| Questions after US turns away Palestinian Harvard freshman Posted: 28 Aug 2019 04:36 PM PDT  A Palestinian student trying to start classes at Harvard University was denied entry to the U.S. in a case that critics of the Trump administration call emblematic of overly invasive screening at border checkpoints. Ismail Ajjawi, who had been living in Lebanon, was refused entry into the U.S. after landing Friday at Logan International Airport in Boston, university and federal officials confirmed this week. The 17-year-old freshman said the denial had to do with politically oriented social media posts by his friends.
|
| UK's Johnson sparks outrage after forcing suspension of parliament Posted: 28 Aug 2019 04:07 PM PDT  British Prime Minister Boris Johnson sparked fury Wednesday among pro-Europeans and MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit by forcing the suspension of parliament weeks before Britain's EU departure date. It came a day after opposition parties vowed to seek legislative changes to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Queen Elizabeth II approved the request to end what has been the longest session of parliament in nearly 400 years in the second week of September, and reopen it on October 14 -- just over two weeks before Brexit.
|
| UN envoy warns Mideast tensions could deal huge blow to Iraq Posted: 28 Aug 2019 03:53 PM PDT ![UN envoy warns Mideast tensions could deal huge blow to Iraq]( "UN envoy warns Mideast tensions could deal huge blow to Iraq") The U.N. envoy for Iraq warned Wednesday that current tensions could deal "a huge blow" in efforts to rebuild a stable and prosperous country following the defeat of the Islamic State extremist group. Iraq's fragile government is walking a fine line trying to manage its alliances with both the United States and Iran amid rising tensions between those two countries. The drone attacks have not been claimed by any side, but U.S. officials have said Israel was behind at least one of the attacks.
|
| Yemeni government forces push into key port city of Aden Posted: 28 Aug 2019 03:39 PM PDT  Forces loyal to Yemen's internationally recognized government pushed Wednesday into the key port city of Aden after wresting control of another southern provincial capital from separatists backed by the United Arab Emirates, officials and local residents said. Government troops also retook the international airport in Aden, a main hub for the southern part of the country, Yemen's information minister said. Many predicted the city would soon fall back into government hands.
|
| U.K. Labour Warns Johnson’s Spending Spree Won’t End Austerity Posted: 28 Aug 2019 02:30 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit, sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, and tell us your Brexit story. John McDonnell, economy spokesman for the the U.K.'s opposition Labour Party, will accuse Boris Johnson's government of preparing for a general election rather than fixing the economy in its spending round next week.McDonnell will say in a speech Thursday that the Treasury's spending allocation, scheduled to be announced on Wednesday, is "crude electioneering" and predicted it would "ignore" issues including child poverty, social care and local government services.Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid canceled a speech at the last minute this week, and said instead he would bring forward the results of the spending round to Sept. 4. He also warned ministers not to expect "blank checks," saying he'd stick to the fiscal rules set by his predecessor, Philip Hammond, for borrowing to be less than 2% of gross domestic product."Despite the prime minister's bluster about optimism and promises of new spending, Philip Hammond's austerity rules will be kept in place, meaning another year of austerity," McDonnell will say, according to extracts released by his office.During his leadership campaign, Johnson pledged to use the 15 billion pounds ($18 billion) of "headroom" built up under Hammond ahead of leaving the EU to ease pressure on public services.Almost a decade of austerity helped Labour erode the Conservatives parliamentary majority in the 2017 general election, and the opposition party's campaigning shows it still sees it as a decisive issue in winning over voters.To contact the reporter on this story: Jessica Shankleman in London at jshankleman@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Thomas Penny, Stuart BiggsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| US contractor sentenced in Iraq shooting seeks new trial Posted: 28 Aug 2019 02:22 PM PDT  A former State Department contractor sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 2007 shooting deaths of unarmed Iraqi civilians is asking for a new trial because of what he says is newly discovered evidence. Lawyers for former Blackwater employee Nicholas Slatten said they received a State Department report two days before the Aug. 14 sentencing that they say casts doubt on prosecutors' argument that Slatten is prone to unprovoked violence. Slatten's lawyers say the document, which they received from a third party, shows Army forces reported incoming fire from Iraqi insurgents before Slatten and other Blackwater contractors arrived at the site.
