ReportWire

Tag: Opposition

  • House is poised to approve measure to end longest government shutdown in U.S. history

    [ad_1]

    The longest government shutdown in U.S. history was poised to come to an end Wednesday as the House finalized a vote on a spending package that President Trump was ready to sign into law as soon as it reached his desk.

    “President Trump looks forward to finally ending this devastating Democrat shutdown with his signature, and we hope that signing will take place later tonight,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press briefing earlier on Wednesday.

    The president’s signature will mark the end of a government shutdown that for 43 days left thousands of federal workers without pay, millions of low-income Americans uncertain on whether they would receive food assistance, and travelers facing delays at airports.

    The vote, which began Wednesday evening, also was a cap to a frenetic day in Capitol Hill in which lawmakers publicly released a trove of records from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate and welcomed the newest member of Congress, a Democrat from Arizona who was key in forcing a vote to demand the Justice Department release all the Epstein files.

    The spending package, when signed by the president, will fund the government through Jan. 30, 2026, and reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown. It will also guarantee backpay for federal employees who were furloughed or worked without pay during the budget impasse.

    The package does not include an extension to Affordable Care Act healthcare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year — a core demand Democrats tried to negotiate during the seven weeks the government was shut down.

    Ahead of the floor vote, House Democrats were steadfast in their opposition to a deal that did not address the lapsing healthcare subsidies.

    “We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of the American people,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.

    If the tax credits expire, premiums will more than double on average for more than 20 million Americans who use the healthcare marketplace, according to independent analysts at the research firm KFF.

    Another point of contention during the floor debate was a provision in the funding bill that will allow senators to sue the federal government if their phone records are obtained without them being notified.

    The provision, which is retroactive to 2022, appears to be tailored for eight Republican senators who last month found their phone records have been accessed as part of a Biden-era investigation into the attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

    If they successfully sue, each violation would be worth at least $500,000, according to the bill language.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the senators whose phone records were accessed, said Wednesday he will “definitely” sue when the legal avenue once it becomes available.

    “If you think I’m going to settle this thing for a millions dollars? No. I want to make it so painful, no one ever does this again,” Graham told reporters.

    Several Democrats slammed the provision on the House floor. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said it was “unconscionable” to vote in favor of the spending bill with that language tucked in.

    “How is this even on the floor? How can we vote to enrich ourselves by stealing from the American people?” she said.

    Some House Republicans were caught off guard by the provision and said they disagreed with the provision. The concern was enough to get Speaker Mike Johnson to announced that House Republicans will plan to fast-track legislation to repeal the provision next week.

    Epstein files loomed large over vote

    The House began voting on the bill after Johnson swore Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) into office, after refusing to do so for seven weeks.

    When Grijalva walked into the House floor and was greeted with applause by colleagues cheering her name, she immediately called out Johnson for delaying her taking the oath of office.

    “One individual should not be able to unilaterally obstruct the swearing in of a dully elected member of Congress for political reasons,” Grijalva said, while equating the decision to “an abuse of power.”

    After finishing her remarks, the Democrat immediately signed a petition to force a House floor vote demanding the full release of the Justice Department’s files on Jeffrey Epstein.

    Her signature was the final action needed to force a floor vote. The move is sure to reignite a pressure campaign to release documents tied to Epstein, just hours after House Democrats and Republicans released a trove of records from the Epstein estate.

    The documents included emails from the late sex trafficker that said Trump had “spent hours” with a victim at his house and Trump “knew about the girls.”

    “Justice cannot wait another day,” Grijalva said.

    In a social media post Wednesday, Trump accused Democrats of trying to use the “Jeffrey Epstein Hoax” as a distraction from their failed negotiations during the government shutdown.

    “There should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!” Trump wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • How Rubio is winning over Trumpworld on striking Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    In the early days of President Trump’s second term, the U.S. appeared keen to cooperate with Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s authoritarian leader. Special envoy Ric Grenell met Maduro, working with him to coordinate deportation flights to Caracas, a prisoner exchange deal and an agreement allowing Chevron to drill Venezuelan oil.

