait and other nearby waters.

    “As president, I have an important responsibility to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits,” Lai said in a press conference, in an official party translation of his comments in Mandarin. He added though that he is also “determined to safeguard Taiwan from threats and intimidation from China.”

    “I will act in accordance with our democratic and free constitutional order, in a manner that is balanced and maintains the cross-Straits status quo,” he added. “Under the principles of dignity and parity, we will use exchanges to replace obstructionism, dialogue to replace confrontation, and confidently present exchanges and cooperation with China.”

    The Chinese Communist Party has refused to engage with outgoing President Tsai Ing-wen since she assumed office in 2016. Tsai did not stand at this election because she has served the maximum two presidential terms.

    The DPP has not accepted the so-called “1992 Consensus,” disputing the tacit agreement for “one China” between the then-KMT government and Chinese Communist Party officials, which Beijing assumes as the basis for cross-Straits engagement.

    Still, in his post-election comments in Mandarin, Lai invoked the official name of Taiwan — the Republic of China — at least twice.

    Supporters of the Democratic Progressive party (DPP) await the announcement of official results at a rally on January 13, 2024 in Taipei, Taiwan.

    Annabelle Chih | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    DPP’s Lai — Taiwan’s current vice-president — won more than 40% of the popular vote in Taiwan’s eighth presidential election. DPP is the first party to win the presidential office three times in row since direct presidential elections were introduced in 1996. Beijing had framed the election as a choice between “peace and war, prosperity and decline.”

    Kuomintang or KMT, Beijing’s preferred political partner, gained roughly 33% of the vote with Hou You-yi at the top of its ticket. Ko Wen-je — the surly, straight-talking former Taipei mayor who ran under the banner of the Taiwan People’s Party that was formed only in 2019 — received just over 26% of the vote.

    Voter turnout appeared to be the second-weakest since direct presidential elections started in Taiwan in 1996. This year, 71.9% of all eligible voters cast their ballots for the presidential election, according to preliminary data from Taiwan’s Central Election Commission.

    Responses from China and the U.S.

    China dismissed the outcome of Taiwan’s Saturday elections, saying its ruling Democratic Progressive Party does not represent the mainstream public opinion.

    “Taiwan is China’s Taiwan,” Chen Binhua, the spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said on Saturday shortly after DPP’s Lai emerged as the winner.

    “This election cannot change the basic pattern and the development of cross-Strait relations, nor can it change the common desire of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to draw closer,” Chen added, according to a CNBC translation of a report from Xinhua, the official state news agency.

    China has never relinquished its claim over Taiwan — which has been self-governing since the Chinese nationalist party, or Kuomintang, fled to the island following its defeat in the Chinese civil war in 1949.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping regards reunification with the mainland “a historical inevitability.”

    The U.S. response starkly differed, but was broadly consistent with its past positions.

    “We … congratulate the Taiwan people for once again demonstrating the strength of their robust democratic system and electoral process,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement.

    “The United States is committed to maintaining cross-Strait peace and stability, and the peaceful resolution of differences, free from coercion and pressure,” he added.

    Commitment to consensus

    The outcome of the race to control Taiwan’s 113-seat legislature though is far less clear, with the DPP losing its majority. A hung parliament could well hobble Lai’s policy agenda, while heralding a return of the kind of notorious open feuding among Taiwan’s legislators.

    “On the legislative elections, the DPP did not hold onto a majority,” Lai said. “This means we did not work hard enough, and there are areas where we must humbly review and look back on.”

    As it stands, the new Taiwan government will have its hands full, with voters largely concerned with bread-and-butter issues, particularly stagnant wages at a time of escalating rents and home prices that have been worsened by high inflation.

    Economic diversification is the number one issue for Taiwan's new president: Analyst

    These issues have largely helped buoy Ko’s popularity as he positioned himself as a political outsider. 

    “Taiwan People’s Party got more votes than expected. Ko got 25%, showing there is still a significant number of voters wanting a change,” Wei-Ting Yen, an assistant professor in government at Franklin and Marshall College, told CNBC.