|
| UPDATE 1-Swedish teen climate activist arrives in New York by boat for U.N. summit Posted: 28 Aug 2019 02:07 PM PDT ![UPDATE 1-Swedish teen climate activist arrives in New York by boat for U.N. summit]( "UPDATE 1-Swedish teen climate activist arrives in New York by boat for U.N. summit") Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg sailed into New York Harbor on Wednesday in a zero-carbon emissions vessel, completing her nearly 14-day journey from England to take part in a United Nations climate summit. The 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, who set sail from Plymouth, England, on Aug. 14, was greeted by cheers, chants and singing as her silver sailboat, the Malitzia II, cruised past the Statue of Liberty through choppy waves and rain to drop anchor in Manhattan's yacht harbor. "All of this is very overwhelming and the ground is still shaking for me," a seemingly bashful Thunberg, clad in a dark blue jumpsuit, told a gathering of reporters and activists who greeted her and the crew of the Malitzia II on land.
|
| Trump Pitch for Doral Resort to Host G-7 Draws Democratic Probe Posted: 28 Aug 2019 02:02 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump's pitch for his Doral golf resort in Miami as the site for next year's G-7 summit of world leaders will be probed as part of the House Judiciary Committee's inquiry into potential impeachment articles."The committee will broaden its ongoing investigation to include these latest revelations and will take further investigative steps, including scheduling hearings and requesting additional documents from the White House," Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said in a statement Wednesday.Nadler said holding the summit at the president's resort would violate the Constitution's ban on any foreign "emolument" to a president. He said it would reflect "perhaps the first publicly known instance in which foreign governments would be required to pay President Trump's private businesses in order to conduct business with the United States."He said Trump's remarks on Monday "are of significant interest and grave concern to the committee as it considers whether to recommend articles of impeachment."There was no immediate response from the White House.The U.S. is next in the rotation to host the annual Group of Seven meeting of world leaders, which will occur in the middle of the 2020 presidential campaign.Trump promoted the idea that his Doral resort host next year's summit during a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday, during this year's summit in Biarritz, France. He boasted that "it's very big," that "each country can have their own villa, or their own bungalow," and it's in Miami "so it's a great area.""I don't want to make any money," Trump added the same day at a news conference. He said he's losing $3 billion to $5 billion in his private business by serving as president.The president has already faced criticism from ethics experts and multiple lawsuits over his continued private business holdings, such as the Trump International Hotel in Washington.Nadler has said he anticipates a decision by the end of the year on whether the Judiciary Committee will bring articles of impeachment. The panel is examining allegations of obstruction of justice, public corruption and other abuses of power.To contact the reporter on this story: Billy House in Washington at bhouse5@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Kevin Whitelaw at kwhitelaw@bloomberg.net, Laurie Asséo, Larry LiebertFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Your Evening Briefing Posted: 28 Aug 2019 02:00 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Want to receive this post in your inbox every afternoon? Sign up hereThe U.K. Parliament will be suspended for almost five weeks ahead of Brexit, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson sets up a showdown with lawmakers who want to block him from taking the U.K. out of the European Union without an agreement. The pound slid on the news.Here are today's top storiesTropical Storm Dorian has been upgraded to a hurricane as it heads toward Puerto Rico. It's expected to gain strength and become the first major hurricane to hit Florida's east coast in 15 years.For the first time since President Donald Trump's election, more Americans say the economy is getting worse than getting better. And they're blaming it on him.The Sackler family may lose most of their wealth if they agree to an $11.5 billion settlement to resolve opioid lawsuits against them and their company Purdue Pharma. They'll still be billionaires. Michael Burry, who shot to fame and fortune by betting against mortgage securities before the 2008 crisis, sees another contrarian opportunity emerging from what he calls the "bubble" in passive investment. Costco's first store in China was overrun with customers willing to fight over discounted products and wait hours to pay for their purchases. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has been the subject of international condemnation for fanning the flames of the Amazon's destruction, but he seems unlikely to back down.What's Joe Weisenthal thinking? Everyone knows that President Trump has been extremely critical of his hand-picked Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. However, a recent Bloomberg Opinion op-ed from former NY Fed President Bill Dudley should remind Trump that in terms of his own purposes, Powell has been a good choice.What you'll need to know tomorrowApple said it will no longer retain audio recordings of Siri interactions. Half the 2020 Democratic field may not qualify for the next debate. Great white sharks vanished from Cape Town. No one knows why. More airlines are banning Apple's MacBook Pros. Bond yields just sank to record lows. California is working on a way to save Brazil's burning rainforests. More U.S. homebuyers say they expect a recession by next year.What you'll want to read tonight in BusinessweekThe inventor Buckminster Fuller once described technological progress as "ephemeralization." Sunbeams and breezes are replacing coal and oil as energy sources, brands are more important than buildings to corporations, and fiat money has supplanted gold and silver. So it seems reasonable to conclude that the periodic table of elements—that wonky taxonomy of physical stuff such as copper, iron, mercury, and sulfur—is passé, no more relevant than a manual typewriter. Except exactly the opposite is true. Matter still matters. And on the 150th anniversary of the periodic table's formulation by the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, it's more important than it's ever been. So important, in fact, that Bloomberg Businessweek devoted an entire issue to it. To contact the author of this story: Josh Petri in Portland at jpetri4@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| US defense chief urges Iran to hold talks with US Posted: 28 Aug 2019 01:59 PM PDT  US Defense Secretary Mark Esper urged Iran Wednesday to enter discussions with the United States in order to ease tensions in the Gulf region. "We are not seeking conflict with Iran. "The president said once again he is willing to meet with Iran's leaders," he said.