    Grenell told disappointed members of Venezuela’s opposition that Trump’s domestic goals took priority over efforts to promote democracy. “We’re not interested in regime change,” Grenell told the group, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.

    But Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of State, had a different vision.

    In a parallel call with María Corina Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, two leaders of the opposition, Rubio affirmed U.S. support “for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela” and called González “the rightful president” of the beleaguered nation after Maduro rigged last year’s election in his favor.

    Rubio, now also serving as national security advisor, has grown closer to Trump and crafted an aggressive new policy toward Maduro that has brought Venezuela and the United States to the brink of military confrontation.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio whispers to President Trump during a roundtable meeting at the White House on Oct. 8, 2025.

    (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

    I think Venezuela is feeling the heat

    — President Trump

    Grenell has been sidelined, two sources told The Times, as the U.S. conducts an unprecedented campaign of deadly strikes on suspected Venezuelan drug boats — and builds up military assets in the Caribbean. Trump said Wednesday that he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in the South American nation, and that strikes on land targets could be next.

    “I think Venezuela is feeling the heat,” he said.

    The pressure campaign marks a major victory for Rubio, the son of Cuban emigres and an unexpected power player in the administration who has managed to sway top leaders of the isolationist MAGA movement to his lifelong effort to topple Latin America’s leftist authoritarians.

    “It’s very clear that Rubio has won,” said James B. Story, who served as ambassador to Venezuela under President Biden. “The administration is applying military pressure in the hope that somebody inside of the regime renders Maduro to justice, either by exiling him, sending him to the United States or sending him to his maker.”

    In a recent public message to Trump, Maduro acknowledged that Rubio is now driving White House policy: “You have to be careful because Marco Rubio wants your hands stained with blood, with South American blood, Caribbean blood, Venezuelan blood,” Maduro said.

    As a senator from Florida, Rubio represented exiles from three leftist autocracies — Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and for years he has made it his mission to weaken their governments. He says his family could not return to Cuba after Fidel Castro’s revolution seven decades ago. He has long maintained that eliminating Maduro would deal a fatal blow to Cuba, whose economy has been buoyed by billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil in the face of punishing U.S. sanctions.

    In 2019, Rubio pushed Trump to back Juan Guaidó, a Venezuelan opposition leader who sought unsuccessfully to topple Maduro.

    Rubio later encouraged Trump to publicly support Machado, who was barred from the ballot in Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, and who last week was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her pro-democracy efforts. González, who ran in Machado’s place, won the election, according to vote tallies gathered by the opposition, yet Maduro declared victory.

    Rubio was convinced that only military might would bring change to Venezuela, which has been plunged into crisis under Maduro’s rule, with a quarter of the population fleeing poverty, violence and political repression.

    But there was a hitch. Trump has repeatedly vowed to not intervene in the politics of other nations, telling a Middle Eastern audience in May that the U.S. “would no longer be giving you lectures on how to live.”

    Denouncing decades of U.S. foreign policy, Trump complained that “the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”

    To counter that sentiment, Rubio painted Maduro in a new light that he hoped would spark interest from Trump, who has been fixated on combating immigration, illegal drugs and Latin American cartels since his first presidential campaign.

    A woman and a man standing in a vehicle, each with one arm raised, amid a sea of people

    Venezuelan presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, right, and opposition leader María Corina Machado greet supporters during a campaign rally in Valencia before the country’s presidential election in 2024.

    (Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)

    Going after Maduro, Rubio argued, was not about promoting democracy or a change of governments. It was striking a drug kingpin fueling crime in American streets, an epidemic of American overdoses, and a flood of illegal migration to America’s borders.

    Rubio tied Maduro to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang whose members the secretary of State says are “worse than Al Qaeda.”

    “Venezuela is governed by a narco-trafficking organization that has empowered itself as a nation state,” he said during his Senate confirmation hearing.

    Meanwhile, prominent members of Venezuela’s opposition pushed the same message. “Maduro is the head of a narco-terrorist structure,” Machado told Fox News last month.

    Security analysts and U.S. intelligence officials suggest that the links between Maduro and Tren de Aragua are overblown.

    A declassified memo by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found no evidence of widespread cooperation between Maduro’s government and the gang. It also said Tren de Aragua does not pose a threat to the U.S.