    “The social force is there, and the Lai administration has to address the social and economic issues right on,” she said. “People may be supporting the DPP’s foreign policy directions, but they are not necessarily supporting them for domestic policies.”

    At the same press conference on Saturday after his two opponents conceded, Lai said he will carefully consider and include policy ideas and positions of his two electoral rivals that further Taiwan’s interests.

    In a nod to issues that dominated the presidential election campaign, Lai singled out the financial sustainability of Taiwan’s labor and health insurance, along with the country’s energy transition as urgent issues that he will prioritize in forging consensus.

    Lai also said he will appoint the most qualified professionals and personnel regardless of political affiliations in the “spirit of a democratic alliance.”

    “The elections have told us that the people expect a strong government and effective checks and balances,” Lai said. “As for the new structure of the new legislature, Taiwan must build a new political environment of communication, consultation, participation, and cooperation.”

    Global strategic implications

    Still, Lai also had one eye on the broader strategic significance of his electoral victory — however diminished it may seem in comparison to the DPP’s comfortable victory in the presidential and legislative elections in 2016.

    “Through our actions, the Taiwanese people have successfully resisted efforts from external forces to influence this election. We trust that only the people of Taiwan have the right to choose their own president,” Lai said.

    Taiwan’s DPP-led government has often accused Beijing of vote interference either by military intimidation or by co-opting Taiwan’s business elite due to their economic reliance on China.

    Growth in US-Taiwan trade will be hard to change even if the KMT wins the Taiwan election: Economist

    In the run-up to Saturday’s vote, Lai said that Beijing’s meddling is “the most serious” at this elections.

    Xi told U.S. counterpart Joe Biden on the sidelines of the APEC leaders summit in November that Taiwan has always been the “most important and sensitive” issue in China-U.S. relations.

    Prior to Saturday’s elections, a senior Biden administration official said the White House is preparing for several different outcomes. Biden has pledged to defend Taiwan in the event of a China invasion, a position that has irked Beijing.

    Former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in 2022, becoming the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit the island in over two decades. Her trip was one reason that communication between the world’s two leading powers ground to a halt before a tentative resumption only months ago.

    “As one of the first and most highly anticipated elections of 2024, Taiwan has achieved a victory for the community of democracy,” Lai said. “We are telling the international community that between democracy and authoritarianism, we will stand on the side of democracy.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Is the U.S. ‘promoting transgenderism’ in Bangladesh? We unpack DeSantis’ claim

    PolitiFact – Is the U.S. ‘promoting transgenderism’ in Bangladesh? We unpack DeSantis’ claim

    [ad_1]

    We fact-checkers are sometimes stumped when hearing politicians make claims. And when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said at a Concord, New Hampshire, town hall, that U.S. tax dollars “have gone to promote transgenderism in Bangladesh,” we had one of those moments.

    In January, we heard him say it again in Iowa.

    What was the Republican presidential candidate referring to? 

    The Bangladeshi population has long included a community of people who identify as “third-gender,” sometimes referred to as the “hijra.” For centuries, they played a role in religious life in South Asian communities but were criminalized under British colonization, which lasted from 1757 to 1947. 

    In the past decade, Bangladesh’s government has taken steps to reduce discrimination against third-gender people by legally recognizing a third-gender category and opening job opportunities.

    What is the United States’ role? DeSantis’ team pointed PolitiFact toward U.S. foreign aid that was given to local Bangladeshi organizations from 2018 to 2020 that supported gender-diverse communities. The program aimed partly to increase third-gender people’s awareness of their rights and promote access to legal aid. USAID wrote that its support helped “mobilize” and get a third-gender option added to  Bangladesh’s national census in 2021. Another round of funding was awarded in 2022. 

    So, U.S. foreign aid has supported local LGBTQ+ nongovernmental organizations since 2018, but Bangladesh already had a long history of gender diversity, and Bangladesh’s government has been moving toward greater recognition of third-gender people since 2013.

    History of the hijra

    In Bangladesh, and in other South Asian countries such as India, “hijra” are most often intersex individuals — those born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that is not exclusively male or female — or those assigned male at birth, but who present as women or identify as feminine.