|
| In final report, UN body says Guatemala 'captured' by graft Posted: 28 Aug 2019 01:44 PM PDT  A U.N. commission that spent the last 12 years probing graft in Guatemala described the country as "captured" by corruption in its final report Wednesday, days before it is set to wrap up operations after President Jimmy Morales refused to renew its mandate. Commission chief Iván Velásquez, a Colombian lawyer who has been barred by Morales' government from entering Guatemala, said via video conference from Colombia that the report would be the commission's last public act.
|
| Queen approves UK government's request to suspend Parliament during crucial Brexit period Posted: 28 Aug 2019 01:08 PM PDT  Queen Elizabeth has approved a request by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to suspend Parliament, a move that appears designed to thwart opposition lawmakers from blocking Brexit, prompting protests in cities across the United Kingdom. Johnson spoke to the Queen on Wednesday to request an end to the current Parliament session in September. The shift gives opposition lawmakers less time to block a no-deal Brexit before the U.K.'s Oct. 31 deadline to leave the European Union.
|
| Russia discovers five islands as climate change melts Arctic ice Posted: 28 Aug 2019 01:04 PM PDT  A Russian naval expedition has discovered five Arctic islands as climate change melts glaciers and reveals landforms previously hidden under ice. Ranging in size from 900 to 54,500 square metres, the five tiny islands are located in the cove of Vize off the northeastern shore of Novaya Zemlya, which divides the Barents and Kara seas in the Arctic ocean, a defence ministry statement said. Rather than planting the proverbial flag in the sand, members of the expedition built a cairn on one of the islands containing a note about their discovery, a compact disc with their photographs and a pennant commemorating the 100th anniversary of the northern fleet's hydrographic service. Then-student Marina Migunova first spotted the islands in 2016 while analysing satellite imagery for her final coursework at a naval university. But new geographic points are added to maps and other navigational documents only after specialists visit them and perform a topographic survey, the defence ministry said. The islands were previously concealed under the Nansen glacier, also known as the Vylka, which is part of Europe's largest ice cap covering much of Novaya Zemlya's northern island. Location of newly discovered Russian islands The retreat of Arctic ice amid rising air and ocean temperatures has been unveiling unknown landforms. In 2015-18, the hydrographic service observed more than 30 islands, capes and bays near Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land for the first time through satellite monitoring. More are expected to be found. A US study last year concluded that the ice loss by glaciers on Franz Josef Land had doubled between 2011 and 2015. Melting ice has increasingly stranded polar bears on land, contributing to incidents like the "polar bear invasion" of a military town on Novaya Zemlya this year. Coastal erosion is also speeding up as permafrost soil thaws and summertime wave action increases. President Vladimir Putin said at an Arctic conference in April that Russian data showed the region was warming not two but four times faster than the rest of the world. In response, his country has been expanding its presence in the Arctic, opening military bases and building nuclear icebreakers to promote shipping along the northern sea route. Last week, Russia's new floating nuclear power plant began a voyage across the Arctic Ocean to provide heat and electricity to a gold-mining town in the remote Chukotka region. Russia's floating nuclear power plant, the Academic Lomonosov, stands in port during a visit by The Telegraph last month Credit: Alec Luhn/For The Telegraph State concern Rosatom hopes to export this technology to other countries despite the safety concerns of activists, who have dubbed the plant "Chernobyl on ice". A top-secret nuclear submarine caught fire in the Arctic Ocean in July, killing 14, and this month a blast at a missile testing site killed at least five and caused a radiation spike in the northern Arkhangelsk region. The defence ministry said a "liquid-fuelled reaction engine" had exploded, but foreign experts have said the fallout suggested that a nuclear reactor had blown up. Following the routes of early explorers, the expedition to Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land is also collecting data for scientific research, raising Russian flags over historic sites and visiting Soviet military infrastructure, including a meteorological station destroyed by a Nazi U-boat in 1943. Much of the archipelago was mapped by Florence Nightingale's cousin Benjamin Leigh Smith, whose shipwreck in Franz Josef Land was reached by divers last year.