    The gang does not traffic fentanyl, and the Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that just 8% of cocaine that reaches the U.S. passes through Venezuelan territory.

    Still, Rubio’s strategy appears to have worked.

    In July, Trump declared that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist group led by Maduro — and then ordered the Pentagon to use military force against cartels that the U.S. government had labeled terrorists.

    Trump deployed thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean and has ordered strikes on five boats off the coast of Venezuela, resulting in 24 deaths. The administration says the victims were “narco-terrorists” but has provided no evidence.

    Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat who served as special envoy to Venezuela in Trump’s first term, said he believes the White House will carry out limited strikes in Venezuela.

    “I think the next step is that they’re going to hit something in Venezuela — and I don’t mean boots on the ground. That’s not Trump,” Abrams said. “It’s a strike, and then it’s over. That’s very low risk to the United States.”

    He continued: “Now, would it be nice if that kind of activity spurred a colonel to lead a coup? Yeah, it would be nice. But the administration is never going to say that.”

    Even if Trump refrains from a ground invasion, there are major risks.

    “If it’s a war, then what is the war’s aim? Is it to overthrow Maduro? Is it more than Maduro? Is it to get a democratically elected president and a democratic regime in power?” said John Yoo, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, who served as a top legal advisor to the George W. Bush administration. “The American people will want to know what’s the end state, what’s the goal of all of this.”

    “Whenever you have two militaries bristling that close together, there could be real action,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the think tank Chatham House. “Trump is trying to do this on the cheap. He’s hoping maybe he won’t have to commit. But it’s a slippery slope. This could draw the United States into a war.”

    Sabatini and others added that even if the U.S. pressure drives out Maduro, what follows is far from certain.

    Venezuela is dominated by a patchwork of guerrilla and paramilitary groups that have enriched themselves with gold smuggling, drug trafficking and other illicit activities. None have incentive to lay down arms.

    And the country’s opposition is far from unified.

    Machado, who dedicated her Nobel Prize to Trump in a clear effort to gain his support, says she is prepared to govern Venezuela. But there are others — both in exile and in Maduro’s administration — who would like to lead the country.

    Machado supporter Juan Fernandez said anything would be better than maintaining the status quo.

    “Some say we’re not prepared, that a transition would cause instability,” he said. “How can Maduro be the secure choice when 8 million Venezuelans have left, when there is no gasoline, political persecution and rampant inflation?”

    Fernandez praised Rubio for pushing the Venezuela issue toward “an inflection point.”

    What a difference, he said, to have a decision-maker in the White House with family roots in another country long oppressed by an authoritarian regime.

    “He perfectly understands our situation,” Fernandez said. “And now he has one of the highest positions in the United States.”

    Linthicum reported from Mexico City, Wilner from Dallas and Ceballos from Washington. Special correspondent Mery Mogollón in Caracas contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum, Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • In Venezuela, Nobel Peace Prize for antigovernment activist elicits tears of hope, condemnation

    [ad_1]

    Some viewed the news as signaling the beginning of the end of the economic, political and social calamity that, for the last decade, has engulfed Venezuela, prompting millions to flee their South American homeland.

    “When I saw the news, I cried, hugged my children and prayed,” said Mari Carmen Bermúdez, 34, a supermarket cashier in Caracas. “I feel like our nightmare will end soon.”

    Others said the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado — a veteran antigovernment activist who lives here in hiding — was just the latest chapter in the U.S.-led plot to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro.

    “In my opinion, señora Machado has never called for peace in the country, only for war,” said Yober David Avalos, 28, an appliance repairman and motorcycle taxi driver. “I don’t think she’s a persecuted politician. From her hideout she has called for an invasion of Venezuela.”

    The mixed reactions to Machado’s award, both in Venezuela and across the continent, reflect the complicated politics and shifting alliances in the region. The conservative president of Argentina and the leftist leader of Colombia both congratulated Machado. Cuba denounced as “shameful” the decision to honor “a person who instigates military intervention in her Homeland.” Mexico’s leftist President Claudia Sheinbaum, the region’s top woman leader, declined comment.

