| Britain at risk of losing leading edge in maritime services Posted: 08 Sep 2019 04:07 PM PDT  Britain's position as a top hub for maritime services is being eroded by competition, a loss of shipping finance business and the removal of tycoon-friendly tax breaks, a report said, deepening uncertainty for its financial sector as Brexit nears.
|
| Britain at risk of losing leading edge in maritime services Posted: 08 Sep 2019 04:01 PM PDT ![Britain at risk of losing leading edge in maritime services]( "Britain at risk of losing leading edge in maritime services") Britain's position as a top hub for maritime services is being eroded by competition, a loss of shipping finance business and the removal of tycoon-friendly tax breaks, a report said, deepening uncertainty for its financial sector as Brexit nears. The UK has been a pivotal global shipping centre for centuries, especially the City of London, and has dominated marine insurance, ship broking, shipping finance and other maritime services. "We estimate that if the UK had maintained its market share over the last two years, this would have resulted in an additional $700 million p.a.
|
| Defiant Johnson Pushes On With Brexit Plan as Court Threat Looms Posted: 08 Sep 2019 04:00 PM PDT ![Defiant Johnson Pushes On With Brexit Plan as Court Threat Looms]( "Defiant Johnson Pushes On With Brexit Plan as Court Threat Looms") (Bloomberg) -- Boris Johnson is refusing to back down and pushing on with his hardline Brexit strategy despite the risk of being taken to court and the threat of more resignations from his Conservative Party.After a bruising week of defeats for his Brexit strategy culminating in the resignations of his own brother and cabinet minister Amber Rudd, Johnson faces further setbacks on Monday. The prime minister will probably lose another vote in the House of Commons and his Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar, played down the chances of a breakthrough when Johnson visits Dublin earlier in the day.Ministers added fuel to reports that the prime minister plans to defy legislation, passed in Parliament last week, that requires him to ask the European Union to delay Brexit on Oct. 19 if he can't reach an agreement with the bloc. Johnson wants to push it to a last-minute showdown in the Supreme Court as he pursues his "do or die" plan to leave with or without a deal on Oct. 31, the Sunday Times reported."That legislation is lousy," Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told Sky News. The government "want to test to the limit what it does actually lawfully require."It's shaping up to be another key, and hard-to-predict, week for Johnson's still-new premiership. His majority in Parliament has been wiped out, he's lost the political support of more than 20 Tories -- including two former chancellors -- and he's unable to call a general election that he thinks could solve the Brexit impasse.More than three years after the U.K. voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the country is no closer to striking a divorce deal with the bloc.Lack of TrustAfter taking over as prime minister from Theresa May in July, Johnson has vowed he would rather be dead than delay the U.K.'s exit day beyond the current deadline. But while the premier says he is happy to risk a hit to the economy from leaving without a deal, if necessary, lawmakers won't let him.In response, he is pushing for a fresh election in the hope of winning a majority he can use to push through his plans. But Parliament last week voted to block that too and is expected to reject it again on Monday.Johnson's opponents say they must first make sure he cannot carry out his threat of a no-deal Brexit, which they fear would disrupt trade and risk a recession. With nowhere to turn, the premier and his team are doubling down on their hardline approach.Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid confirmed that Johnson plans to run down the clock, emphasizing that he has until after the EU summit, on Oct. 17 and 18, before the legislation says he has to act."He will absolutely not be asking for an extension in that meeting," Javid said of the gathering of EU leaders. "Should we get to that point we will look at our options. We will not change our policy."Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said he had stressed "the importance of the rule of law" and denied speculation that he would follow Rudd and Johnson's brother Jo, who both quit the government over the premier's Brexit strategy. But Buckland hinted he might resign if Johnson pushes the issue too far, saying he has "taken an oath to uphold" the law.'Elitist'Shami Chakrabarti, who speaks on legal affairs for the opposition Labour Party, accused Johnson of being "irresponsible and elitist" for thinking he won't have to follow Parliament's instructions. The Daily Telegraph reported that Johnson's team spent Sunday exploring ways to sabotage the new law.The resignation of Rudd, who was work and pensions secretary, lost Johnson one of the most senior members of his team, and a key pro-European voice in the cabinet. Johnson is not trying hard enough to secure a Brexit agreement with the EU and "80-90% of government time" is being spent on preparing to leave without a deal, she said."I have not seen enough work going into actually trying to get a deal," Rudd told BBC TV. "When earlier in the week I asked Number 10 for a summary of what the planning was for actually getting a deal I was sent a one-page summary."Javid insisted Johnson "is putting all the effort you would expect from a leader" into trying to get a new agreement with the bloc. There is a proposal to be put to EU negotiators, but it's too early to make it public, Javid said. Officials in Brussels say they have received no suggestions for a way forward from the U.K.There was some respite for Johnson when culture secretary Nicky Morgan, who like Rudd voted to Remain in the 2016 EU referendum, pledged to stay in the cabinet. Writing in the Daily Mail, she said she wants more "transparency" about talks with the EU "to ensure everyone is left in no doubt about how a deal is possible and the effort which is being put in to making sure a deal happens."Dublin MeetingVaradkar, who will meet with Johnson in Dublin on Monday morning, warned the U.K. is "very optimistic" to expect the EU to consider dropping the "backstop" arrangement to protect the free flow of goods across the Irish border. He said he doesn't expect any breakthroughs in the talks.Creating a single Irish food zone won't be enough to break the impasse over how to prevent a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland after Brexit, as food only accounts for about 30% of cross-border trade, Varadkar told reporters in Dublin.While Johnson's troubles are fixating Westminster, there were indications at the weekend that they are less of a concern for the public.A Yougov poll on voting intention, conducted on Thursday and Friday last week, suggests a large proportion of the electorate still backs Johnson's strategy. Support for his Conservative Party was unchanged at 35%, with Labour trailing on 21%.\--With assistance from Dara Doyle.To contact the reporter on this story: Thomas Penny in London at tpenny@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, James Ludden, Linus ChuaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day Posted: 08 Sep 2019 03:12 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Want the lowdown on what's moving Asia's markets in your inbox every morning? Sign up here.Hong Kong's violence continues despite concession, China's exports tumble as tariffs bite, and Asian markets are set for a muted open Monday. Here's what's moving markets. Hong Kong ViolenceHong Kong leader Carrie Lam's biggest concession yet to protesters did little to stem scenes of violence that have become the norm on weekends in the Asian financial hub for the last three months. Small pockets of demonstrators on Sunday set fires, vandalized subway stations and set up barricades downtown after tens of thousands marched to the U.S. consulate to appeal for help from President Donald Trump. Riot police cleared roads and subway stations, fired tear gas and made arrests of black-clad protesters wearing masks and hardhats. Lam last week said she would formally withdraw a bill allowing extraditions to the mainland, which triggered the unrest in early June. But demonstrators now have a host of other demands, and Beijing has ruled out the biggest one: the right to elect a leader of their choosing.Tariffs & Stimulus China's exports unexpectedly contracted in August, with sales to the U.S. tumbling amid the escalating trade war between the two nations. Exports decreased 1% in dollar terms from a year earlier, while imports declined 5.6%, leaving a trade surplus of $34.84 billion, the customs administration said Sunday. Economists had forecast that exports would grow 2.2%, while imports would shrink by 6.4%. Shipments to the U.S. fell 16% from a year earlier. Meanwhile, China's central bank said Friday it will cut the amount of cash banks must hold as reserves to the lowest level since 2007, injecting liquidity into an economy facing both a domestic slowdown and trade-war headwinds.Market OpenStocks in Asia looked set for a muted start to the week after the Federal Reserve did little to alter expectations for further rate cuts and amid mixed economic data from China. U.S. stocks and the 10-year Treasury yield were little changed Friday as Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's last speech before next week's policy meeting cemented views for another rate reduction. On the data docket, Japan's GDP and current account are due Monday. China's CPI is Tuesday. There is an European Central Bank decision on Thursday. U.S. CPI also out Thursday. British politics will continue to be in the spotlight as parliament may be suspended and a general election could be triggered.Nissan's CEO Ready to Resign Nissan Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Hiroto Saikawa said he's ready to take responsibility for scandals involving former Chairman Carlos Ghosn and will exit the company as soon as a successor is found. He won't, however, accept blame for allegations around excess compensation. Saikawa has been facing mounting pressure following reports last week that he and other executives were paid more than they were entitled to. It's the latest blow to the CEO, who has spent the period since Ghosn's shock arrest last November for financial crimes trying to right the carmaker as it grapples with decade-low profits, job cuts and the destabilization of losing a leader who loomed large over Nissan for two decades.Digging in His Heels U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will press on with his plan to deliver Brexit by Oct. 31, senior ministers said, despite defeats in Parliament and the sudden resignation of Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd with a furious attack on his leadership. Rudd's resignation plunged Johnson's six-week-old administration deeper into turmoil after a dramatic and disastrous week in which members of Parliament voted against a no-deal divorce then refused to grant him the emergency general election he wanted. What We've Been ReadingThis is what's caught our eye over the weekend.What China hasn't done to address U.S. trade gripes. Japan flights, trains canceled as Typhoon Faxai looms. What Saudi's new energy minister means for oil. China's stimulus debate being kept alive. EM rally hinges on ECB meeting. Apple's new iPhone launch. Hong Kong expats eye the exit. To contact the author of this story: Andreea Papuc in Sydney at apapuc1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Adam Haigh at ahaigh1@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Scrapping Afghan summit, Trump makes US even less predictable Posted: 08 Sep 2019 02:52 PM PDT  Stunning the world by saying he was canceling secret talks with the Taliban, President Donald Trump is again displaying his trademark unpredictability -- at the cost, critics say, of weakening US credibility. After his three made-for-television summits with North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un, and as he voices openness to meeting Iran's leadership, Trump showed like never before that he is eager to talk to US adversaries by inviting the Taliban, the Islamist militants who have been fighting US troops for nearly two decades in Afghanistan. Aaron David Miller, a longtime presidential aide who helped arrange the ultimately unsuccessful Israeli-Palestinian-US summit at Camp David in 2000, believed that Trump was trying to put the brakes on a bad deal -- and, as usual, to put himself in the middle.
|
| Sudan's Cabinet sworn in, 1st since al-Bashir's ouster Posted: 08 Sep 2019 02:23 PM PDT ![Sudan's Cabinet sworn in, 1st since al-Bashir's ouster]( "Sudan's Cabinet sworn in, 1st since al-Bashir's ouster") Sudan has sworn in its first Cabinet since the military ousted autocratic President Omar al-Bashir in April following mass pro-democracy protests. The new members include Sudan's first woman foreign minister, Asmaa Abdalla, and a former World Bank economist as finance minister. The Cabinet is part of a power-sharing agreement between the military and pro-democracy demonstrators.
|
| Ruling party set to lose seats in Moscow election despite crackdown Posted: 08 Sep 2019 02:19 PM PDT  Candidates backed by the opposition's tactical voting campaign were set to beat out the ruling party for several Moscow city council seats after independent politicians were barred from running despite weeks of massive protests. Magomet Yandiyev of the party A Just Russia was defeating Valeriya Kasamara, the candidate backed by the ruling United Russia party, in a closely watched downtown district with more than half of the ballots counted on Sunday night, according to data from the public electoral observation headquarters. In addition, the head of the Moscow branch of United Russia and the incumbent head of the city council were reportedly losing to communist challengers Sergei Sevostyanov and Alexander Yefimov in their districts. In a fourth district, a ruling party candidate was trailing independent Darya Besedina, according to observers. Municipal deputy Ilya Yashin, who was barred from the city council race and kept in jail for 42 days as the protests unfolded, had backed Mr Yandiyev in his district as part of a "smart voting" campaign against United Russia. A Just Russia is one of the "system opposition" parties that rarely challenge the Kremlin line in parliament and other bodies. Speaking to the Telegraph and other media after casting his own ballot, he called on supporters of the embattled liberal opposition to vote "not with your heart, but with your head" to help second-choice candidates edge out ruling party competitors. "If we can get at least a nominally independent majority, that will give us a chance to control budget spending" and stop Moscow's Kremlin-backed mayor from "treating it like his own wallet," he said. He also said falsifications could quickly erase any smart voting victories. Vladimir Putin casts his ballot on Sunday at a polling place at the Russian Academy of Sciences Credit: Mikhail Metzel/TASS via Getty Preliminary results suggested that United Russia would suffer an embarrassing defeat in the eastern region of Khabarovsk, which would become the first province where another party controlled the executive and legislative branches as well as municipal organs. The Liberal Democrat party, in fact a nationalist faction, was poised to take a majority in the city and regional parliaments and send its candidate to the national parliament after winning the governor's seat last year. United Russia candidates were nonetheless set to win numerous other races, including the acting head of Russia's second city St Petersburg, whose main rival suddenly bowed out a week before the vote. Tens of thousands repeatedly took to the streets of Moscow in July and August after almost two dozen independent candidates were barred from the city council race on technicalities mostly involving the onerous paperwork and supporting signatures required to run. Rather than compromise, the authorities doubled down. Baton-wielding riot police arrested more than 2,700 people, and five of them received prison sentences last week on trumped up charges of violence against police and participating in unsanctioned protests. With few options left, opposition leader Alexei Navalny launched the controversial "smart voting" campaign for a list of registered candidates, mostly communists, that he believed had the best chances of beating United Russia. Supporters have said the tactic would chip away at United Russia's monopoly on power, while critics have complained it would keep up the charade of free elections. President Vladimir Putin dismissed a question about the number of candidates on the ballot while he was voting on Sunday, arguing that "in some countries there are 30, 50 or 100, the quality of their work doesn't change". More than 10 people were arrested near city hall wearing t-shirts with the faces of jailed protesters. Among them were journalist and municipal deputy Ilya Azar and Pussy Riot member Maria Alyokhina. United Russia's brand has become so toxic in the capital that its candidates all ran as nominal independents. But they still enjoyed perks like television time, appearances at public events and get-out-the-vote efforts. There were reports around the country of state employees, students and soldiers being forced to vote en masse, as in past elections. A particularly blatant example of ballot stuffing in Kazan. A Just Russia & communist observers also found falsifications at several other polling places but in at least one case authorities refused to seal off the urn in question https://t.co/03BLnh5LmUpic.twitter.com/74bKZCQ1Hl— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) September 8, 2019 Electoral observers in other regions reported dozens of violations including blatant ballot stuffing captured on video. A poll at a demonstration last week suggested that up to two-thirds of protesters agreed with the "smart voting" tactic. "United Russia is the party of crooks and thieves. We're all tired of them. We can't really do anything, but at least we can do this," architect and Yashin supporter Tatyana Krasheninnikova said after voting for Mr Yandiyev. "We have lots of information about their real estate … They got rich at the city's expense. The less people like this on the city council, the better." Student Daniil Azarkevich said he would instead spoil his ballot in a "small protest" since "it's already decided who will win". The election monitoring center during the 2019 Moscow City Duma election Credit: TASS At a polling place in an outer district of Moscow, pensioner Yulia Gusarova said she had voted for United Russia municipal deputy Svetlana Volovets because the district had a "lots of factories, it's very active, and she supports all this". But for many, anger with the authorities will continue to build regardless of the election results, Mr Yashin told the Telegraph at a polling place where a belly dancer with a peacock was helping to get out the vote. "It's not about the Moscow city council, it's about injustice," he said. "People sense injustice, they understand that they are being humiliated and their opinion is being ignored, and it's not especially important what becomes the immediate reason for the protests."