|
| Legal campaigner Miller asks courts to block UK parliament suspension Posted: 28 Aug 2019 12:50 PM PDT ![Legal campaigner Miller asks courts to block UK parliament suspension]( "Legal campaigner Miller asks courts to block UK parliament suspension") Legal campaigner Gina Miller said on Wednesday she will ask the courts to block Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Britain's parliament for more than a month before Brexit. Miller, who in 2017 successfully challenged the government over its authority to leave the EU without a vote in parliament, said she would seek an urgent judicial review before Sept. 9, the earliest date that a suspension of parliament could come into effect. Earlier on Wednesday, Johnson launched his boldest move yet to take the country out of the European Union by Oct. 31 with or without a divorce deal, by setting a new date for a state opening of parliament.
|
| Iran's Deputy Minister Says Europe Has Two Options to Save Nuclear Deal Posted: 28 Aug 2019 12:50 PM PDT ![Iran's Deputy Minister Says Europe Has Two Options to Save Nuclear Deal]( "Iran's Deputy Minister Says Europe Has Two Options to Save Nuclear Deal") (Bloomberg) -- Europe should either ask Washington to restore sanctions waivers for buyers of Iran's oil or provide a credit line to the Islamic Republic if it wants to save the nuclear deal, the country's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said in an interview to state TV.The two options have been relayed to French President Emmanuel Macron over the course of several recent phone calls with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, according to Araghchi. Both leaders have exchanged initiatives and ideas over how the 2015 nuclear deal, which the U.S. abandoned last year, can be preserved, he said."What Mr. Rouhani has told Macron is that if Europe wants to preserve the nuclear deal then they must establish our ability to sell oil," Araghchi said. "There are two options or solutions -- one is for them to go to the Americans and get waivers again for oil buyers so they can buy oil from Iran, or if they cannot do that, they themselves should buy that level of oil, using a credit line."Iran will come back to full compliance with the accord's terms once it can sell oil and have full access to its revenues, the minister said.Earlier this week U.S. President Donald Trump said that he would support an idea backed by Macron of extending what he called a "letter of credit" to Iran, secured by oil, to help the country meet short-term financial obligations. To contact the reporter on this story: Hari Govind in San Francisco at hgovind@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Chakradhar Adusumilli at cadusumilli@bloomberg.net, Jim SilverFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Boris Johnson Corners His Opponents and Pushes Brexit Toward a Showdown Posted: 28 Aug 2019 12:39 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's move to suspend parliament and come good on his promise to avoid any more delays to Brexit has set the clock running for his opponents to thwart him. The question is whether they can do it in time.In another dramatic turn of events in the U.K.'s three-year quest to leave the European Union, Johnson was granted permission by the Queen to "prorogue" the House of Commons, shutting down the debating chamber on Sept. 12 ostensibly so he can come back with a new legislative program a month later.That effectively gives parliamentarians two weeks to come up with a way to pass a law to stop Britain leaving the EU on Oct. 31, the current Brexit day, without a deal. While Johnson and his supporters say disruption would be manageable, companies warn of a severe hit to the economy.It's enough time, in theory. Earlier in the year a similar bill passed in five sitting days. But even as opponents -- from within his own Conservatives as well as other parties -- reacted with outrage at Johnson on Wednesday, it remained unclear if they can make it happen.Although there's a parliamentary majority against a no-deal Brexit, the problem for those trying to corral the opposition groups is that they all want different things. Many MPs in the opposition Labour party want a second Brexit referendum. The result is everyone may be faced with Johnson's version of a deal or the cliff edge.One key player will be John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons. He described Johnson's gambit as a "constitutional outrage." That suggests he'll facilitate opposition plans to take control of the parliamentary agenda when parliament returns on Sept. 3. As the legislature's referee, he can rewrite the rules of the chamber."However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that the purpose of prorogation now would be to stop Parliament debating Brexit and performing its duty in shaping a course for the country," Bercow said. "At this time, one of the most challenging periods in our nation's history, it is vital that our elected Parliament has its say."Tory DilemmaThe biggest question mark hangs over the Conservatives. For all of predecessor Theresa May's time in office, the problematic section of the party was the pro-Brexit bloc. It repeatedly pushed her to go further and then tried to throw her overboard. Conservatives who wanted a softer Brexit, or no Brexit at all, were much smaller in number.But Johnson's arrival saw ministers from Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond leaving government jobs, many offering warnings that they wouldn't allow the new prime minister to risk no deal.There are now around 40 Tories who have indicated a willingness to rebel to prevent a no-deal Brexit. That's easily enough to overturn Johnson's parliamentary majority of just one -- if they decide to."The prorogation can't be stopped, but he won't escape parliament by doing this," said Dominic Grieve, a Conservative lawmaker and vocal Brexit opponent.Then there's Labour. Their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is more attracted by the idea of a general election, although he has accepted he