    Some observers wonder whether the award could encourage more aggressive U.S. behavior against Maduro, whom the White House has branded a “narco-terrorist.”

    There was no immediate official reaction in Venezuela to Machado’s award. The news generated international headlines, but was ignored by official news channels.

    On social media, Machado declared that the opposition was “on the threshold of victory,” and pointedly dispatched verbal bouquets to Trump.

    “I dedicate this prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!” Machado wrote.

    It was a nod to a president who had campaigned openly for the award for himself, and was clearly indignant that he lost out. The White House complained that the Nobel Committee had chosen “politics over peace.”

    In an apparent bid at conciliation, Machado reached out by telephone to Trump.

    “The person who actually got the Nobel Prize called today, called me, and said, ‘I’m accepting this in honor of you, because you really deserved it,’” Trump said Friday in the Oval Office. “It’s a very nice thing to do. I didn’t say, ‘Then give it to me,’ though I think she might have. She was very nice.”

    While extolled by supporters as Venezuela’s “dama de hierro” — the iron lady, a sobriquet bestowed decades ago on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — Machado is a controversial figure, even within the Venezuelan opposition. Critics assail her unequivocal praise for Trump and his policies — and her refusal to renounce potential military intervention in Venezuela.

    Whether the prize will affect Washington’s evolving policy on Venezuela remains unclear. Though the U.S. raised a bounty on Maduro’s head to $50 million, Washington and Caracas are still cooperating on several levels: Venezuela has been accepting deportees from the United States, and the Trump administration allows U.S. oil giant Chevron to operate in the country.

    “I think the U.S. is still where it was before,” said Geoff Ramsey, a Venezuela analyst with the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank. “Ultimately, Washington’s policy towards Venezuela is at a crossroads. The White House needs to decide whether it wants to escalate military strikes, engage directly with Caracas, or simply declare victory and move on.”

    Machado has said that her political movement is prepared to take over should Maduro fall, and has a plan for the first 100 days of a transition.

    In selecting Machado, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited “her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”

    The specifics behind Nobel deliberations remain secret. But one line of speculation held that Machado was picked in part because she would be acceptable to the White House, perhaps tempering Trump’s annoyance at not winning the prize.

    Machado, 58, is conservative and openly advocates for regime change in a government that is in Washington’s crosshairs.

    Still, Machado “has a legitimate cause behind her, and the prize means a lot to Venezuelans who have committed to democracy in an authoritarian context,” said Laura Cristina Dib, Venezuela analyst for the Washington Office on Latin America, a research and advocacy group.

    Amid widespread allegations of fraud, Maduro claimed victory at the ballot box in July 2024, but refused to present definitive data backing his claim. According to the opposition, the candidate backed by Machado, Edmundo González Urrutia, was robbed of the presidency. Washington recognizes him as the winner.

    Opposition leader María Corina Machado and the opposition’s presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia at a news in Caracas, Venezuela, on July 25, 2024, a month before that year’s presidential election.

    (Cristian Hernandez / Associated Press)

    On Friday, Machado declined to answer when asked by the Spanish daily El País if she ruled out a U.S. military incursion in Venezuela. Governments, she said, must make a choice: “To be with the people of Venezuela or with a narco-terrorist cartel.”

    In a recent appearance on Fox News, Machado didn’t object to the Trump administration policy of blowing up suspected drug-ferrying boats in international waters off the coast of Venezuela — attacks that have left 21 people dead and that human rights activists assailed as extrajudicial killings.

    In her Fox guest slot, Machado echoed White House talking points. “Maduro has turned Venezuela into the biggest national security threat to the U.S. and the stability of the region,” she said.

    In addition, Machado has failed to condemn Trump’s controversial immigration policies, including the deportation in March of more than 200 Venezuelan nationals to a prison in El Salvador, a move denounced by human rights activists — and by Maduro — as illegal.

    Machado has also not weighed in on Trump’s plan to end protected status for more than 500,000 Venezuelans in the United States, a move that could lead to their deportations.

    One hope, said Dib, is that “giving her the award is a way to hold her to a higher standard of trying to achieve a democratic transition.”