|
| AP Explains: Why Mexican Women March Against Gender Violence Posted: 08 Sep 2019 01:14 PM PDT  Mexican women are clamoring for greater safety in one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a female, and vandalism during recent protests has prompted widespread discussion about how best to draw attention to what many agree is a pressing issue. Hundreds took to the streets of Mexico City again Sunday to demand justice for women who have been killed, kidnapped and sexually assaulted. The United Nations says that four of every 10 Mexican women will experience sexual violence, such as unwanted groping or rape, during their lifetimes, and that nine women are murdered on average every day in the country.
|
| 'They hold our nation hostage and pay lip service to peace': Afghans respond to the collapse of US-Taliban talks Posted: 08 Sep 2019 12:53 PM PDT  Afghans awoke on Sunday to find that months of negotiations that had electrified the country had been ended with a tweet. Over the course of three messages, the United States president halted talks between America and the Taliban after more than a year of meetings in the Gulf. Those talks, which had excluded the Afghan government, had been pored over and analysed for months by those at their mercy, but without a say. "The game is not played by Afghans," said Ahmad Eqbal, 25-year-old medical graduate working in a Kabul private hospital. "The peace negotiation was symbolic, in which Afghan people were not involved. And now they have stopped talking." "I feel that they play with our fates, and I feel being humiliated. But there is nothing we can do. We just watch." The body of Sgt Elis Barreto Ortiz is repatriated to the US after he was killed in Kabul on September 5 Credit: Cliff Owen/AP The negotiations in opulent Doha hotels had lent the Taliban credibility and legitimacy, when they were no more than a criminal group, the 25-year-old said. Ejas Ahmad Malikzada, a social activist based in Kabul, said the negotiations had been badly flawed and undermined the Afghan government, which has been cut out of talks. "[The Taliban] perceived that they were winning the war and the peace talks." "It was the worst ever peace negotiation." "I have mixed feelings. I am worried about the escalation of violence." But he said he was also optimistic that presidential elections scheduled for the end of this month would now proceed, lending legitimacy to the Afghan government and strengthening its hand against the insurgents. As bombs tore through Kabul last week, it seemed difficult for many residents to believe that negotiations between American and Taliban envoys were making good progress. US military personnel in the Middle East Even as Donald Trump's lead negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad, was last Monday telling an Afghan television channel an agreement had been finalised in principle, a truck bomb shook the capital's living rooms. That blast outside a compound housing foreign workers killed up to 30. Three days later at least 10 died when a van full of explosives detonated at a checkpoint close to Nato headquarters. Taliban fighters assaulted three provincial capitals last week and according to the New York Times, which keeps a tally of the conflict's dead, at least 179 pro-government forces and 110 civilians died over seven days. Afghan forces and civilians were being killed to strengthen the Taliban's negotiating hand said Hussain Sharifi, aged 25. "The peace process is very complicated, but Trump's tweet raised hope for Afghans. We were the victims. It gave us hope that we enter direct talks with the Taliban with more leverage." "We are in the worst situation. We face a dark future and everything changes so dramatically." "They use as a political tool. When they talk, they target us." "Like me, many people are worried about what happens next." A market in Kabul's old city; many residents are desperate for an end to the violence Credit: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP For Pashtana Barakzai, a 20-year-old politics student at the prestigious American University of Afghanistan, the talks had appeared to reward Taliban violence. "It's like they are holding a country hostage by gun and then they are negotiating peace," she said. "It's basically not peace, it's the share of power that they want." In the Afghan capital, before Mr Trump's announcement, the secrecy around talks, the fact Afghans were not present to discuss their own future, and the Taliban refusal to call a truce had fed a mixture of anxiety, anger and frustrated craving for peace. Many Kabul residents the Telegraph spoke to last week were desperate to end the violence which United Nations estimates say killed or wounded more than 11,000 civilians in 2018. They were not opposed to negotiations with the Taliban, but doubted whether the Taliban were talking in good faith. After Mr Trump's halting of talks, America's predicament remains grim however. Diplomats in Kabul said there was no prospect of a military solution to America's longest conflict. The Taliban's influence extends more widely in Afghanistan than at any time since 2001 and year-by-year the Afghan government gets weaker. Only a little over half the country's administrative districts are "controlled or influenced" by the Kabul government according to US estimates, with the rest either under the sway of the Taliban, or a contested no man's land. Under this scenario, America and Kabul's negotiating position gets weaker as time goes on. At some point the talks will have to be held again, said Graeme Smith, a consultant at International Crisis Group. "When do we get back to the negotiating table? Both sides are considering their options. It's when, not if."
|
| German Neo-Nazi elected as town council chief with support of mainstream parties Posted: 08 Sep 2019 12:48 PM PDT  Leaders from across Germany's political spectrum have condemned the election of a member of the country's neo-fascist, ultranationalist NPD political party as the head of a town council in the state of Hesse. Stefan Jagsch, who ran unopposed, was elected unanimously as the head of the Altenstadt municipality, 30 kilometres from Frankfurt. He was voted in by the seven-member board which included representatives of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party, as well as members of the centre-left SPD and the liberal FDP. SPD General Secretary Lars Klingbell tweeted on Saturday evening that the decision was "incomprehensible and impossible to justify", while his CDU counterpart Paul Ziemiak said on Sunday that the election was "unacceptable" and needed to be corrected. Werner Zientz, a CDU representative in the council, said that the board "had not taken the process very seriously", while a joint statement from regional CDU representatives said the party was "horrified" and "shocked" at the decision. Not all CDU representatives however are upset with the decision. Norbert Szilasko, a member of the council who voted in favour of Mr Jagsch's appointment, told the Hessenschau news network that the non-partisan council based the vote on the new representative's skills rather than his political views. "(We voted for him) due to the fact we have nobody else, particularly no younger people who are familiar with computers and who can send emails," Mr Szilasko said. The council has indicated that it will meet again to discuss which direction it should take, while Mr Jagsch promised legal action should his appointment be rescinded. The NPD is widely criticised in Germany for its open support of Neo-Nazi rhetoric and connections with white nationalist groups, with the Constitutional Court in 2017 ruling that the party's "political concept was contrary to the democratic order embodied in the German Constitution". Mr Jagsch himself has previously been criticised for social media posts comparing migration with genocide and his use of the Nazi-era term 'Lügenpresse' (lying press). Mr Jagsch made news in 2016 when he was given first aid from a group of Syrian refugees after a car accident left him seriously injured.
|
| UK lawmakers to ask for emergency Brexit debate on Monday - ITV Posted: 08 Sep 2019 12:40 PM PDT ![UK lawmakers to ask for emergency Brexit debate on Monday - ITV]( "UK lawmakers to ask for emergency Brexit debate on Monday - ITV") British opposition lawmakers are due to request an emergency debate in parliament on Monday to try to force the government to publish a no-deal Brexit planning document and make Prime Minister Boris Johnson adhere to law, an ITV correspondent said. Opposition lawmakers are increasingly concerned that Johnson will try to ignore a bill, due to be signed into law on Monday, to force him to request a Brexit delay if parliament has not agreed to a deal or to leaving the European Union without an agreement by Oct. 19. Lawmakers are keen to see a document detailing the government's impact assessment of a so-called no-deal Brexit.
|
| Iran slams European powers as nuclear deal unravels Posted: 08 Sep 2019 12:18 PM PDT  Iran's atomic agency chief hit out Sunday at European powers, saying their broken promises gave the Islamic republic little choice but to scale back its commitments under a nuclear deal. Ali Akbar Salehi was speaking to reporters alongside Cornel Feruta, the acting head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who was on a one-day visit to Tehran. The IAEA official's visit came less than 24 hours after Iran said it was firing up advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium at a faster rate -- the latest blow to the landmark 2015 nuclear deal.
|
| Zimbabwe announces Mugabe funeral amid row over burial site Posted: 08 Sep 2019 11:53 AM PDT  Zimbabwe's government has announced a date for Robert Mugabe's funeral amid a row over where the former president will be buried. A government memo declared the funeral will be at Harare National Sports stadium on Saturday, September 14th but gave no location for the burial to follow the next day. Members of Mr Mugabe's family are battling with the ruling Zanu PF party over its plan to bury Zimbabwe's liberator-turned-despot in a cemetery for heroes of the liberation war in the capital. The deceased dictator has a grave ready next to his first wife Sally in Heroes Acre, a North-Korea designed graveyard also home to prestigious Zanu PF supporters. However, elements of Mr Mugabe's family want him interred in their rural village in Zvimba district, about 50 miles northwest of Harare. "We want him buried here. Heroes, for what?" Mr Mugabe's cousin, Josephine Jorincha, told AFP in the village of Kutama. Josephine Jaricha, 72, in Kutama Credit: AFP Mr Mugabe's nephew, Leo, who is the family's head of burial preparations, told the Telegraph that he was negotiating with village chiefs over the final site. He said that Mr Mugabe's toppling in a 2017 coup by his former right-hand man Emerson Mnangagwa had rendered the 95-year-old ambivalent about being buried in the Zanu PF shrine. However, Leo said that he believed Mr Mugabe would eventually be buried in Heroes' Acre. "I am sure he will be buried at Heroes' Acre," he said, but "we are with the chiefs, we have to consult." There is some surprise at the village chiefs' importance in the burial negotiations as Mr Mugabe's father was from Malawi, and deserted his family, meaning his son had no role within traditional Shona society. Jealousy Mawarire, a senior Mugabe loyalist said that although he believed Heroes' Acre would be the burial place, there were "disturbances" within the family because of Mr Mugabe's wishes to be buried "at home." A report appeared in a privately-owned Zimbabwe weekly recently which claimed Mr Mugabe told family members he wanted to be buried next to his mother in Kutama. The former president led an uprising against white minority rule in the 1970s but left the economy in tatters over an increasingly despotic 37-year reign characterised by corruption and repression.
|
| Israeli PM's office airbrushes Netanyahu's 'Yeltsin' gaffe Posted: 08 Sep 2019 11:31 AM PDT ![Israeli PM's office airbrushes Netanyahu's 'Yeltsin' gaffe]( "Israeli PM's office airbrushes Netanyahu's 'Yeltsin' gaffe") Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office has released a video that clumsily tries to edit out a gaffe where he calls the British prime minister the wrong name. Netanyahu misspoke at Sunday's weekly Cabinet meeting, referring to his British counterpart Boris Johnson as Boris Yeltsin, the former Russian president who died in 2007. The gaffe comes as Netanyahu fights for his survival ahead of next week's re-do election.
|
| Poles who saved Jews during Holocaust honored in Warsaw Posted: 08 Sep 2019 11:28 AM PDT  A U.S.-based Jewish foundation honored Polish gentiles who rescued Jews during the Holocaust, a number that grows smaller each year, with U.S. and Israeli diplomats also paying their respects at the event Sunday in Warsaw to the elderly Poles who put their lives in danger to save others. Today, the rescuers are in their 80s and 90s, and they arrived at the event in Warsaw helped by their children, with some in wheelchairs. "On behalf of the Jewish people, I thank you for your noble deeds so many years ago, for when most turned their backs on their Jewish neighbors, you did not," Stanlee Stahl, the foundation's executive vice president, told those gathered.
|
| UPDATE 1-Russians vote in local and regional elections after biggest protests in years Posted: 08 Sep 2019 11:18 AM PDT ![UPDATE 1-Russians vote in local and regional elections after biggest protests in years]( "UPDATE 1-Russians vote in local and regional elections after biggest protests in years") Residents of Moscow voted on Sunday in one of the most closely watched local elections in years after the exclusion of many opposition candidates triggered the biggest protests in the Russian capital for nearly a decade. Protests erupted in mid-July after the Central Election Commission refused to register a large numbers of opposition-minded candidates, saying they had failed to collect enough signatures from genuine backers - a response that President Vladimir Putin endorsed on Sunday after casting his ballot.