    Experts have noted that the term “transgender” is an imperfect way to describe the hijra community. “Most hijras consider themselves to be third gender — neither male nor female, not transitioning,” said a 2018 case study on the community from Harvard Divinity School, but some hijras have identified as transgender or sought out gender reassignment procedures. 

    Before the British colonized the region, third-gender people were “revered” and rose to “significant positions of power under both Hindu and Muslim rulers,” according to the Harvard case study, written by graduate student Kristofer Rhude. South Asian cultures considered hijras to be people who had sacrificed their male genitalia in return for what they deemed spiritual power that allowed them to perform rituals and bless or curse marriages and newborns. Hindu holy texts include references to a third -gender.

    In 1871, under British colonial rule, hijras were criminalized, and that stigma has lasted.

    In a 2016 report by Human Rights Watch, a New York-based nongovernmental organization, hijras in Bangladesh reported stigma, discrimination and violence, as well as challenges doing tasks like registering to vote or opening a bank account. 

    But the community remains strong in number, with Bangladesh’s 2022 census counting more than 12,000 hijras. 

    Bangladesh has been changing its policy toward third-gender people since 2013

    The country made its first significant policy change when it announced in 2013 that it would legally recognize a third-gender category. In December 2014, the Ministry of Social Welfare invited hijras to apply for certain government jobs. 

    However, according to the Human Rights Watch report, people who went through the interview process reported inappropriate interview questions and were subjected to invasive medical examinations. Several interviewees were accused of being men impersonating hijras. 

    In the following years, the government took several steps to expand employment opportunities for third-gender Bangladeshis.

    In 2015, after a hijra witnessed and helped solve a high-profile murder, the government announced plans to recruit third-gender people into law enforcement, specifically traffic police jobs. Banks were instructed to allow hijras to apply for bank loans. And, in 2021, the government announced a tax rebate to benefit companies that hired third-gender employees. 

    U.S. foreign aid for gender-diverse communities

    Where do U.S. tax dollars come into this? DeSantis’ campaign pointed us to a 2018-20 program by USAID called the Rights for Gender Diverse Populations. The program was implemented by a partner NGO, the Bandhu Social Welfare Society, over three years and cost $850,000, according to a 2021 performance evaluation of the program.

    USAID, the leading U.S. agency for foreign aid, receives its money from Congress. Congress’ revenue for federal spending largely comes from tax collection. The Bandhu Social Welfare Society, which works with gender diverse populations in Bangladesh, has received grants from USAID in 2018 and in 2022.  

    The 2018-20 program goal was, partly, to “advance human rights advocacy for (gender-diverse populations)” and improve access to public services and legal aid. The program set up a panel of lawyers to provide legal advice, educational radio public service announcements, collaborated with private agencies to provide employment opportunities, and trained community watchdogs to help third-gender people “learn about and assert their rights.” 

    In promotional materials, USAID said its support helped “mobilize the National Human Rights Commission to include a third-gender option in the 2021 (Bangladeshi) census for the first time.”

    Our ruling

    DeSantis said U.S. tax dollars “have gone to promote transgenderism in Bangladesh.”

    Since 2018, the U.S. has invested in aid programs in Bangladesh that support gender-diverse people. 

    But PolitiFact found no evidence that this money was used to persuade people to take on a new gender identity or undergo gender transition, as some hearing DeSantis’ statement might be led to believe. 

    The money is supporting a community that describes itself as “hijra” or “third-gender” — not necessarily “transgender” — that has existed for hundreds of years and that the Bangladeshi government had worked to recognize.

    His statement is partially accurate in that there is a program funded by the U.S. that supports the gender-diverse community in Bangladesh, but he omits critical cultural and historical context.

    We rate this claim Half True. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China and cybercriminals are targeting American AI companies, FBI Director Wray says

    China and cybercriminals are targeting American AI companies, FBI Director Wray says

    [ad_1]

    FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies during a Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on October 31, 2023.

    Mandel Ngan | Afp | Getty Images

    American companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI are currently driving the cutting edge of generative artificial intelligence development across the globe. However two of U.S.’s top national security leaders said that AI lead is under attack from foreign cybercriminals and nation-states like China.