    The award resonated with many in Florida — home to the largest Venezuelan population in the United States — where both Republican and Democratic leaders praised Machado.

    Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez (R-Fla.) called her the “world’s bravest freedom fighter,” adding: “Maria Corina inspired us all and dedicated her win to President Trump — the strongest ally the Venezuelan people have ever had.”

    But some worried that Trump supporters, enraged at a perceived snub, could hold the award against Venezuelans in the United States.

    “We were already being criminalized and singled out,” said Maria Puerta Riera, a Venezuelan-American political science professor in Orlando and Colorado. “This is not going to help our image.”

    Special correspondent Mogollón reported from Caracas, Times staff writers McDonnell and Linthicum from Mexico City and Times staff writer Ceballos from Washington. Times staff writer Andrea Castillo in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Mery Mogollon, Patrick J. McDonnell, Kate Linthicum, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • After welcoming Putin, Trump appears to adopt his goal, agreeing to cede land for peace

    [ad_1]

    President Trump made his expectations clear entering a summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday: “I won’t be happy if I walk away without some form of a ceasefire,” he said aboard Air Force One.

    Yet he did, emerging from their meeting in a diplomatic retreat, endorsing Russia’s territorial ambitions and adopting Putin’s position that would put off ceasefire negotiations in favor of more comprehensive talks.

    Trump told his European counterparts he had agreed with Putin’s demand that Ukraine make territorial concessions to end the conflict, a painful prospect for Ukrainians at the heart of the war, a European official told The Times on Saturday.

    Trump also wrote on social media that he would adopt the Kremlin line deferring talks on an imminent ceasefire.

    “It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,” Trump wrote on social media. “If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people’s lives will be saved.”

    It was a remarkable success for Putin, who sees a Russian edge on the battlefield and has put off discussions of a ceasefire for months as Russian forces press their advantage along the Ukrainian front lines.

    Putin was greeted on the tarmac of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson with applause and smiles from the American president and offered a ride in his iconic vehicle. After years in isolation over his repeated invasions of Ukraine, facing an indictment from the International Criminal Court over war crimes, a red carpet awaited Putin on U.S. soil.

    Landing in Washington, Trump spoke with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as the secretary-general of NATO and other European leaders. A follow-up meeting with Zelensky is scheduled for Monday in Washington.

    But achieving a peace agreement is an even higher bar than the ceasefire that has eluded the Trump administration in recent months, requiring comprehensive, often protracted negotiations that, in the meantime, will allow Russia to continue its battlefield offensive.

    The New York Times first reported details of Trump’s conversations with European leaders.

    Details of the meeting are still unclear. In Alaska, both men referenced “agreements” in statements to reporters. But Trump acknowledged the question that matters most — whether Russia is prepared to implement a ceasefire — remains unresolved.

    • Share via

    “We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left,” Trump said. “Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.”

    In a follow-up interview on Fox News, Trump said the meeting went well. “But we’ll see,” he said. “You know, you have to get a deal.”

    Trump’s failure to secure a ceasefire from Putin surprised few analysts, who see Putin with the military initiative, pushing forward with offensive incursions along the front, and offering no indication he plans to relent.

    The question is whether Putin will be able to sustain Trump’s goodwill when the war continues grinding on. On Friday alone, hours before the summit began, Russian forces struck a civilian market in the Ukrainian city of Sumy.

    The Russian delegation left immediately after the press availability, providing no comments to the press corps on how the meetings went behind closed doors. And after sitting down with Fox, Trump promptly left Anchorage for Washington. The White House issued no statements, readouts or fact sheets on the summit. Administration officials fell silent.

    “Putin is going to have to give Trump some kind of concession so that he is not completely embarrassed,” said Darren Kew, dean of the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at the University of San Diego, “probably a pledge of a ceasefire very soon — one of Trump’s key demands — followed by a promise to meet the Ukrainians for talks this fall.”

    “Both serve Putin’s goals of delay and appeasing Trump, while allowing more time for Russian battlefield victories,” Kew added, “since ceasefires can easily be broken, and peace talks can drag on for years.”