|
| U.S. hopes for North Korea talks in days, weeks -Pompeo Posted: 08 Sep 2019 10:44 AM PDT ![U.S. hopes for North Korea talks in days, weeks -Pompeo]( "U.S. hopes for North Korea talks in days, weeks -Pompeo") The United States hopes to get back to denuclearization talks with North Korea in the coming days or weeks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday. Negotiations aimed at dismantling Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs have stalled since the collapse of a second summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi in February. Trump and Kim met again in June at the border between North Korea and South Korea and agreed to reopen working-level talks, but that has not happened.
|
| UN atomic official in Iran as it runs advanced centrifuges Posted: 08 Sep 2019 10:42 AM PDT  Iran defended Sunday its decision to use advanced centrifuges prohibited by its unraveling 2015 nuclear deal with world powers as a visiting top official of the United Nations atomic watchdog urged Tehran to offer "time and active cooperation" with his inspectors. The visit and careful comments by Cornel Feruta, the acting director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, show the pressure his organization is now under as Iran steps further away from the deal the IAEA is meant to monitor. Also Sunday, a top U.S. Treasury official visiting Abu Dhabi insisted that Iran's oil exports "have taken a serious nosedive" after President Donald Trump withdrew America from the accord and imposed sanctions on its energy industry.
|
| Russians go to polls in test for Putin allies Posted: 08 Sep 2019 10:36 AM PDT  Russians voted in local elections on Sunday that will test the popularity of President Vladimir Putin and his allies after a crackdown on opposition protests in Moscow. Elections for municipal councils and regional governors took place across the country, but most attention was focused on Moscow, where tens of thousands took to the streets this summer after potential opposition candidates were barred from the vote. On election day, police detained several protest figures including Maria Alyokhina of political punk group Pussy Riot and Ilya Azar, a journalist and city councillor.
|
| Echoing Trump, Israeli leader pushes for election cameras Posted: 08 Sep 2019 10:31 AM PDT  In a strategy reminiscent of President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, Israel's prime minister is preemptively claiming to be a victim of electoral fraud as the country prepares to head to elections. In a Facebook video Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused his opponents of conspiring to "steal" the election. The proposal drew renewed accusations that Netanyahu was promoting racism and incitement against the country's Arab minority.
|
| Embattled Johnson Proceeds With Brexit Plan Despite Tory Turmoil Posted: 08 Sep 2019 10:24 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit on Twitter, join our Facebook group and sign up to our Brexit Bulletin.U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will press on with his plan to deliver Brexit by Oct. 31, senior ministers said, despite defeats in Parliament and the sudden resignation of Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd with a furious attack on his leadership.Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Sunday that the Brexit plan is unchanged -- even though Parliament passed a law requiring Johnson to ask the European Union for an extension on Oct. 19 if he can't get a deal by then."The Prime Minister is sticking to his guns," Raab told Sky News, adding that Johnson will visit Dublin for talks on Monday. "We're going to keep going on with the negotiations, we know we want a deal by the end of October, but we must leave come what may."Rudd's resignation plunged Johnson's six-week-old administration deeper into turmoil after a dramatic and disastrous week in which members of Parliament voted against a no-deal divorce then refused to grant him the emergency general election he wanted. And to cap it off his own brother, Jo, resigned from the government in protest at his plans.Added PressureThe loss of Rudd, one of the most senior members of his team, and a key pro-European voice in the cabinet, will add to the pressure. He is facing calls to abandon his aggressive stance toward his opponents and to drop his central pledge to exit the EU "do or die" at the end of next month.The former work and pensions secretary accused Johnson of "political vandalism," after he expelled 21 Tory lawmakers from the party, and said he is not trying hard enough to secure a Brexit agreement with the EU."I have not seen enough work going into actually trying to get a deal," Rudd told BBC TV. "When earlier in the week I asked Number 10 for a summary of what the planning was for actually getting a deal I was sent a one-page summary."Javid insisted that Johnson "is putting all the effort you would expect from a leader" into trying to get a new agreement with the bloc. There is a proposal to be put to EU negotiators, but it's too early to make it public, Javid said. Officials in Brussels say they have received no suggestions for a way forward from the U.K.Secret Proposal"I do know there's a proposal and it would be madness to start talking about it in public," Javid said in an interview with the BBC. "The prime minister set up a small group so we can move quickly and move at pace as the EU changes its position."The Sunday Times reported that Johnson is planning to defy the law passed in Parliament requiring him to seek an extension, setting up a showdown in the Supreme Court after the Oct. 19 deadline expires. It will then be a race against time to get clarity before the U.K. crashes out of the EU without a deal on Oct. 31.Raab said the government will "test to the limit" of what the law requires. Javid appeared to confirm that Johnson plans to run down the clock, emphasizing that he has until after the EU summit, on Oct. 17 and 18, before he has to act.No Extension"He will absolutely not be asking for an extension in that meeting," Javid said of the gathering of EU leaders. "Should we get to that point we will look at our options. We will not change our policy."Johnson "will obey all laws," he added, without explaining how that would be possible without a change of policy.Shami Chakrabarti, who speaks on legal affairs for the opposition Labour Party, said Johnson has no choice."The legislation is crystal clear, if you don't have a deal in the next few weeks you have to apply for the extension," she told Sky News. "It's a duty that's laid in the legislation on the prime minister personally."On Monday, Johnson will again ask Parliament to call an election, which he wants on Oct. 15, as he tries to navigate a way out of the stalemate. But opposition parties have said they won't back the motion -- which needs a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons -- because they don't trust the premier.No Trust"If on Monday we vote for the motion that Boris Johnson has put forward, that retains in his hands the timing of that election," John McDonnell, Labour's Treasury spokesman, told the BBC. "We have to then trust him not to push us over the edge of a no deal. If his own brother can't trust him, how can we?"Johnson's office launched a social media campaign last week accusing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn of being a "chicken" for refusing to back an election. McDonnell said Labour is keen for an election, but only after a further Brexit delay is secured.The latest Yougov poll, published over the weekend, suggests a hefty chunk of the electorate still backs Johnson's strategy, with support for the Tories unchanged at 35%.But Jeremy Hunt, who lost out to Johnson in the final round of the Tory leadership election in July, warned that the divisions in the party won't help it win support from voters.To win an election, there needs to be "a cold shower of generosity and magnanimity from all," Hunt wrote on Twitter. "Divided parties don't win elections and we'll NEVER be forgiven if Corbyn gets in."(Updates with visit to Ireland in third paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Thomas Penny in London at tpenny@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, James Amott, James ConeFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Brazil’s President Bolsonaro Stable After Hernia Surgery Posted: 08 Sep 2019 10:22 AM PDT ![Brazil's President Bolsonaro Stable After Hernia Surgery]( "Brazil's President Bolsonaro Stable After Hernia Surgery") (Bloomberg) -- Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is stable after a surgery to correct an incisional hernia that developed during the healing process from three procedures he underwent after being stabbed in September 2018.According to the press office of Vila Nova Star hospital, the surgery on Sunday started at 7:35 a.m. and was concluded at 12:40 p.m. The operation lasted longer than the two hours the medical team initially expected due to intestinal adhesions caused by the previous surgeries, chief surgeon Antonio Macedo said at a press conference after the procedure.Bolsonaro will remain at the hospital for at least five days and is expected to return to Brasilia when authorized by doctors, spokesman Otavio Rego Barros said. Vice President Hamilton Mourao will be acting president during the period.Speaking to reporters in Brasilia last week, Bolsonaro said he was in a hurry to undergo the hernia surgery so that he is able to fly to New York and attend the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22.The president was stabbed during Brazil presidential campaign last year. The man who confessed attacking him, Adelio Bispo de Oliveira, was ruled to be mentally ill.To contact the reporter on this story: Danielle Chaves in Sao Paulo at djelmayer@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Ney Hayashi at ncruz4@bloomberg.net, Mark Niquette, Tony CzuczkaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Pompeo: Sanctions could cut Iranian GDP by 12% Posted: 08 Sep 2019 09:32 AM PDT ![Pompeo: Sanctions could cut Iranian GDP by 12%]( "Pompeo: Sanctions could cut Iranian GDP by 12%") Iran's GDP could contract by 12% to 14% due to U.S. action after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear agreement.
|
| Turkey, US conduct 'safe zone' joint patrols in north Syria Posted: 08 Sep 2019 08:51 AM PDT  Turkish and U.S. troops conducted their first joint ground patrol in northeastern Syria on Sunday as part of a so-called "safe zone" that Ankara has been pressing for in the volatile Kurdish-administered region. Turkey hopes the buffer zone, which it says should be at least 30 kilometers (19 miles) deep, will keep Syrian Kurdish fighters away from its border. Turkey considers these Kurdish militias a threat, but they've also been key U.S. allies in the fight against the Islamic State group.
|
| U.S. to Press U.A.E. CEOs to Tighten Financial Screws on Iran Posted: 08 Sep 2019 08:28 AM PDT ![U.S. to Press U.A.E. CEOs to Tighten Financial Screws on Iran]( "U.S. to Press U.A.E. CEOs to Tighten Financial Screws on Iran") (Bloomberg) -- A senior U.S. Treasury official is in the United Arab Emirates to meet with the chiefs of the country's banks and shipping companies as the Trump administration seeks to further tighten sanctions against the Iranian regime.Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, will be meeting the chief executive officers of seven U.A.E. banks on Sunday and Monday. She will also hold talks with officials before heading to Switzerland and Israel."We're discussing ways to work together to counter terrorism and Iran's destabilizing influence in the region and around the world," Mandelker told reporters in the capital, Abu Dhabi, on Sunday.The trip marks the latest effort by the U.S. to turn up the pressure on Iran, which has so far refused to negotiate unless American sanctions are lifted. President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the multiparty 2015 nuclear deal and began to reimpose penalties last year. Earlier in 2019, the U.S. suspended waivers that allowed countries to buy Iranian oil.The Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of curbs targeting more than 1,000 Iran-related entities, Mandelker said.Last week, a major shipping network was also sanctioned after selling millions of barrels of of Iranian crude, she said. It allegedly supports the Qods Force, the international brigade of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been shipping oil to help the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and Lebanon's Hezbollah, she added.The U.S. is also targeting those who engage in other trade and financial activities related to Iran's petrochemical and metal production, Mandelker said. On June 7, Iran's largest petrochemicals group was sanctioned, and two of its designated sales agents were based in the U.A.E., she said."As we've seen historically, that kind of trade has happened right here in the U.A.E.," she said. "And we want to make sure that that sector understands that there are similar consequences to continuing to engage in that kind of trade."To contact the reporter on this story: Zainab Fattah in Dubai at zfattah@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Lin Noueihed at lnoueihed@bloomberg.net, Paul Abelsky, Amy TeibelFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Ministers Say Johnson Won’t Bend After Rudd Quits: Brexit Update Posted: 08 Sep 2019 08:07 AM PDT ![Ministers Say Johnson Won't Bend After Rudd Quits: Brexit Update]( "Ministers Say Johnson Won't Bend After Rudd Quits: Brexit Update") (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit on Twitter, join our Facebook group and sign up to our Brexit Bulletin.Boris Johnson is facing open rebellion in his Conservative Party as he presses on with his "do-or-die" strategy to get the U.K. out of the European Union on Oct. 31. Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd quit in a blaze of fury on Saturday night and other Tory MPs have criticized his strategy.After Parliament voted to block a no-deal split from the EU last week -- and against Johnson's plan for a general election -- the prime minister is expected to press ahead with another motion on Monday calling for a national ballot. Opposition parties say they will vote against the move because they don't trust Johnson and want Brexit delayed until January before an election is held.Key Developments:Rudd Quits Johnson's Cabinet With Furious Attack on His StrategyFarage pledges electoral pact with Brexiteer ToriesMembers of Parliament seek legal advice on how they can stop Johnson breaking no-deal lawThérèse Coffey appointed to cabinet to replace RuddEx-Chancellor Seeks Legal Advice Over Ejection From Tory PartyVaradkar Says Boris Overly Optimistic on Backstop Fix (3 p.m.)Johnson's view that the EU would consider dropping the Irish backstop as part of a Brexit divorce deal is "very optimistic," Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told reporters in Dublin. Creating a single Irish food zone won't be enough to break the impasse over how to prevent a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland after Brexit, as food only accounts for about 30% of cross-border trade. A no-deal Brexit would be a tragedy, and the Irish question would still need to be resolved, he said.Buckland Says He Won't Be Quitting (2 p.m.)Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said he won't quit, after rumors spread that he was ready to follow Rudd out of the cabinet."Speculation about my future is wide of the mark," he wrote on Twitter. "I fully support the prime minister and will continue to serve in his Cabinet. We have spoken over the past 24 hours regarding the importance of the Rule of Law, which I as Lord Chancellor have taken an oath to uphold."Tory Party Taken Over, Hammond Says (10:45 a.m.)Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, who was expelled from the Conservative Party last week, said it has been "taken over" by extremists."I'm afraid the Conservative Party has been taken over by unelected advisers, entryists and usurpers who are trying to turn it from a broad church into an extreme right-wing faction. Sadly, it is not the party I joined," Hammond wrote in response to a tweet from Health Secretary Matt Hancock saying the party has always been a coalition of different views.Hancock's predecessor, Jeremy Hunt, who was in the final two in the leadership campaign won by Johnson, also sent a tweet saying the party needs to "pause for thought."After saying that it's right for the party not to rule-out a no-deal split from the EU, Hunt added it's clear that to deliver Brexit "we also need to win an election." To do that "means a cold shower of generosity and magnanimity from all. Divided parties don't win elections and we'll NEVER be forgiven if Corbyn gets in," he wrote.Johnson Must Obey Law, Labour Says (10:30 a.m.)Shami Chakrabarti, Labour's shadow attorney general, said Johnson must obey the law over a no-deal Brexit."The legislation is crystal clear, if you don't have a deal in the next few weeks you have to apply for the extension, it's a duty that's laid in the legislation on the prime minister personally," she told Sky News."The idea there's one law for Boris Johnson and his mates and another law for everyone else, it's appalling," she said. "Every tinpot dictator on the planet throughout history has used the excuse of having the people on their side to break the law to shut down Parliament and all the rest of it, it's absolutely extraordinary and I think it's very un-British."French Want Plan From U.K. Before Delay (9:50 a.m.)France isn't prepared to postpone the Oct. 31 deadline for the U.K.'s departure from the EU "in the current state of things" because the British government isn't providing evidence that they'll offer new solutions to end the Brexit deadlock, French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said."They say they want to offer other solutions," Le Drian said on Sunday in an interview with CNews television. "We haven't seen them, so it's no. We won't start over again every three months. Let the British Parliament, let the British authorities tell us what's the path."Javid Emphasizes Date in Anti No-Deal Law (9:30 a.m.)Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid said Johnson won't change his policy on leaving the EU on Oct. 31 and emphasized that the law passed by Parliament to block a no-deal Brexit gives the prime minister until Oct. 19 to reach a new agreement before he has to ask for an extension.There is a meeting of the European Council on Oct. 17-18 and "he will absolutely not be asking for an extension in that meeting," Javid told BBC TV. "Should we get to that point we will look at our options. We will not change our policy.""We will obey all laws, all governments should obey all laws absolutely," Javid said. "We will be consistent with obeying the law but also sticking to our policy."Javid didn't expand on how it would be possible to both leave on Oct. 31 and obey the law, which requires the prime minister to ask for an extension to Jan. 31 or a mandate from Parliament for a no-deal split if he can't reach an agreement with the EU by Oct. 19. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the government is examining ways around the legislation.Javid Insists U.K. is Trying to Get Deal (9:20 a.m.)Sajid Javid said there is a proposal on the controversial Irish border backstop that will be put to the EU, but refused to give further details. He insisted the U.K. government is focused on a getting a new agreement and intensive work is continuing, despite Amber Rudd saying it isn't doing enough."I do know there's a proposal and it would be madness to start talking about it in public," Javid told BBC TV. "The prime minister set up a small group so we can move quickly and move at pace as the EU changes its position."Javid said the anti no-deal law passed by Parliament was "an attempt to kneecap the government" and had not helped the chances of getting a new agreement."We don't want no-deal, but if we have to we will leave on Oct. 31 with no deal," he said. "It's the fact we're willing to do that which is focusing minds."Labour Doesn't Trust Johnson on No-Deal (9:05 a.m.)John McDonnell, Treasury spokesman for the Labour Party, said opposition parties will not back a general election until they are sure that a no-deal Brexit has been taken off the table."We've got to use every mechanism we possibly can to rule out no-deal," McDonnell told BBC TV. "If we vote for the motion he's put forward, that retains in Boris Johnson's hands the timing of the election.""If his own brother can't trust him, how can we trust him?" McDonnell said.Rudd: Not Enough Is Being Done for a Deal (8:50 a.m.)Former Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd -- who quit the cabinet and the Conservative Party on Saturday evening -- said not enough is being done to pursue a Brexit deal with the EU."I supported Boris Johnson in his approach and I believe I was right to do that," she said in an interview with BBC TV. "It's because of the consequences now, the 21 senior colleagues expelled and the lack of planning for actually getting a deal, which makes my position untenable."Johnson 'Sticking to His Guns,' Raab Says (8:35 a.m.)Boris Johnson is "sticking to his guns" and continuing to pursue his commitment to leaving the EU on Oct. 31, Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said in an interview with Sky News.Ministers and officials are "looking very carefully" at the law passed by Parliament last week to force a delay in Brexit until Jan. 31 if Johnson can't get a deal, Raab said."This is such a bad piece of legislation that we will want to test to the limit what it actually does require," Raab said. "We will test what it legally requires and what it doesn't require," he said, before adding that "of course he's not going to break the law."Farage Offers Pact With Tory Brexiteers (Earlier)Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K.'s Brexit Party, will offer a "non-aggression pact" to Johnson to boost his chances of securing a majority in a general election.The Brexit Party would not stand candidates against committed Tory Brexiteers who opposed Theresa May's Brexit deal, Farage said in an interview with the Sunday Times.The pact could lead to a collective majority of up to 100, he said. Farage also has no intention of fighting cabinet Brexiteers such as Home Secretary Priti Patel, he said, nor would he seek a formal coalition with the Conservatives in the event of an election. Instead, he would push for a deal that allowed "extremely strong co-operation" on Brexit.Earlier:Britain's Steve Bannon Is Tearing Johnson's Tories ApartU.K. Opposition Parties to Deny Johnson Bid for October Election(An earlier version of this story was corrected to attribute a comment to Jeremy Hunt).(Updates with comments from Justice Secretary Robert Buckland.)\--With assistance from Alice Gledhill and Francois de Beaupuy.To contact the reporter on this story: Thomas Penny in London at tpenny@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, James Amott, Stephen KirklandFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Putin’s Party Braces for Verdict of Angry Voters in Russia Polls Posted: 08 Sep 2019 07:56 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- What was supposed to be a sleepy round of off-cycle regional elections on Sunday has turned into a referendum on President Vladimir Putin and his ruling United Russia party.Initial results in a few races for governor appeared to show good news for the Kremlin even as its candidates faced unusual opposition in several regions across the country amid stagnant incomes and unpopular reforms. Elections for Moscow's largely toothless city council this summer sparked Russia's biggest protests since Putin returned to the presidency in 2012 after four years as prime minister.Russia's tightly managed political life is showing strains in Putin's 20th year at the pinnacle of power. In response, the Kremlin has tweaked its playbook, allowing former United Russia candidates to run as independents and keeping popular local rivals, even loyal ones, off the ballots. At the same time, the authorities have cracked down hard on dissent, repeatedly detaining opposition leaders, breaking up peaceful demonstrations and serving up lengthy prison terms to a handful of protesters."The authorities still haven't learned the necessary lesson yet from previous setbacks, that people are voting against them rather than against imperfect candidates," said Nikolai Petrov, a fellow at London-based Chatham House think tank. "The overall social mood, just like in the last elections, remains unfavorable."Incumbents ChallengedBut initial results in Russia's east, where most of the ballots were already counted by late Sunday in Moscow, showed the Kremlin's favored candidates winning in Sakhalin and the Zabaikalsky Region. An exit poll in St. Petersburg put the Kremlin favorite well above the 50% needed to win in the first round. Full results are due Monday.In European Russia, a handful of Kremlin-backed candidates may have trouble avoiding a runoff as their popularity ratings wane, according to Mikhail Vinogradov, the head of the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation.Opposition activists reported election irregularities in several of the races, but officials said the voting proceeded smoothly, according to local news agencies. Russia's Internet regulator accused Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Facebook Inc. of showing political advertisements the day before the vote, in violation of local rules and said it would turn over its findings to parliamentary committees investigating foreign interference in the elections, the official Tass news agency reported. The Kremlin has sought to paint its opponents as backed by the U.S.Voters ousted United Russia incumbents in three regions last year. In the politically important Primorye region in Russia's Far East that includes the port of Vladivostok, Putin's party only managed to retain the governor's seat with a rerun election after mass falsifications in favor of the Kremlin's original candidate were exposed.Less than half of the population approves of the government's work, while Putin's personal rating took a hit after pension reforms last year and remains near its lowest since Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, according to the Levada Center, an independent pollster.But some close to the Kremlin brush off the pressures."There's been a decline in social welfare, which is a familiar position for the authorities, and they have accumulated experience over the past 20 years on how to act," said Konstantin Kostin, a former Kremlin official who now heads a think tank that works with the government. "Therefore, there will be few or no unpleasant surprises on election day."Election ProtestsPart of the strategy has been leaning hard on the opposition. More than a dozen opposition candidates were denied places on the ballot for Moscow city council elections, sparking this summer's protests. Opposition leader Alexey Navalny said Thursday that his Anti-Corruption Foundation, which has gained huge audiences for online reports alleging graft by high-ranking officials, was raided in what was a "common" occurrence for the fund. He's one of several opposition politicians jailed this summer for calling on people to protest.The authorities have also targeted rank-and-file protesters. A Moscow court on Thursday sentenced Konstantin Kotov, a 34-year old software engineer, to four years in prison for taking part in several unsanctioned protests.Kotov is only the second person to be convicted for attending illegal protests, according to Human Rights Watch associate director Tanya Lokshina. Ildar Dadin, who was sentenced under the same law in 2015, was released after the Constitutional Court ruled protesting wasn't a criminal offense unless it was a threat to society.Amid the crackdown, Navalny has urged supporters to back his "smart voting" campaign, which encourages voters to back the candidate in each district who's most likely to defeat the politician put forward by the Kremlin, regardless of political ideology.For the Kremlin, "the risks are growing, due to a noticeable political awakening and the inability of the authorities to handle this revival in a civilized way," said Moscow-based political scientist Valery Solovei.(Updates with initial results, internet regulator from fifth paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Ilya Arkhipov in Moscow at iarkhipov@bloomberg.net;Jake Rudnitsky in Moscow at jrudnitsky@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Torrey Clark at tclark8@bloomberg.net, Gregory L. White, Paul AbelskyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Saudi Arabia, UAE call for halt in fighting in Yemen's south Posted: 08 Sep 2019 06:47 AM PDT ![Saudi Arabia, UAE call for halt in fighting in Yemen's south]( "Saudi Arabia, UAE call for halt in fighting in Yemen's south") Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are calling for an end to fighting in southern Yemen between forces loyal to the internationally recognized government and UAE-backed separatists. The joint statement urges President Mansour Abed Rabbo Hadi's government and the secessionist Southern Transitional Council to prepare for "constructive" talks in Saudi Arabia.
|
| AP Explains: How Trump upended US-Taliban peace talks Posted: 08 Sep 2019 06:22 AM PDT  With a series of tweets, President Donald Trump has upended nearly a year of U.S.-Taliban negotiations on ending America's longest war. The Taliban took half a day to respond, saying the abrupt decision hurt U.S. credibility after they had "finalized" a deal, but said the U.S. likely would return to negotiations. The two sides had still been talking on Saturday, they said — two days after Trump said he had "immediately" called off talks.
|
| UK secretary resigns, says Brexit deal not Johnson's 'main objective' Posted: 08 Sep 2019 05:24 AM PDT ![UK secretary resigns, says Brexit deal not Johnson's 'main objective']( "UK secretary resigns, says Brexit deal not Johnson's 'main objective'") Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government is working hard enough to get a Brexit deal with the EU, a former UK secretary said.
|
| UPDATE 1-Saudi Arabia, UAE urge Yemen government and separatists to halt fighting Posted: 08 Sep 2019 05:10 AM PDT ![UPDATE 1-Saudi Arabia, UAE urge Yemen government and separatists to halt fighting]( "UPDATE 1-Saudi Arabia, UAE urge Yemen government and separatists to halt fighting") Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates called on Yemen's separatists and the internationally-recognised government of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi to halt all military actions in south Yemen. A joint statement by the two Gulf states, leaders of an Arab coalition that is battling Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis, called on the UAE-backed separatists and the Saudi-backed government to prepare for "constructive dialogue" to end the crisis between the two nominal allies.
|
| The Latest: France says open to talks with Iran to save deal Posted: 08 Sep 2019 04:58 AM PDT  French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has said that dialogue with Iran remains open despite the country's decision to further back away from its commitments under the 2015 nuclear deal. Iran says it has begun using advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium in violation of the nuclear deal, warning that Europe has little time left to offer new terms to save the accord.
|
| Russians vote in regional elections after biggest protests in years Posted: 08 Sep 2019 04:58 AM PDT ![Russians vote in regional elections after biggest protests in years]( "Russians vote in regional elections after biggest protests in years") Moscow citizens voted on Sunday in some of the most closely observed regional elections in years, after the exclusion of many opposition candidates triggered huge protests in the capital. The protests began in mid-July after the Central Election Commission refused to register of large numbers of candidates, saying they had failed to collect enough signatures from genuine backers - a response that President Vladimir Putin endorsed on Sunday after casting his ballot. In all, elections are taking place in 85 Russian regions, but the main focus is on Moscow.
|
| Britain's Johnson vows to fight on despite Brexit blows Posted: 08 Sep 2019 04:35 AM PDT  The British government insisted Sunday that Boris Johnson would fight on as prime minister despite seeing a top cabinet ally quit and his do-or-die Brexit strategy blocked by parliament. Johnson rose to power six weeks ago by injecting his trademark optimism into a ruling Conservative party that was cracking under the pressure of Britain's worst crisis in generations. Fears of Britain and the 27 EU nations splitting without a plan for what comes next were compounded when France threw up its hands at the possibility of another Brexit extension.
|
| Typhoon kills 5 in North Korea, 3 in South Korea Posted: 08 Sep 2019 04:26 AM PDT  One of the most powerful typhoons to ever hit the Korean Peninsula has left five people dead and three injured in North Korea, state media reported Sunday, in its first public announcement of casualties since the storm made landfall in the country a day earlier. Before reaching North Korea, Typhoon Lingling hit South Korea, killing three people and injuring 13 others, though the country appears to have escaped widespread damage. The North's official Korean Central News Agency, or KCNA, said the typhoon left 460 houses and 15 public buildings destroyed, damaged or inundated in the country.
|
| Sticking to Brexit plan, UK's Johnson will not seek a delay Posted: 08 Sep 2019 03:07 AM PDT ![Sticking to Brexit plan, UK's Johnson will not seek a delay]( "Sticking to Brexit plan, UK's Johnson will not seek a delay") Prime Minister Boris Johnson is sticking to his Brexit plan and will not seek a delay to Britain's departure from the EU at a summit next month, two of his ministers said on Sunday following a resignation from his government. After work and pensions minister Amber Rudd's shock resignation late on Saturday over Johnson's Brexit policy, two ministers said the prime minister was determined to "keep to the plan" to leave the European Union by Oct. 31 with or without an agreement. Johnson's determination to leave "do or die" by that deadline has been shaken by the events of recent days, which have prompted critics to describe him as a tyrant and deepened uncertainty over how Britain's 2016 vote to leave the EU will play out.