    “Eighteen of the 20 most successful AI companies in the world are American,” FBI Director Christopher Wray told CNBC’s Morgan Brennan during a CNBC CEO Council virtual roundtable on Tuesday. “You can bet your bottom dollar that foreign adversaries, especially the Chinese, are actively targeting that innovation, that intellectual property.”

    Wray, who was joined at the virtual roundtable by General Paul Nakasone, commander of U.S. Cyber Command, said that generative AI is a “significant amplifier, both in terms of quantity and sophistication, of the threats that are already out there,” adding that AI tools are helping criminals “make their attacks more sophisticated, more credible, more pernicious.”

    “Generative AI, in the world of cyberattacks, is what I would describe as taking kind of junior varsity athletes and making them varsity,” Wray said. “But we are rapidly approaching a stage where the varsity adversaries are going to be able to find enough value from generative AI to take their game to the next level.”

    But while much of the discussion around AI in the cybersecurity space has centered on how AI is enhancing both attackers and defenders, Wray said the FBI is also focused on “defending American AI [research and development], American innovation in AI.”

    Nakasone, who also serves as the director of the National Security Agency and chief of the Central Security Service, said adversaries of the U.S. are using AI capabilities developed by American companies, making protecting that intellectual property crucial.

    “That tells me we have the lead in artificial intelligence; we want to maintain that lead,” Nakasone said. “This is our future; this is where we’re going to have a marked impact in terms of our economy, our national security, and other things.”

    The FBI and the U.S. Cyber Command, a command in the Department of Defense focused on cyberspace, are working closely on operations against a variety of adversaries, whether that’s nation-states like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, as well as criminal groups and other foreign actors.

    AI is set to play a key role in that defense, Nakasone said. In September 2023, the National Security Agency created a new entity called the AI Security Center to oversee the development and integration of AI capabilities within U.S. national security systems.

    “We knew that we had to be able to do this, in terms of being able to provide insights to understand what tradecraft or what techniques [adversaries] are going to try to steal your intellectual property,” said Nakasone, adding that similar efforts across cybersecurity have been successful.

    Both Nakasone and Wray stressed that as attackers and adversaries utilize these AI tools more, the best defense will be formed through partnerships, whether that is between government agencies like their own, the public and private sectors, and allies across the globe.

    “That kind of partnership will beat what the Chinese bring to the table every day of the week,” Wray said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dozens dead in Iran after blasts strike Qassem Soleimani memorial

    Dozens dead in Iran after blasts strike Qassem Soleimani memorial

    [ad_1]

    More than 100 people were killed and dozens more injured in Iran after two explosions went off near the tomb of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani on Wednesday, according to local media reports.

    Iran’s state media reported that at least two explosions occurred in the cemetery in the city of Kerman, where hundreds of people were commemorating Soleimani’s death four years ago. The feared general led Iran’s paramilitary Quds force before being killed by a U.S. drone strike in January 2020.

    According to Iranian state news agency IRNA, 103 people died and around 140 injured people were taken to hospitals.

    Officials are investigating the cause of the explosions. IRNA reported that Iranian authorities believe it was a terrorist attack, citing Kerman’s deputy governor for security, Rahman Jalali.

    The first blast went off 700 meters away from Soleimani’s tomb, while the second explosion happened minutes later about one kilometer away from the grave.

    Iranian Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi said in a televised interview Wednesday afternoon that the situation in Kerman was “normal and everything is under the control of the security and law enforcement forces.

    “This act of terrorism will lead to a powerful and overwhelming response from the security and military forces in the shortest time,” he added.

    As head of the Quds force, a unit of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which is behind much of the country’s military actions outside its borders, Soleimani was a hugely popular figure in Iran.

    His assassination in 2020, ordered by then-U.S. President Donald Trump, escalated tensions between America and Iran, leading to a series of regional retaliatory actions from Tehran.

    In a statement, the EU said it “condemns in the strongest terms today’s bombing in the city of Kerman in Iran. The EU expresses its solidarity with the Iranian people. This act of terror has exacted a shocking toll of civilian deaths and injuries.”

    This story has been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Claudia Chiappa

    Source link