    In brief remarks of his own, Putin said that points of agreement reached with Trump would likely face opposition across Europe, including from Ukraine itself, warning continental allies not to “torpedo nascent progress” in follow-up talks with the White House.

    “I would like to hope that the agreement that we have reached together will help us bring us close to that goal, and will pave the path toward peace in Ukraine,” Putin said. “We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive that constructively, and that they won’t throw a wrench in the works.”

    It was an acknowledgment that whatever terms agreed upon bilaterally between Putin and Trump’s team are almost certainly unacceptable to Ukraine, a party to the conflict that has lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting Russia’s invasion since February 2022.

    The Financial Times reported Saturday that Putin had demanded Ukraine cede two eastern administrative divisions at the heart of the conflict — Donetsk and Luhansk — in exchange for Moscow agreeing to freeze the rest of the front line.

    Trump told Fox that a Russian takeover of Ukrainian lands was discussed and “agreed upon,” pending Ukrainian approval — an unlikely prospect given vocal opposition from Zelensky and provisions in the Ukrainian Constitution that prohibit the concession of territory.

    “Those are points that we negotiated, and those are points that we largely have agreed upon, actually. I think we’ve agreed on a lot,” Trump said. “I think we’re pretty close to a deal. Now, look. Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they’ll say no.”

    Europe and Ukraine have argued that conceding land to Putin is not enough. After invading Crimea in 2014, and successfully holding it, Putin came back for more territory in the eastern Donbas — only to launch a full-scale invasion of the country in 2022.

    The Russian Foreign Ministry said this week that its war aims remain unchanged.

    “We’re convinced that in order to make the settlement last in the long term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict,” Putin said, “to consider all legitimate concerns of Russia, and to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe, and in the world on the whole.”

    “The root causes of the conflict,” he added, “must be resolved.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Escalating Calls to Investigate Foreign Interference in Maldives 2018 Election

    Escalating Calls to Investigate Foreign Interference in Maldives 2018 Election

    [ad_1]

    Press Release



    updated: Dec 27, 2019

    The following is an open letter from the Progressive Party of Maldives​, the country’s opposition political party.

    Speaker of the Parliament, Mohamed Nasheed’s public statement acknowledging foreign interference in the 2018 presidential elections is alarming and a first in Maldivian politics. Nasheed’s remarks on Saturday, 14 December 2019 are proof the elections have not been free and fair, and did not reflect the will of the Maldivian people. The statement by Nasheed, who is also the leader of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), of possible efforts by the opposition to collude with foreign governments to jeopardize the sovereignty of the country is deeply concerning and warrants an immediate investigation.

    Nasheed stated that at the time “no one thought that we would win the 2018 elections” and that the opposition had “no chance”. He also explicitly made it clear that the then opposition “made unreasonable demands” from the government of India to “create a small window” prior to the elections, and that “Indian officials and Indian diplomats were at it”. He praised the government of India saying that “Indian diplomats were very clever” and that “they did a whole sort of other things which brought us the elections”.

    SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/IndiaToday/videos/2481723618748346

    Nasheed’s statement indicates the Maldivian electoral system has been compromised by foreign powers threatening our democratic institutions. His remarks are an unprecedented confession in the political arena even though the risk of foreign interference in elections is a growing international phenomenon and governments across the globe are taking measures to counter it. Maldivian citizens are in no way acceptive of foreign involvement in our political system that violates our sovereignty. We are shocked and dismayed by Nasheed’s statements and repeat our calls on the government of Maldives and urge the Prosecutor General to initiate an investigation into the operations by foreign officials to meddle in the 2018 elections.

    An independent inquiry into the widespread allegations of voter fraud and foreign interference in the 2018 elections is paramount to ensure the legitimacy of the government. It is an obligation owed to the people of Maldives to prevent such blatant attacks on our democracy in the future.

    Maldives has successfully conducted two free and fair elections in 2008 and 2013 despite the limited resources and logistical challenges. The public admission by the ruling MDP’s leader of colluding with foreign governments tout court undermines public faith in democracy and warrants criminal investigation without delay.

    Media Contact: Heena Waleed, +960-777-7601

    Source: Progressive Party of Maldives

    [ad_2]

    Source link