|
| Gazan's death abroad shines light on middle-class exodus Posted: 08 Sep 2019 02:58 AM PDT  With a family of five, a two-story home and a pharmacy, Tamer al-Sultan had a life many in the besieged and impoverished Gaza Strip would envy, but he still felt trapped. Fed up with the heavy-handed rule of Hamas, al-Sultan braved a treacherous journey in hopes of starting a new life in the West — only to die along the way. It has also struck a nerve among many Palestinians because he appears to have fled persecution by Hamas, rather than the territory's dire economic conditions following a 12-year blockade by Israel and Egypt, imposed when the Islamic militant group seized power.
|
| French Minister Le Drian Sees No Brexit Delay as Things Stand Posted: 08 Sep 2019 02:40 AM PDT ![French Minister Le Drian Sees No Brexit Delay as Things Stand]( "French Minister Le Drian Sees No Brexit Delay as Things Stand") (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit on Twitter, join our Facebook group and sign up to our Brexit Bulletin.France isn't prepared to postpone the Oct. 31 deadline for the U.K.'s departure from the European Union "in the current state of things" as British authorities aren't providing evidence that they'll offer new solutions to end the Brexit deadlock, French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said."They say they want to offer other solutions to ensure the withdrawal," Le Drian said Sunday in an interview with CNews television, when asked about a potential postponement of Brexit. "We haven't seen them, so it's no. We won't start over again every three months. Let the British Parliament, let the British authorities tell us what's the path."U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit strategy is in tatters after members of Parliament voted to stop him carrying out his threat to take the U.K. out of the EU with no deal at the end of October. Lawmakers have also refused to back an emergency general election that Johnson is pushing for.The situation in the U.K. is creating disturbances, the French minister said. It's a "dead end" because there is no majority in the U.K. for a no-deal Brexit, nor for a withdrawal agreement or for holding new elections, he added.To contact the reporter on this story: Francois de Beaupuy in Paris at fdebeaupuy@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: James Herron at jherron9@bloomberg.net, Stephen KirklandFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| UPDATE 3-Iran's nuclear chief: EU has failed to fulfil 2015 deal commitments Posted: 08 Sep 2019 02:12 AM PDT ![UPDATE 3-Iran's nuclear chief: EU has failed to fulfil 2015 deal commitments]( "UPDATE 3-Iran's nuclear chief: EU has failed to fulfil 2015 deal commitments") Iran's nuclear chief said on Sunday the European parties to the 2015 nuclear deal have failed to fulfil their commitments under the pact, a day after Tehran announced further breaches of limits on its nuclear activity set by the accord. The deal curbed Iran's disputed nuclear programme in exchange for relief from sanctions, but has unravelled since the United States withdrew last year and acted to strangle Iran's oil exports to push it into a broader security agreement. France, Germany and Britain have tried to launch a barter trade mechanism with Iran protecting it from U.S. sanctions but have struggled to get it off the ground, and Tehran on Wednesday set a 60-day deadline for effective European action.
|
| Michelle and Melania’s Shared Hell: The Role of First Lady Posted: 08 Sep 2019 02:07 AM PDT  Rob Carr/GettyFirst ladies are such minutely scrutinized figures that no president's mate has proved immune to criticism during her time in the White House. From the clothes they wear, to the causes they champion, to the way they interact with their husbands or the citizenry—some people always find fault in the actions they take. Whether she is too demure or too bold, too active or too absent, too fashionable or too dowdy, it seems that no matron of the East Wing has yet been able to personify the ideal American everywoman.The long practice of judging the president's wife began when Martha Washington joined George after he assumed office. Washington received a mix of praise and condemnation upon her arrival in New York. Some reporters applauded her travel attire and noted that her clothing was manufactured in the United States, but others chided her expensive outfit and argued that her well-appointed coach was too reminiscent of the royal broughams in England. From the very beginning, the president's spouse was considered a public icon whose every action was open to potential derision by the press and the people. The difficult nature of the position was so evident that, months before becoming the second woman to assume the role, Abigail Adams expressed reservations about being able to meet the expectations already placed on the consort of the U.S. president.Melania Gazed at Justin Trudeau in the Perfect Red Dress. The Rest of Her G7 Fashion Was Pure One Percent.All first ladies are ridiculed while residing in the White House. Some complaints are based on the personality of the individual, others stem from the amorphous expectations related to the role, and still others are a product of partisan gamesmanship. Attributes that are revered in some spouses are jeered in others, and no first lady's actions are so impeccable that she does not experience at least some degree of scorn. When a first lady engages in behavior that so clearly violates established norms that her reputation is adversely impacted, she might become entangled in a full-fledged scandal. The improprieties might be factual, such as Mary Todd Lincoln's misappropriation of federal funds and extortion of government appointees, or they could be based on rumor, as was Dolley Madison's purported affair with Thomas Jefferson. The alleged wrongdoing might involve the violation of federal law, like Florence Harding serving whiskey in the White House during Prohibition, or it could be a breach of social convention, as when Eleanor Roosevelt invited hundreds of African-American guests to the White House—an action that today would be considered a positive break with established norms, but one that many found scandalous at the time.One of the charges most frequently leveled against first ladies is overstepping the unclear boundaries of the role. Perhaps the most serious example is the supposed misdeeds of Edith Wilson. After her husband, Woodrow, had a stroke, she became the gatekeeper to the president and assumed many of his duties, instead of allowing the vice president to take over. Her actions were questioned at the time, but she nevertheless persisted for approximately 17 months. Reporters and scholars later dubbed her the "first female president" as a way of applauding her efforts, and criticizing her unconstitutional assumption of power. Less overt but still controversial examples of first ladies ostensibly extending their political reach beyond the presumed limits of their position include Rosalynn Carter attending presidential cabinet meetings and testifying before a U.S. Senate committee in support of mental health legislation, Nancy Reagan controlling her husband's schedule based on her consultations with an astrologer, and Hillary Clinton's leadership of a failed health care reform effort during her first year in the White House.Michelle Obama and Melania Trump, like all other first ladies, each endured a large amount of criticism. The press, the public, and particularly the opposition appeared to look for almost any excuse to publicly harangue the women performing what is arguably the most difficult unpaid job in American politics. Both Obama and Trump encountered backlash about their fashion choices, their purportedly expensive tastes, their political involvement (or lack thereof), and numerous other topics. One of the greatest difficulties for women was the highly partisan nature of the political environment during the eras in which they served. Many pundits took aim at Obama and Trump as a means of attacking their husbands and as a way to connect with left- or right-wing audience members. A second major challenge was the expanded media environment. The pervasiveness of social media meant that Obama and Trump encountered a new cacophony of critics. In addition, the expectation that the women should engage with the public through social media meant they were also evaluated based upon new types of communicative behaviors.In spite of the new media context, Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were assessed in ways that mimicked how past White House matrons were judged. They were accused of not behaving in a manner appropriate to the role by being unladylike or, more specifically, un-first-ladylike. They were also negatively gauged based on their perceived ability and desire to fulfill the obligations of the position. While most appraisals of the two were common critiques, Melania Trump did find herself occasionally embroiled in scandals, some of her own making and others instigated by her husband.* * *Failing to Meet the Standards for a First Lady* * *Even though there are no clearly delineated standards of conduct for the spouse of a president, pretty much all the women who have filled the role have at one point been accused of acting in a manner unbefitting the position. Such claims are usually based on the long-held idea that the president's mate must serve as a role model for American women and embody the generally vague criteria for being a "good woman." This is clearly an impossible ideal. Still, complaints that a first lady is not behaving appropriately are among the most common for any president's wife.Objections regarding a presidential consort's enactment of femininity often illustrate inconsistencies in the ways the women are appraised. Rosalynn Carter was faulted for being too thrifty and modest when she wore the same gown to Jimmy's presidential inaugural ball that she had donned when he was elected governor of Georgia, yet just four years later the press reprimanded Nancy Reagan for being indulgent and ostentatious because her brand-new inaugural gown was too expensive. Laura Bush was both applauded and rebuked for choosing not to wear a headscarf in the Middle East—positive assessments called it a display of women's empowerment, and negative ones an insult to the host nation. She was later widely admonished for briefly putting on a headscarf she was given as a gift.First ladies have also been rebuked for their decisions regarding the causes they champion. Despite the fact that first ladies tend to choose issues that fall well within the range of what are traditionally considered "feminine" concerns, their advocacy is still sometimes deemed problematic. Barbara Bush was commended for making literacy her signature cause, but when Laura Bush continued Barbara's work, critics argued that the former librarian lacked the independence and creativity to develop her own initiatives. In addition, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks brought Laura Bush's attention to the plight of women in the Middle East, her decision to make international women's rights a major part of her advocacy agenda resulted in a great deal of censure. She was not berated for caring about the status and treatment of women, but scolded for seeming to overlook the inequities and injustices American women faced as she focused her attention on females abroad.Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were each accused of not living up to the standards set for the first lady of the United States. Throughout her time in the White House, Obama endured recrimination regarding her perceived inability to be a "proper" first lady in everything from her choice of shoes to her character. Many of the concerns mirrored those about earlier first ladies, but others were clearly much more personal and often decidedly race-based. In the first two years of her first ladyship, Trump also faced a great deal of criticism. She was similarly chided for her fashion choices, and denunciations of her personality were based on her apparent lack of a distinct, individual identity. Even though Trump was not subject to the same racially charged assessments as Obama, her physical attributes were sometimes the subject of negative attention. Although the types of criticism the two women encountered were categorically identical, the applications of the indefinite criteria for the role resulted in distinct complaints about each woman. The critiques about Obama and Trump provide telling examples of the inconsistent ways in which these first ladies were judged.It is not surprising that Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were frequently evaluated based on their appearance and were occasionally found wanting. Viewed as fashion icons, they each earned a large amount of positive attention due to the clothing they wore and the ways they carried themselves in public. However, along with the affirmations of their choices came disparaging assessments. Some writers rebuked Obama because of the diverse nature of her wardrobe. Compliments for her choices notwithstanding, many analysts found fault with the first lady because she failed to embrace a standardized dress code like many of her predecessors had. Pointing to Rosalynn Carter's A-line skirts and tucked-in blouses, Hillary Clinton's business suits, and Laura Bush's structured skirt suits, several pundits were bemused by Obama's mix of sundresses, slacks and cardigan sweater combos, and casual jeans and sneakers. Most journalists declared that the varied looks suited the first lady and aligned with her "everymom" persona, but a persistent group of primarily conservative reporters insisted that her attire was too distracting and that Obama was too vain to serve as a proper role model to young girls and women.When Trump's public activity at the White House increased after her months-long stay in New York, the press immediately began assessing what many argued was her typical first lady uniform of a pencil skirt paired with a structured jacket or blouse and belt. Although she won praise from pundits who commented on the flattering lines and the seriousness of her appearance (a jab at Obama's ostensibly less businesslike mien), the press also censured Trump for her return to seemingly more predictable sartorial selections. Reporters deemed Trump's look uninventive, particularly for a former fashion model who had been touted as a cutting-edge "fashionista." These conflicting assessments of Obama and Trump indicate that when it comes to establishing a personal sense of style, the first lady can never win over all observers, no matter her approach.In addition to evaluating how ladylike the president's wife looks, the press and public are habitually preoccupied with the cost of her wardrobe. Obama and Trump were each harangued for wearing expensive clothing—and also condemned for choosing more affordable garb. When it came to the pricey items, pundits either proclaimed that the outfits distanced the first ladies from the women they were expected to represent or that as role models the women set too high a benchmark for average Americans to meet. Melania Trump wearing a $51,000 Dolce & Gabbana jacket to a G-7 summit in Italy is one obvious example of high-priced clothing inciting criticism. Choosing an accessory worth more money than many Americans earn in a year gained the first lady contempt from both the U.S. and international press. Similarly, Michelle Obama raised eyebrows in 2014 when she donned a gown valued at $12,000 for a state dinner at a time when her husband was talking about income inequality. The gown was event-appropriate, but the context drove critics to rebuff Obama's choice.Complaints regarding the cost of the first lady's attire are routinely grounded in the common misperception that clothing worn by the president's wife is bought with taxpayer funds. The historical roots of stories about taxes being used to pay for the first lady's clothes can be traced at least as far back as Mary Todd Lincoln who did, in fact, use federal monies approved for the running and remodeling of the White House to purchase her expensive wardrobe. Past indiscretions notwithstanding, modern U.S. first ladies do not receive any government subsidy to support their purchase of personal garments. Instead, they buy their own apparel or accept items as gifts. Jacqueline Kennedy's renowned wardrobe famously cost more per year to maintain than JFK earned as president. Kennedy enjoyed considerable financial support from her father-in-law, who did not want her appearance to be a political liability for John. Luckily, for women who cannot personally afford expensive gowns for events such as state dinners, designers frequently donate dresses and other outfits as gifts to the U.S. government. Such items become part of the National Archives, along with other presents government dignitaries receive.Trump's seemingly expensive tastes were continually highlighted throughout her first couple of years in the White House; for example, the cost of her clothing was often compared with that of Obama's wardrobe. With multiple news articles highlighting the price difference between outfits each woman wore during similar events, e.g., Trump's $53,000 G-7 summit dress, coat, and shoes versus Obama's $474 G-20 summit skirt and sweater, clear distinctions were made between the women. Based on the reported numbers, Trump spent between two and five times as much as Obama on any given ensemble (the economic summit garment was an extreme outlier). As she was the wife of a supposed billionaire, it makes sense that Trump might have worn pricier clothing, but that did not mitigate claims that her flaunting of wealth made her less representative of and less relatable to American women than a first lady is expected to be.Even though Obama and Trump were sometimes faulted for wearing lavish clothing, they were also occasionally pilloried for selecting more modestly priced items. Obama was known to wear off-the-rack pieces, and many commentators touted her decision to sport affordable garb as a nod to her upbringing and her connection to middle-class America. Still, her frugal choices were not always positively received. The press and