would have to offer a referendum. But though a handful of Tories want to cancel Brexit, most of them, including Hammond, want Brexit to happen with a deal.They differ on the best approach, too. Labour this month proposed a vote of no confidence in Johnson, after which Corbyn would be installed as a caretaker prime minister, with a mandate to seek a Brexit delay and call an election.A significant chunk of MPs on the opposition benches, including some from his own party, are horrified at the idea of making Corbyn -- a lifelong socialist who has struggled to deal with an anti-Semitism scandal within Labour -- prime minister, even briefly. The idea went down very badly with rebel Conservatives, too.Stark ChoiceIt may come down to parliamentarians who oppose no-deal having to decide what they hate most, according to Maddy Thimont Jack at the Institute for Government. "If they don't want the government to do this then they should vote down the government," she said.As Johnson's opponents try to agree a plan, and rebel Tories decide how rebellious they really are, the government is moving to chip away at their votes.The ground for Wednesday's move was laid on Tuesday, with an official saying the U.K. now saw the prospect of EU leaders moving toward giving Johnson the changes he wanted to the Brexit agreement that May negotiated. Alongside that, Johnson's office signaled that he might be willing to moderate his demands.The underlying message to Conservative MPs worried about no-deal was that if they just gave Johnson time, he would be able to deliver a new Brexit deal and present it to parliament in triumph. And, as Johnson himself pointed out, there would still be time when Parliament returned to stop a no-deal departure if he'd failed.He said on Wednesday that his decision to seek the suspension of parliament was about being able to push forward his agenda on health, crime prevention and education. "There will be ample time in Parliament for MPs to debate the EU, to debate Brexit, and all the other issues," he said.While Johnson's supporters argue that it's all routine and will only cost a week, another one will be lost with general debates following the Queen's Speech that sets out the legislative program. And the effect of prorogation is to cause all pending legislation to die.Johnson's move restricts his opponents' room for maneuver, and forcing them into a corner could be counterproductive. Suspension means the rebels know they will only have one chance. It won't be a long wait to see how they use it while Johnson's Brexit hard-liners stand firm."Boris's move today is not a 'coup' or an outrage," said Conservative lawmaker Bob Seely. "Losing World War II to Nazi Germany would have been a catastrophe. Leaving an unpopular, glorified federated trading block is not."\--With assistance from Thomas Penny.To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Rodney JeffersonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| The Queen Can’t Stop Boris Johnson’s Brexit Plan, But The British People Might Posted: 28 Aug 2019 12:26 PM PDT  Sean Gallup/GettyIf you love The Daily Beast's royal coverage, then we hope you'll enjoy The Royalist, a members-only series for Beast Inside. Become a member to get it in your inbox on Sunday.Standing meetings are very much in vogue these days, but they weren't invented by trendy tech companies.For the last thousand years or so, advisors meeting the monarch, known as Privy Council members, have been forbidden to take a seat—all in the interests of keeping the gatherings short and sweet.And so it was in the library at Balmoral, Queen Elizabeth's fairy tale castle in the Scottish Highlands, on Wednesday, when the Queen gave her consent to proroguing or suspending Parliament in what, critics of Prime Minister Boris Johnson say, amounts to a coup.Will the Queen Intervene in the Battle Over Brexit?The three privy council members, who had trekked up to Balmoral earlier in the day in the utmost secrecy to prevent rival politicians getting wind of and trying to prevent the maneuver, were not, of course, coming to the Queen offering advice.They were there as proxies for Johnson to request her consent for what, in normal times, would be a fairly run-of-the-mill piece of constitutional business; the prime minister wishing to dissolve the current session of Parliament and start a new one, with a new program for government, to be outlined in a new queen's speech.But of course, these are not normal times. With the terms of Britain's departure from the European Union still far from settled, many passionately believe that Johnson has taken an unacceptable liberty in making this move just over 60 days before the October 31 deadline to find a deal, and is trying to bounce the UK into leaving the EU on that day without agreeing a deal.The privy council numbers several hundred members (mostly current or former senior members of the government) but just three are required to make a meeting quorate. In this case, the three members selected by Johnson for the mission were all government loyalists, including, notably, the leader of the Commons and arch no-dealer, Jacob Rees-Mogg.Far from being a grand room, the library at Balmoral is a homely and domestic setting for such a pivotal and ceremonial piece of political theater. Pictures taken in the room in 1970 and 2016 show that it has had the same battered green carpet for at least the intervening 46 years, and there is no reason to suspect Balmoral has been paid a visit by a carpet fitter since that most recent photocall.The central fireplace is no imposing work of carved grandeur. Rather, it is a simple piece of white marble. In the grate, rather than a roaring blaze, sits an old, slightly marked electric convection heater.It is reminiscent of the rooms that you find in the house of any old land-rich, cash-poor aristocrat.The Queen likes to wear a kilt while she is in Scotland and it is likely that this is what she would have been sporting when the three members of the Privy Council, waiting outside, were summoned to enter the room by a sharp