the public slammed Obama for failing to meet the norms of propriety set for the first lady when she was photographed wearing shorts and sneakers while deplaning Air Force One for a family vacation. Although she was heading for a hike in the Grand Canyon, politicos harangued Obama for appearing too casual, too comfortable, and too "common" for her position. A few years later, Obama listed the moment as her biggest fashion faux pas. Acknowledging the higher standards the president's wife is held to, she explained that she made the misstep because in that moment she was thinking like a mom heading on vacation with her family instead of like the first lady of the United States.Melania Trump earned herself a bit of praise for an affordable outfit she wore in the late summer of 2017. Donning a $300 casual pink ensemble from J Crew on a return trip to the White House from Camp David, Trump was applauded for the elegant-but-simple look. A little over nine months later, she found herself embroiled in controversy when she selected a different inexpensive piece of clothing to travel in. The $39 "I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO U?" jacket she wore during a trip to tour detention centers for immigrant children separated from their families sparked widespread outrage. Several critics argued the message reflected Trump's attitude about her standing as the first lady, and many journalists and politicos wondered whether she was really suited for the job. In addition to the curiosity and criticism sparked by their clothing choices, Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were also routinely judged regarding aspects of their physical selves. These assessments were often not fair, reasonable, or kind. Obama endured objections based on her physical stature and her race, whereas Trump was censured for her seemingly indifferent countenance.As the first African-American first lady, Michelle Obama encountered a unique set of criticisms. Members of the mainstream press made remarks about her dark skin, height, and other attributes that allegedly prevented her from embodying the kind of femininity expected from a president's mate. Even though many discussions about her body were complimentary, including several articles highlighting how throngs of American women longed to have toned arms similar to Obama's, there were other conversations that depicted her physique as disturbingly unladylike. Reporters used words like "towering," "colossal," and "intimidating" to describe her almost-six-foot frame. They pointed out that her sleeveless sheath dresses accentuated her arms and de-emphasized her broad shoulders, that her decision to wear high-heeled shoes was unusual for a woman of her height, that her choice of color palette suited her dark skin tone, and that her sartorial style was an attempt to make her body seem more petite. Each such observation spotlighted the supposedly less feminine elements of her appearance.Other outlandish complaints against Obama directly questioned her standing as a woman. Rumors that Michelle Obama had been born a man began during the 2008 campaign and persisted throughout her time in the White House. Later, conservative talk show hosts told viewers not only that Obama was not a woman but that she had committed murder in order to hide this fact from the public. Although these diatribes were patently absurd, thousands of people believed them, and stories about Obama's sexuality became pervasive during her husband's second term in office. Some conservative editorial cartoonists began including subtle "bulges" or suggestive shadowing in her crotch area when drawing Michelle Obama, and several pundits began echoing these unfounded assertions when discussing the first lady. In addition to having her womanhood challenged, Obama also encountered criticism that denied her basic humanity. On multiple occasions, she was deemed unsuited to be first lady and equated with a primate. A West Virginia mayor called Obama an "ape in heels." A schoolteacher in Georgia used social media to decry the first lady as a "poor gorilla" in need of a makeover. A public official in the state of Washington claimed that "Gorilla Face Michelle" was only attractive to the "monkey man Barack." Each person either resigned or was fired over his or her racist remarks, but the widespread nature of the sentiment indicated that a segment of the population viewed the first lady as subhuman. Although many past first ladies were harshly criticized (such as Hillary Clinton being called a "feminazi," an incarnation of Lady Macbeth, and a "man-hating fear-inspiring witch"), even the most derogatory portrayals generally depicted them as people. No other first lady had to withstand such vitriolic and dehumanizing attacks as Michelle Obama.Melania Trump certainly was not as aggressively critiqued. However, during her first two years in the White House, she too was accused of not appropriately meeting the standards of the first ladyship based on her physical attributes, particularly her facial expressions. Starting during the presidential campaign but taking on new life the day her husband assumed the presidency, critical observations about Trump's countenance abounded.Pictures of Trump at a breakfast event the morning of the inauguration showed her with expressions that reporters identified as uninterested, distant, and upset. The assorted looks led to speculation regarding her assumed lack of interest in her new position and in her husband. Later that day, as images from the swearing-in ceremony emerged, reporters paid particular attention to Melania Trump's shifting demeanor during interactions with her husband. Her facial responsiveness earned her pity as well as condemnation. When it was thought that her husband had publicly scolded her, reporters and social media users alike conveyed concern for the new first lady and questioned the nature of the Trumps' marriage. Later, when Donald was delivering his national address, Melania was photographed with a vacant look on her face. At that point, commentators (particularly conservative ones) decried Trump's behavior and reproved her for not gazing supportively and lovingly at her husband as he outlined his vision for the country.The various assessments of Melania Trump's facial expressions continued throughout her first couple of years in the White House. During her first trip to Europe, reporters said Trump looked depressed, seemed aloof, appeared bored, and gave the impression that she was deeply unhappy. As she prepared to host her first state dinner, Trump sported what many described as an insincere and overly practiced smile. When she was introduced to the president of Russia, Trump's so-called "look of terror" after shaking his hand provided material for a number of critical news stories and humorous late-night talk show monologues.Several journalists tried to decode Trump's different looks and what some referred to as her "usual pose" (a downturned chin and very slightly opened mouth). They interpreted her expressions as strategically contrived attempts to hide her disdain for her situation or as habitual mannerisms ingrained when she was a model. These evaluations clearly implied that somehow her countenance was problematic and un-first-ladylike. Stories about her unenthusiastic expressions frequently included comparisons with her predecessors, who had presented "permanent smiles" during public events. Such references insinuated that Melania Trump's nonverbal displays violated the supportive and deferential ideals expected of a presidential helpmate. In reality, past White House matrons were generally much less fawning than the romanticized versions recalled by those assessing the incumbent's spouse.A large portion of the American population seemed to like Michelle Obama and appreciate her outgoing personality. Her willingness to be self-deprecating and her ability to adapt to various situations won her many fans. She earned favorability ratings as high as 72 percent and maintained an average positive score of 65 percent throughout her time in the White House. She received lower ratings than both Barbara and Laura Bush but was better liked as first lady than Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton. In spite of her popularity, Obama was occasionally censured for her demeanor. Conservative pundits declared that she was too talkative and too often sought the spotlight at the expense of her husband. They said her frequent TV appearances indicated that she was more interested in being a celebrity than in being an effective role model for America's female citizens. Such commentators argued that the first lady lacked the demure nature required of someone in the position and contrasted her with Laura Bush in order to highlight Obama's supposed dispositional shortcomings. Columnists quibbled about Michelle's tendency to joke about Barack, describing her gibes as inappropriate acts of aggression.Some of the more biting judgments about Michelle Obama's character came from public figures holding extremely conservative viewpoints. Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh lambasted Obama as undisciplined, greedy, and power-hungry. He called her "Moochelle" to underscore his allegation that she selfishly indulged herself at the taxpayers' expense. Many Republicans promulgated the idea that Obama was exceptionally pampered and ultimately unconcerned with average Americans' economic suffering by equating the first lady with Marie Antoinette. The contrived parallel accentuated Obama's supposed avarice and depicted her as out-of-touch with the electorate. Other GOP members chided Obama as hypocritical, contending that she did not adhere to the guidelines for being healthy that she supposedly tried to force others to follow.The complaints regarding Melania Trump's disposition came largely from liberal analysts who ridiculed the first lady for not showing enough character. Pundits and politicos maintained that Trump was not adequately fulfilling the duties of the first lady because she was too much of a cipher and not enough of her own person. The extreme deference she generally showed her husband and her unwillingness to share her own opinions encouraged others to dismiss her as two-dimensional and flat. Liberal journalists objected that Trump was a negative role model for young women and girls because she appeared to value women's superficial features rather than their substantive skills and abilities. Some columnists even maintained that Trump's first ladyship could set the woman's movement back several decades. What most members of the press failed to note was that Trump did assert herself in important ways. For example, she refused to be pressured by custom or convention when she insisted on remaining in New York for the first few months of her husband's presidency. Journalists framed the move as an overindulged woman getting her way, but it was a show of strength because she refused to bend to tradition and instead prioritized the needs of her son.Melania Trump's presumed lack of independence turned her rare displays of even the least bit of gumption into major news. On several occasions throughout her first two years in the White House, Trump refused to take her husband's offered hand. Each public instance caught on video spawned several mainstream news stories and spread quickly across social media sites. Her rejection of Donald was at times portrayed as Melania standing up to her purportedly overbearing husband. Critics, however, considered the rebuff an inappropriate act of petulance and admonished the first lady for creating a distraction and embarrassing her husband. This particular protest was lodged when Melania swatted away Donald's hand as they arrived in Saudi Arabia on their first presidential trip to the Middle East.Michelle Obama and Melania Trump each endured numerous derogatory statements about their ladylike qualities. Obama was deemed too tall, too black, and too aggressive, whereas Trump was too passive, too superficial, and too aloof. The fundamental unfairness of many of the claims regarding the feminine attributes enacted by Obama and Trump is apparent in the inconsistencies of the appraisals. Obama was reprimanded for baring her arms, but when Trump went sleeveless, no one complained. Trump was lambasted for being too quiescent, whereas Obama's activity earned her reproach. Obama's wardrobe was said to contain too many off-the-rack pieces, and Trump's was deemed to have too few.* * *Overstepping and Underperforming* * *One particularly unfair charge leveled against a first lady has to do with how well she executes the duties of the position. Grievances about her job performance are usually grounded in how willingly and competently she participates in the various assumed, but not explicitly stated, responsibilities of the president's spouse, such as serving as the national hostess, championing appropriate causes, and being the compassionate face of the government. There are no formal guidelines for the job itself, but that does not prevent the press and public from judging the women who occupy the East Wing based on unstated and equivocal measures of effectiveness.Objections about how first ladies approach the role tend to take two opposing perspectives. The women are either charged with overstepping the invisible boundaries of their position, or are faulted for underperforming in their capacity as the national matriarch. Very few women of the past have managed to find an acceptable balance between the demand to be an enthusiastic public servant and the need to appear unassertive. Women who have failed to achieve the right blend of activity and deference have been rebuked for their behaviors. Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, and Hillary Clinton were all berated for being too ambitious; Carter and Clinton were said to be too involved in policy development, whereas Reagan was accused of meddling in the running of her husband's administration. On the other end of the spectrum are the women who have been reprimanded for not adequately fulfilling expectations for someone in the role. Far fewer women tend to be denounced for not being aggressive enough than for being overly so, yet because modern first ladies are expected to be more active than their earlier counterparts, presidential consorts must guard against charges of inactivity. Not since Mamie Eisenhower has a first lady been able to refrain from engaging in some sort of public social advocacy without facing harsh criticism.Michelle Obama and Melania Trump took different approaches to fulfilling their responsibilities as first lady. Obama was decidedly more active and outgoing from the start, and Trump was more sedate and reserved. Within the first few months of their times in the White House, Obama was admonished by pundits and politicos for reaching beyond the limits of the position, and Trump was lambasted for not doing enough. In truth, the inability of either woman to adequately navigate the unstated expectations of the position is not surprising because unclear responsibilities are difficult for anyone to effectively discharge. Equally unsurprising is the fact that a deep partisan divide undergirded many of the criticisms of Obama and Trump.There were a series of grievances related to Obama's job performance as first lady. Some revolved around her alleged prodigality. For example, her lavish first state dinner was said by critics to indicate her purported willingness to overspend federal funds. Other complaints focused on what some commentators referred to as her apparent preoccupation with fame. These types of reproach accused Obama of using the White House to cultivate friendships with prominent actors and musicians in hopes of solidifying her own status as a celebrity. Such protests were relatively minor in scope and had little impact on her overall public persona. However, the admonishment she suffered regarding her assertive social advocacy was much more sustained and created problems.Michelle Obama's primary initiative was the Let's Move! campaign that intended to help encourage kids to lead healthier lives. The effort to promote better eating and exercise habits was relatively well received by the public at large. It was a kid-friendly endeavor that fit squarely within the parameters of Obama's established "everymom" persona. Once the program moved beyond encouragement and role modeling to include supporting legislation, however, Obama encountered significant pushback. Critics claimed she was exceeding the boundaries of her position by interfering with governmental decisions. Even though she did not testify before any congressional committees as Rosalynn Carter had done or head a commission as Hillary Clinton did, conservative pundits said Michelle Obama's public support for a rider to a bill funding school lunches was an overreach for the first lady. The objection assumed that she should refrain from remarking on government actions because she was married to the president. Obama's use of her rhetorical power was apparently offensive to those who believed the president's mate should serve as a model of female deference.The Let's Move! campaign was not the only bit of advocacy for which Michelle Obama received criticism. Her use of the first lady pulpit was also a point of contention when she helped develop Let Girls Learn, an initiative designed to increase girls' access to education around the world. Some conservative columnists labeled the program sexist because it did not include males, and others protested that its global focus was troublesome because it diverted attention and energy away from American needs. Essentially, critiques about Obama's Let Girls Learn framed the president's wife as setting the wrong priorities and attending to problems that were outside her purview. This grousing about Obama and her project was clearly a result of partisan gameplay because many of the same people rebuking Obama for Let Girls Learn had previously applauded Laura Bush for her work drawing attention to the plight of women in the Middle East. The selective use of the "overstepping" charge is another clear indication that the first lady of the United States is not a clearly defined position, nor is it as apolitical as some people might believe.During her first two years in the White House, Melania Trump was certainly not accused of over-reach. In fact, most criticisms of Trump fell on the other end of the spectrum; she was often faulted for inadequately performing the duties of the president's wife. Quibbling about Trump's purported ineffectiveness as first lady began before her husband took the oath of office. When she announced that her move to Washington, DC, would be delayed, she immediately opened herself up to objections about her ability to serve as an effective presidential consort. When she trimmed the Office of the First Lady staff to what some called a skeleton crew, critics again argued that she was not planning to fulfill the duties of the job. Although Trump did host several White House events, held meetings with her staff, engaged in charitable works, visited schools and hospitals, i.e., did the things widely expected of any first lady, while she was technically residing in New York, she was still accused of not doing enough. After she moved into the White House full-time, the perceptions of her inadequate activity persisted. Part of the reason was the delayed announcement of her advocacy campaign.Unlike many first ladies who establish their signature initiatives or causes before or shortly after entering the White House, Melania Trump waited more than a year to unveil her program; it was not until May 2018 that she presented Be Best to the nation. The announcement had been expected months earlier, and two scheduled press conferences regarding the initiative had been postponed. Critics, particularly liberal commentators, maintained the delay was an indication of Trump's lack of interest in both her position as first lady and in helping others. Such charges were reinforced when Be Best was revealed as a campaign to draw attention to already existing efforts by others rather than as a novel initiative in its own right. Trump was said to lack the creativity and entrepreneurialism expected of a modern first lady. Ironically, being creative and entrepreneurial were characteristics that drew criticism for several of her predecessors, including Michelle Obama.Melania Trump's performance as first lady became an issue again when she seemed to vanish for several weeks in the spring of 2018. In May, she underwent what was described as a minor medical procedure for a kidney problem. After her brief hospitalization, Trump made no public appearances nor did she do any public outreach for about three weeks. There were no photos of her, no social media posts from her, and no public interactions of any discernable sort by her during that time. People on mainstream and social media began counting the days since she had last been seen. Jokesters hung missing-person posters bearing Trump's photo and description around New York and DC. Columnists underscored the unusual nature of such inactivity on an almost-daily basis. The episode reignited concerns about Trump's dedication to serving as the White House matriarch. In addition, reporters wondered if she was hiding in order to avoid fallout from the bungled Be Best launch. The so-called disappearance also brought back questions regarding the Trump marriage because Melania's apparent sequestering happened just as new information was released regarding an alleged affair her husband had with a porn star shortly after Melania had given birth to the couple's son.Rumors swirled about Melania Trump's absence that ranged from speculation she'd had plastic surgery to assertions she was working on divorce papers to tales about Donald having killed her in order to avoid paying a divorce settlement. Aside from the careless gossip, more considered and critical assessments of the situation declared the absence, no matter the cause, unacceptable. Pundits argued that Trump's failure to make herself available even for a simple photograph or two created a social and political distraction that could be construed as a dereliction of her duties as the first lady. This perspective underscored the idea that somehow, although the person is unelected and unpaid, the first lady is not entitled to any privacy once she moves into the nation's most famous residence.Like Melania Trump, Michelle Obama also endured complaints that she underperformed as the first lady of the United States. Such claims came from two very different groups. First, there were the conservative politicos who revived critiques that had emerged during the 2008 campaign that Obama was not patriotic enough to be an effective first lady. They contended that, as the president's wife, Michelle Obama failed to show enough gratitude and concern for her nation. These grievances took many forms. In 2011, GOP operatives began circulating eventually debunked stories of Obama grumbling about having to attend a 9/11 memorial event. The first lady was said to have whispered, "All this for a damned flag" while at the commemoration. These allegations were soundly refuted, but right-wing pundits routinely repeated them as part of a sustained effort to paint Obama as an ineffective first lady. When Obama launched her Let Girls Learn campaign as a global effort, critics used the international focus as an indicator that Obama did not care enough about her own country. Some reactionary commentators accused her of not engaging in adequate and appropriate action as the first lady because she was more concerned about poor girls in Africa than homeless American military veterans. These recriminations overlooked Obama's extensive work supporting U.S. military members and their families, underscoring their deep partisan roots.The second group that charged Obama with being less than effective as first lady was a bit more unexpected. Some liberal feminists argued that Obama did not fulfill the responsibilities of her position because she did not provide adequate role modeling for American women, particularly young girls, due to her adoption of the "mom-in-chief" persona. They objected to her decision to downplay her academic and professional successes in favor of accentuating her work as a mother and supportive spouse. Conceding that the move might have been necessary in order to quell some of the race-based challenges Obama faced, these critics still proclaimed the move unacceptable because the first lady was not showing young girls that they could aspire to be something other than wives and mothers. To be clear, they were not opposed to pointing out the value of being a wife or mother, but they were troubled by the fact that those elements of Obama's life were highlighted at the expense of providing a more encompassing picture of her multifaceted and accomplished background. They protested that Obama was presenting a rather narrow view of womanhood and a stunted perspective on femininity. These same observers made similar assertions about Trump, maintaining that she was not simply neglecting her duties in this regard, but that she was actively disempowering future generations of women by teaching them that female submissiveness results in wealth and fame.As high-profile women, both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump endured complaints about the management of ambiguous duties as first lady. All of their decisions were bound to be problematic to some segment of the diverse population evaluating their every move. Critiques about them made it clear that if a president's wife tries to retain some privacy and stay out of the public eye, she is harangued. However, if she tries to use her attention-getting position to help others, she opens herself up to charges of not doing enough, helping the wrong people, or being too ambitious. When it comes to fulfilling the functions of such an undefined role, no woman is safe from accusations of either overstepping or underperforming as the first lady of the United States.* * *Managing Scandals* * *First ladies often find themselves in the midst of a scenario where criticisms lead to more substantial, more sustained, and more widespread disparagements of their behaviors or the conduct of those around them. In these cases, the wives of presidents might labor to negotiate a full-fledged scandal. Many past White House matrons have created their own difficult situations. The financial improprieties Mary Todd Lincoln committed typify the self-created ordeal. Others include Florence Harding meddling in her husband's appointee process and Nancy Reagan refusing to return borrowed clothes, failing to properly register sartorial gifts, and ignoring other protocols regarding her expensive wardrobe.In addition to being called out for their own bad acts, some first ladies have suffered through public accusations of misdeeds by the president. Jacqueline Kennedy and Hillary Clinton endured rumors of sexual misconduct by their husbands. Nancy Reagan dealt with fallout over her husband's Iran Contra affair and assertions regarding Ronald's dementia during his last years in the White House. Perhaps one of the most well-known modern scandals was Watergate. Pat Nixon had largely been kept in the dark by her husband and learned about the problem by reading the newspaper. In the end, she had to withstand the disgrace of leaving the White House after her husband was forced to resign because of his wrongdoing.Even though there were plenty of criticisms leveled at Michelle Obama during her eight years presiding over the East Wing, she was never directly accused of any impropriety that rose to the level of a scandal. Compared to the four administrations before Barack Obama took office, there were relatively few major controversies in the Obama White House and none that reflected poorly on Michelle Obama. She never had to defend her husband against allegations of sexual or financial misconduct, was not charged with violating the law, and did not break with the accepted social mores of the era. Other members of the Obama White House were questioned about their role in troubling events like the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and purportedly problematic decision-making by IRS officials, but aside from some debunked race- and partisan-based efforts to discredit Michelle Obama, the first lady was never entangled in a scandal of her own making. She only became tangentially involved with one of someone else's creation when Melania Trump delivered a speech to the Republican National Convention (RNC) in the summer of 2016 that contained parts of a 2008 address by Obama. Melania Trump, on the other hand, found herself managing accusations of inappropriate behavior from the start of the 2016 campaign and throughout her time in the East Wing.Melania Trump confronted a variety of improper actions during her first several months as first lady, some by her but most by her husband. During the campaign, she was directly accused of misconduct when nude photos of her circulated around the Internet and stories about her work as an illegal immigrant in the United States emerged. Later, she was charged with lacking an effective moral compass when she delivered an RNC speech she said she had written herself that contained passages that matched Michelle Obama's 2008 Democratic National Convention (DNC) address. Trump's speech raised serious concerns because the episode included initial lies about authorship, clear instances of plagiarism, and an attempted cover-up complete with efforts to shift blame and avoid taking responsibility for the bad behavior.In addition to her own wrongdoing, throughout the 2016 campaign Trump also endured accusations of immoral behavior by her husband. Although there were several charges of misdeeds by Donald, Melania Trump was most directly connected to two sex-related scandals because the usually reticent woman chose to defend her husband. In one case, when an Access Hollywood tape of Donald was released in which he used vulgar language about women and bragged about engaging in sexually harassing activities, Melania dismissed his banter as "locker room talk" in a series of interviews. Her denial that his attitudes were troubling embroiled Trump in controversy as critics argued she was condoning the mistreatment of women. These assertions were amplified when her husband was later directly accused of sexually assaulting several women. When those allegations broke, Melania Trump dismissed the purported victims as liars. Trump's defense of her husband became an issue because it contravened her professed desire to be an advocate for women. In addition, her support for her husband was similar to the defense Hillary Clinton mounted on behalf of Bill Clinton in the '90s, a stance that Donald Trump used to frame Hillary Clinton as a fraudulent feminist who harmed women. Melania Trump's actions in light of the condemnation of Clinton opened the campaign and the future first lady to further accusations of hypocrisy.The scandals Melania Trump weathered during the presidential campaign were a precursor to the multiple controversies she had to negotiate throughout her time in the White House. Within the first two years of her husband's presidency, Trump again was condemned for plagiarism and again found herself defending her husband against accusations of sexual misconduct. In addition, some key political actions by her husband and members of his administration created additional problems for the first lady.The second time members of the press maintained that Melania Trump stole significant portions of work from Michelle Obama occurred when she unveiled her Be Best initiative. One of the documents released as part of her effort to help parents teach kids to navigate social media was identical to one disseminated by the Obama administration. Michelle Obama had not created the document, as many journalists and commentators erroneously declared, and Melania Trump never professed to have written it or to have commissioned its writing, but the public was quick to berate Trump for once more stealing from Obama. This contrived conflict was problematic for Trump because her earlier behaviors made the charge of plagiarism eminently believable to her critics, even though in this case the charge was unwarranted.The sex scandals that plagued Donald Trump during the latter part of his presidential campaign continued and expanded during his presidency. As he was fighting lawsuits brought by his putative sexual assault victims, new information came to light regarding a payoff one of his attorneys made to a porn star in order to hide a consensual sexual affair Donald had with her. It was revealed that, one month prior to the election, Trump's lawyer gave the woman known as Stormy Daniels $130,000 to sign a nondisclosure agreement so she would not share details of the tryst she'd had with Donald Trump. Although the fling had happened years earlier, the payment was intended to avoid adding fuel to the media firestorm surrounding Trump's Access Hollywood tape and sexual assault accusations. When the story about the Daniels-Trump affair and cover-up finally did break, it was a prominent part of the news for the first several weeks of Donald Trump's administration. A full year after the revelations about the payment surfaced, the affair remained in the national spotlight.Melania Trump was drawn into the scandal when it was revealed that the liaison took place shortly after the first lady had given birth to her and Donald's son, Barron. Reporters clamored for a response from Mrs. Trump but none was forthcoming. Unlike her proactive defense of Donald's vulgar taped conversation, Melania was largely silent about the Daniels affair. The first statement by the Office of the First Lady regarding the scandal was released more than a year into the ongoing coverage. The comment was not about Melania Trump's feelings or thoughts and contained no defense of or possible explanation for the affair or payoff. Instead, it was a simple post on Twitter from the first lady's spokeswoman asking reporters to leave the couple's minor son out of the news. After that brief remark, nothing more was heard from the first lady or her staff regarding the ongoing drama for several weeks.Trump was once more dragged into the situation in June 2018 when another of Donald Trump's lawyers, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, insisted that the first lady accepted her husband's version of events and was supportive of the president. Instead of quietly letting the statement pass, Melania Trump's spokeswoman contested the claim. The first lady's representative did not make any statements about Trump's perspectives but simply retorted that Trump had not revealed her feelings to Giuliani. Though the comment did not clarify Trump's position regarding her husband's infidelity, many members of the media assumed the denial of Giuliani's assertions, coupled with Trump's refusal to explicitly support her husband, implied that the first lady did not condone Donald's behavior.In May 2018, the Trump administration reinterpreted a federal law regarding illegal immigrants to justify the separation of children from their parents when caught entering the United States without proper documentation. Within a few weeks, more than 2,000 minor children had been placed in makeshift detention centers in Arizona and Texas. The kids had no contact with their parents, and there were many accusations that their rights had been violated in a variety of ways and that their safety had been compromised in the facilities. By the middle of June, the situation had raised such concern that numerous social and governmental leaders spoke out against the practice of family separations and the United Nations condemned the policy as inhumane. The past first ladies, each of whom had championed social platforms that centered on children and families, became vocal critics denouncing the U.S. government's actions. Rosalynn Carter called it "disgraceful and a shame to our country." Laura Bush wrote an op-ed in which she compared the separations to the U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II—what she called "one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history." Hillary Clinton dubbed the situation a "humanitarian crisis," and Michelle Obama publicly supported Bush's statement, adding, "Sometimes truth transcends party."The widespread negative coverage of the Trump administration's actions drew a great deal of attention, and Melania Trump was quickly called out for not having made any public remarks and presumably no private efforts to intervene. As the past first ladies spoke up, journalists pointed out the lack of a statement from the sitting first lady, who was both a self-professed advocate for children and a former illegal immigrant herself. Within 24 hours of the consistent and forceful messaging from her predecessors, Trump's spokeswoman declared, "Mrs. Trump hates to see children separated from their families." The comment was hailed by some as Melania Trump taking a brave stance against her husband and mocked by others as a hollow, impotent utterance that took no clear position on the specific actions by the president. Two days later, as protests continued to expand and President Trump decided to ostensibly soften the policy's implementation, journalists and pundits credited the first lady with privately pressing the issue and encouraging Donald's change of heart.The separations did not actually stop after her alleged intervention, nor were children effectively reunited with their families in large numbers for weeks afterward, but the press still maintained that Melania Trump helped resolve the situation and mitigate the scandal. Building on the positive press, Trump decided to visit a shelter in Texas where some of the children were being housed. Unfortunately, her choice of attire dominated coverage of the visit after she donned the now-infamous green "I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO U?" coat for the trip. The piece of clothing called into question her sincerity and raised concerns that her apparent efforts on behalf of the children were nothing more than a publicity ploy. When many children had still not been reunited with their families weeks later, some liberal analysts suggested the message on the jacket had been more revealing than anyone at the time wanted to believe.Melania Trump had to navigate several small-to-moderate and a few large-scale scandals during her time as a presidential candidate's wife, as the spouse of the president-elect, and as the first lady of the United States. Her general method for managing such matters was to remain silent, but when that was not an option, she usually sent her staff members to speak on her behalf. It is not possible to gauge whether her use of a spokesperson was intended to avoid problems based on her fluent but not flawless English, or if it was perhaps a means of retaining some personal plausible deniability. Whatever the motive, Trump's distanced and reticent approach did decrease the chances for the muck of scandal to directly soil the position of first lady.