electric bell on Thursday afternoon.The Queen treasures her time in Balmoral, but keeps on top of her "red boxes" (reading material from the government and documents requiring her signature are sent in red boxes) and other work commitments. A source said that she would not likely have been remotely "put out" by the need to attend to business. And there were just two pieces of business on hand, according to the official privy council memo issued afterwards.The first was to approve a handful of new members.The second was the actioning of the prorogation. The Queen, as is the custom, conveyed her assent to both measures with a single word: "Approved."And that was that.How did she feel about it? Well, as Rees-Mogg told reporters on his way home at Aberdeen Airport, you would have to ask her that.Temperamentally, the Queen is thought to be pro-Brexit. As The Daily Beast exclusively reported, she took to asking her guests before the referendum to name "three reasons" why Britain should be part of Europe. However, we can be sure that she will not have allowed her personal beliefs and feelings to enter into the decision to approve Johnson's request— although it might have made agreeing with him easier.It is unlikely, however, that she would have experienced even a scintilla of doubt about the course of action she must take; the Queen may invite a PM to serve, but she cannot and would not ever refuse to comply with his advice or direct request.And, make no mistake, this was, according to precedent, an entirely legal request. The current session of Parliament is the longest since the English Civil War (former PM Theresa May strung it out as she attempted in vain to get her deal through). Johnson, especially as a new PM, is entitled to insist it comes to an end.Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general and arch-Remainer, described the Queen earlier this year as not being merely a "decorative extra."But Thursday's events proved that she is exactly that—and yet the Queen still finds herself beseeched by all sides to act. The opposition Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, attempted to drag the Queen into the politics of the Brexit row by demanding that she meet him before agreeing to Johnson's request to suspend Parliament, warning of the "danger" that her royal prerogative "is being set directly against the wishes of a majority of the House of Commons." Corbyn added, "In the circumstances, as the leader of the official opposition, on behalf of all my party members and many other members of Parliament, I request you to grant me a meeting along with other privy counsellors, as a matter of urgency, and before any final decision is taken."The sight of a political leader who has espoused Karl Marx as his biggest influence, publicly begging the Queen to intervene on his behalf is a sign perhaps of how dysfunctional the British system of government has become. Jo Swinson, the leader of the smaller, unequivocally pro-remain party, the Liberal Democrats, also requested an audience and also appears to have been ignored.As political theorist Petar Bankov, a PhD candidate at the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Glasgow, told The Daily Beast, "In some ways this shows the democratic limits of Britain's uncodified constitution. In contrast to countries which have a codified, written constitution where it is very clear how the different branches of power relate to each other, the uncodified constitution gives a lot of flexibility to the British prime minister. "In times of political crisis, such flexibility can be both productive and unproductive: on the one hand, it can provide a solution to the crisis, but also it can undermine the democratic foundations of the country in the long term."The extraordinary power of the executive in American politics is often lampooned by British commentators, but Johnson today showed that he holds all the cards. The Queen has little choice but to do as he asks, even if she were minded not to.The monarch was famously isolated in Balmoral once before at a time of unprecedented national turbulence—which directly and perilously affected the royal family: the death of Princess Diana in 1997.On that occasion, she ultimately came back to London and gave a moving TV address memorializing Diana. With Brexit, the Queen will not be tempted to make any grand gestures. There is nothing she can do but the same as the rest of us; sit back and see if Johnson's gamble pays off.Thomas Eason, Doctoral Researcher from the University of Nottingham's School of Politics and International Relations, told The Daily Beast, "Johnson has decided to prorogue Parliament for an unnecessarily long time at the very moment the UK is due to leave the EU. Parliament could be prorogued for a short period of time, a week would have been sufficient, and Johnson has opted to drag it out for over a month. "This ultimately makes it more difficult (but not impossible) for MPs that want to try and stop a no deal Brexit. MPs have less time to play with if Parliament is sitting for less time, so it becomes harder for them to stop the no deal Brexit many politicians and experts fear.""The Queen has been put in a difficult position here, famously she likes to remain above politics, and this has somewhat forced her into it. Prorogation is a prerogative power. Following convention, the government has asked the Queen to prorogue Parliament, and that is what she has done. Because of the political nature of this prorogation, there will inevitably be criticism at this decision, however, the anger should be directed at the politicians that are using these mechanisms to avoid being held to account, not the monarch that is merely following convention."The immediate reaction suggests Johnson may well have overplayed his hand.Just a quarter of voters backed the move to shut Parliament as "acceptable," according to a snap YouGov poll, while nearly half said it was not. The Queen can't and won't stop Johnson, but ironically, the people just might.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.