* * *All women who serve as the first lady of the United States must contend with disapproval of one sort or another. Because there is no formal job description for the position, evaluations of a first lady's performance take myriad forms, and criteria for assessing her effectiveness shift often. Thus, critiques are unavoidable, and all a president's spouse can really control is her own response to the various compliments and insults she experiences. Michelle Obama and Melania Trump both received a lot of objections about numerous aspects of their first ladyships. From clothing to personality, from skin color to facial expressions, from undue assertiveness to frustrating silence and submissiveness, virtually every facet of these women's beings garnered negative attention from mainstream or social media at some point.Michelle Obama and Melania Trump approached the criticisms against them in a way many past first ladies had in that they generally ignored the chatter. This strategy worked for Trump, who had cultivated a persona that left no one surprised by her silence. Even when serious subjects like family separations at the border forced the first lady to make a statement, Trump usually sent brief remarks through her spokesperson instead of addressing the press or the public directly. Michelle Obama also regularly ignored disparaging statements about her. Yet, because she often made herself accessible to the media, Obama was frequently questioned about the grievances lodged against her. When directly confronted, she sometimes sidestepped the query by changing the subject, dismissing the comments as people having different opinions, or laughing off the affront with some self-deprecating gibe. On rare occasions, Obama did grapple with criticisms head on and used them as teachable moments in order to help kids learn about bullying, to open a dialogue about race relations in the United States, or to demonstrate the struggles women face in their fight for equality. However, these responses usually occurred within very specific contexts and were not the norm. By routinely ignoring the majority of the attempts to discredit them, both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump defused the attacks and prevented most from gaining more traction and attention.The opprobrium that the two most recent first ladies endured is interesting for a number of reasons beyond the simple stir of gossip. The varied and inconsistent nature of the complaints about Michelle Obama and Melania Trump are good indicators of the continued uncertainty Americans have regarding women's role in society and politics. Like many of the presidents' spouses before them, these women were asked to do the impracticable by representing an ideal of American womanhood that meets the presumptions of all citizens. It is impossible for any first lady to embody the quintessential American woman because there is no consensus as to what that should be.Whenever a first lady demonstrates the complex nature of modern womanhood by being something other than a supportive wife and doting mother (or grandmother), she encounters protests from those who prefer a narrow interpretation of femininity. In addition, if she fully embraces the conventional roles of wife and mother, she opens herself to censure for not representing independent, empowered women. What's more, because customary and outdated assumptions about women's roles habitually undergird the assessments of presidential spouses, women like Obama and Trump are continually evaluated based on a limited understanding of the position. It is difficult for any real woman to escape criticism when she is expected to embody a caricature of multiple, dated versions of American femininity.The fault-finding directed against Michelle Obama and Melania Trump reveals just how politicized the purportedly apolitical position of the first lady of the United States really is. Customarily, the party holding the White House asserts that the first ladyship is or should be a position free from the partisan jockeying of Washington, D.C. because it is not a position spouses seek through their own election but one they are forced into by virtue of their marriage to the president. Still, it is clear that members of both dominant political parties drag presidential consorts into the political fray, whether they are willing or not. The haranguing Michelle Obama and Melania Trump each endured illustrates just how much first ladies are used in the political gamesmanship of the modern era. Because presidential helpmates are now essentially pushed into public service through social advocacy, they are always tied to an issue or cause that can become divisive. Obama's seemingly party-neutral effort to encourage children to lead healthier lives somehow became objectionable. Trump's attempt to simply draw attention to the good works of other organizations likewise resulted in recrimination.As Obama's eight and Trump's first two years as the first lady indicate, a contemporary presidential spouse cannot avoid censure by remaining out of the public eye—in fact, she might earn more disapproval for her absence—and she can be attacked for any activity she takes part in. The public and political nature of being the president's mate makes it impossible to please all of the people any of the time. To negotiate life in the White House, the first lady must grow the proverbial thick skin and learn to live with criticism as she forges her own path and makes her own decisions about her level of engagement. Maneuvering through public life as first lady includes negotiating how active to be during the president's almost inevitable pursuit of a second term in office.An excerpt from MELANIA AND MICHELLE: First Ladies in a New Era, by Tammy R. Vigil, © 2019, Tammy R. Vigil. Reprinted with permission of Red Lightning Books. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| IAEA to Continue Work on Nuclear Facilities: Iran Atomic Agency Posted: 08 Sep 2019 01:48 AM PDT ![IAEA to Continue Work on Nuclear Facilities: Iran Atomic Agency]( "IAEA to Continue Work on Nuclear Facilities: Iran Atomic Agency") (Bloomberg) -- The UN's nuclear watchdog will continue working on Iran's nuclear facilities "professionally and impartially," the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said, citing the International Atomic Energy Agency's acting head Cornel Feruta.Feruta is in Tehran for talks with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and its top nuclear scientist, Ali Akbar Salehi. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran made the comments in a statement on its website.To contact the reporter on this story: Arsalan Shahla in Tehran at ashahla@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Lin Noueihed at lnoueihed@bloomberg.net, Shaji Mathew, Stefania BianchiFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| PM Johnson will go to EU to seek a deal, not a Brexit delay - finance minister Posted: 08 Sep 2019 01:30 AM PDT ![PM Johnson will go to EU to seek a deal, not a Brexit delay - finance minister]( "PM Johnson will go to EU to seek a deal, not a Brexit delay - finance minister") British finance minister Sajid Javid said on Sunday Prime Minister Boris Johnson will not ask for a Brexit delay at an EU summit next month, but will instead press to secure a deal to smooth Britain's departure from the bloc.
|
| Atomic watchdog chief in Iran for high-level talks Posted: 07 Sep 2019 11:32 PM PDT  The acting head of the UN atomic watchdog, Cornel Feruta, arrived in Tehran on Sunday for high-level talks with Iranian officials, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported. The International Atomic Energy Agency official's visit comes a day after Iran announced its latest step in reducing its commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal. The Romanian diplomat was to meet Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation chief Ali Akbar Salehi, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, ISNA said.
|
| Stockpiles of tomatoes? UK retailers bristle at demands of no-deal Brexit Posted: 07 Sep 2019 11:09 PM PDT  A British demand for supermarkets to prepare for a potentially chaotic no-deal Brexit by stockpiling food is stoking anger in the industry, with bosses saying they should not be blamed if people can't find everything they want on the shelves. With British politics spiraling toward an unpredictable endgame, makers of food and drugs are having to restructure operations in case the arrival of customs checks shatters supply chains, clogs ports and delays deliveries. The food industry has warned that their stockpiling can only go so far, and executives have expressed incredulity at Michael Gove, the minister in charge of no-deal Brexit planning, who vowed this month that there would be no shortages of fresh food if Britain leaves the European Union (EU) without agreement on Oct. 31.
|
| Stockpiles of tomatoes? UK retailers bristle at demands of no-deal Brexit Posted: 07 Sep 2019 11:00 PM PDT ![Stockpiles of tomatoes? UK retailers bristle at demands of no-deal Brexit]( "Stockpiles of tomatoes? UK retailers bristle at demands of no-deal Brexit") A British demand for supermarkets to prepare for a potentially chaotic no-deal Brexit by stockpiling food is stoking anger in the industry, with bosses saying they should not be blamed if people can't find everything they want on the shelves. With British politics spiralling towards an unpredictable endgame, makers of food and drugs are having to restructure operations in case the arrival of customs checks shatters supply chains, clogs ports and delays deliveries. The food industry has warned that their stockpiling can only go so far, and executives have expressed incredulity at Michael Gove, the minister in charge of no-deal Brexit planning, who vowed this month that there would be no shortages of fresh food if Britain leaves the European Union (EU) without agreement on Oct. 31.
|
| It’s Time to Regulate Outer Space Posted: 07 Sep 2019 06:00 PM PDT  (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Last week, the European Space Agency reached out to to warn Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. that one of its satellites might collide with a SpaceX communications satellite. When ESA first raised such concerns in late August, the chances of a crash were 1 in 50,000; SpaceX had said then that it didn't think the risk was high enough to justify action. Now the odds had narrowed to 1 in 1,000. Yet ESA received no reply.Eventually the space agency unilaterally moved its satellite out of the way when it was barely half an orbit away from SpaceX's. Company officials later explained that they'd failed to respond because of "a bug in our on-call paging system." In short, they'd missed the message.For most of the six decades since humans first launched satellites into space, the risk of such collisions has generally been low. They're now rising rapidly, thanks to the growth of commercial space companies and the desire of more and more governments to exploit space. As last week's snafu suggests, self-regulation by countries and companies may no longer be sufficient to manage those risks. Spacefaring nations urgently need protocols to manage Earth orbit as the shared, limited resource that it is.Since 1957, humans have launched at least 9,000 satellites into orbit. Roughly 5,000 are still up there; a couple thousand remain functional. And satellites make up just a fraction of the manmade objects orbiting the Earth. The U.S. Air Force and other organizations are tracking at least 19,000 additional pieces of space junk, including debris from collisions, anti-satellite tests, and rocket launches. Then there are the millions of pieces of metal, some as small as a millimeter, that can cause significant damage to satellites when colliding at speeds exceeding 17,500 miles per hour.As far back as the 1970s, scientists had begun warning that the proliferation of satellites would increase the chances of orbital collisions. These days, operators of satellites and other spacecraft regularly maneuver around other objects in orbit. Since 1999, the International Space Station has had to shift course than two dozen times to avoid space junk.The problem is going to expand rapidly in coming years as SpaceX and other companies launch "mega-constellations" of hundreds and even thousands of small and medium-sized communication satellites into low-Earth orbit. SpaceX has plans to create a constellation of as many as 12,000 satellites, with the first 60 launched last May. Among these was the one ESA worried about running into last week.Companies and governments aren't oblivious to the challenge. As far back as 2011, reinsurance giant Swiss Re AG acknowledged debris as a satellite insurance risk. SpaceX is taking several steps to address the issue, including placing its mega-constellations in low-altitude orbits so that dead satellites will fall out of orbit and burn up on their own. Both the U.S. and the European Union are considering requiring that any new satellites be able to do the same automatically in the event of problems. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has issued voluntary guidelines on debris mitigation.Even so, only 30 percent of satellite operators are adhering to guidelines that they bring satellites out of orbit after 25 years. Meanwhile, a host of new spacefaring nations may or may not feel obligated to abide by U.S. regulations or UN guidelines written before they took flight. Worse, as the SpaceX-ESA incident proves, there's no internationally recognized air traffic control agency or protocols to regulate Earth orbit. The global community lacks even a legal definition of "space junk," much less agreed ways and means to pay for its removal.Reaching a global consensus won't be easy. Earth orbit has both civil and military uses, and the lines that divide them are often unclear and contentious. Nonetheless, a somewhat similar challenge was met in 1944, when 52 countries established the International Civil Aviation Organization, a UN body that sets global safety norms for civil aviation.A global convention to regulate Earth orbit could have similar, industry-boosting benefits, by laying out protocols for satellite operators to communicate with each other, as well as binding standards for the creation, management and mitigation of space junk. New space powers, including India and Japan, would have a strong incentive to join such an organization, if only as a means to encourage nations such as the U.S. and Russia to clean up the messes they've already created. As the heavens become more crowded, leaders on earth are going to have to work together to keep them safe.To contact the author of this story: Adam Minter at aminter@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Nisid Hajari at nhajari@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Adam Minter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is the author of "Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade" and the forthcoming "Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| North Korea reports five deaths, damage in typhoon Posted: 07 Sep 2019 05:16 PM PDT  North Korean state media said Sunday five people had been killed in a powerful typhoon that destroyed farmland and damaged hundreds of buildings. Typhoon Lingling, called Typhoon-13 in North Korea, hit the reclusive nuclear-armed state on Saturday afternoon, reported the official KCNA news service. The injured persons are now under treatment at hospitals," KCNA said.
|
0 条评论:
发表评论
订阅 博文评论 [Atom]
<< 主页