|
| Lebanese army fires at Israeli drones that entered airspace Posted: 28 Aug 2019 12:01 PM PDT  Lebanese army gunners opened fired at two of three Israeli reconnaissance drones Wednesday after they entered Lebanese airspace, a security official and the state news agency said, amid heightened tensions between the two countries. The security official told The Associated Press that the drones left Lebanese airspace after being fired on and that none of them was shot down. The Israeli military in a statement acknowledged a confrontation but appeared to deny any of its drones were shot down.
|
| Hong Kong Officials Met With U.S. Lawmakers About Punishing China Posted: 28 Aug 2019 12:00 PM PDT  Getty ImagesOfficials from Hong Kong flew to Montana last week for an under-the-radar meeting with U.S. lawmakers about ongoing pro-democracy protests and congressional legislation to protect freedom in Hong Kong, according to sources familiar with the meeting. The Hong Kong delegation included officials who approve of the government's controversial extradition bill that originally kickstarted the mass protests as well as those who support the pro-democracy movement. The bill, put forward by Hong Kong, would allow China to detain and extradite people who are wanted in territories Hong Kong does not have extradition agreements with, including mainland China. The group met with Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) and Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-MT), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), and Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-NY). The Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, a non-profit that focuses on U.S.-Asia policy, hosted the officials for a series of roundtable discussions over a three-day period. The conversations took place just days after protests shut down the Hong Kong airport.Part of the meeting between Hong Kong officials and U.S. lawmakers focused on the bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy act pending in the Senate. The bill, in part, would exact punitive measures on officials in China and Hong Kong who suppress human rights or "basic freedoms" in Hong Kong. In Montana, Hong Kong officials disagreed on the bill, with some advocating against it all together, according to two individuals familiar with the conversation. U.S. lawmakers present said they were unsure of the fate of the bill in part because they were unsure where President Donald Trump stood on the issue, those sources said. (Trump has yet to publicly call out China for its involvement in the crackdown and has instead praised President Xi Jinping, calling him a "great leader" at the G7 summit in France last week.) The Montana meeting came as protesters in Hong Kong continue to flood streets, airports, and government buildings. U.S. lawmakers are increasingly interested in taking action against China for Hong Kong. Republicans in the Senate and House have consulted with senior officials from the State Department and Treasury about drafting legislation that would sanction Chinese entities that support the suppression of protests in Hong Kong. Lawmakers want to deter China from cracking down in the future by threatening to impose increasingly steep political and financial punishments.Inside Beijing's Toolbox to Crush Hong KongTrump said earlier last week that any violence carried out by China in Hong Kong would "hurt" trade talks. Sen. Daines, who participated in the conversations in Montana, announced Monday that he plans to travel to China next week to talk about the ongoing spat between the two countries.Attendees were supposed to adhere to "Chatham House Rules," guidelines whereby participants promise not to speak about the existence of an event or its contents, according to a source familiar with the meeting. The agreement broke down when several of the Hong Kong officials spoke to their local press about the meeting. Pro-democracy officials held a press conference Tuesday in Hong Kong, calling for the U.S. Senate to publicly support their movement through new legislation. Meanwhile, one of the officials aligned with Beijing, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, posted photos to her Facebook page of the group in Montana. Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is a member of the executive and legislative councils in Hong Kong and has promoted the government's extradition bill and called for pro-democracy protesters to disperse from the streets.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.
|
| Pakistan's JF-17 Jet Has Its First Victory by Destroying an Iranian Drone Posted: 28 Aug 2019 12:00 PM PDT  PAF has declined to comment on the matter.An Iranian drone operating in Pakistan's Parom area of Panjgur district was shot down by a Pakistan Air Force (PAF) JF-17 fighter.It was unknown when the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was shot down but the wreckage was recovered by local security forces on Jun. 19, 2017.Official sources told DawnNews that the UAV was shot down by a JF-17 in the Parom area of Panjgur district after it ventured "deep inside Pakistani airspace" on a spying mission.They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not authorised to speak to media.However security forces took custody of the debris after discovering the wreckage.PAF has declined to comment on the matter.Noteworthy, as we have explained, on Jun. 20 a U.S. Air Force (USAF) F-15E Strike Eagle too downed an Iranian-made drone operated by pro-Assad forces in southern Syria early Tuesday.Iran's army chief recently warned that Tehran would strike 'militant safe havens' inside Pakistan ─ remarks that drew a strong protest from Islamabad ─ after 10 Iranian border guards were killed by militants allegedly from across the border earlier this year.This drone shot down represents the first air-to-air kill scored by the JF-17 fighter jet.The PAC JF-17 Thunder (or CAC FC-1 Xiaolong) is a lightweight, single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft developed jointly by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China.The JF-17 can be used for aerial reconnaissance, ground attack and aircraft interception. Its designation "JF-17" by Pakistan stands for "Joint Fighter-17", while the designation and name "FC-1 Xiaolong" by China stands for "Fighter China-1 Fierce Dragon".This article by Dario Leone originally appeared on The Aviation Geek Club in 2017.Image: Reuters.
|
| EU Says Johnson Gambit Could Reduce No-Deal Risk: Brexit Update Posted: 28 Aug 2019 11:37 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit, sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, and tell us your Brexit story. The U.K. Parliament will be suspended for almost five weeks ahead of Brexit, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson sets up a showdown with lawmakers who want to block him from taking the U.K. out of the European Union without an agreement. The pound fell, though EU officials said the move might reduce the chances of a no-deal split.Key Developments:Johnson's office said suspension would last from Sept. 12 until a new session of Parliament begins With Queen's Speech on Oct. 14Prime minister said government will put forward "very exciting" domestic agenda, said MPs will have "ample time" to debate BrexitTimetable puts Queen's Speech days before key EU summitSpeaker John Bercow calls move a "constitutional outrage"Pound fell as much as 1.1% before paring lossesMiller Files Challenge to Parliament Suspension (7:30 p.m.)Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner who won a Supreme Court judgment giving members of Parliament a say over how the U.K. leaves the EU, has filed an application for an urgent judicial review into Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament next month.Miller's lawsuit is not the only legal challenge the prime minister is facing, after a cross-party group of lawmakers asked the Scottish courts to rule on the issue (see 12:45 p.m.) A hearing in that case is expected as soon as Thursday.Suspension Might Not Damage Deal: EU Officials (5:45 p.m.)While several of Europe's elected politicians reacted with disdain to Johnson's prorogation move (see 1 p.m.), behind the scenes some officials think it might not increase the chances of a no-deal Brexit -- and could even lessen them.There's a long way to go and there's been no proposal presented that's acceptable to both sides, but officials in Brussels -- speaking on condition of anonymity -- don't rule out an agreement in the coming weeks.It's possible the suspension will mean that when lawmakers return with so little time before Brexit day, they will feel under more pressure to approve a new deal, one official said. That could mean Johnson gets away with a deal that doesn't include as many radical changes as he wants, the official said.Davidson Set to Quit as Scottish Tory Leader: Sun (5:25 p.m.)Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative Party leader, is set to resign because of her opposition to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit position and pressures as a new mother, the Sun reported, citing people in the party it didn't identify.This would be a huge blow to the Scottish Tories, and English ones too. Theresa May only survived the 2017 election -- and Johnson is only prime minister now -- because of Davidson's campaigning in Scotland that delivered 13 seats.A spokesman for Davidson said she would make her position clear "in due course" and said there would be no further comment on Wednesday evening.U.K., EU Agree to Step Up Brexit Negotiations (5:20 p.m.)The U.K. and EU will hold Brexit talks more regularly from next week, a British government spokesman said following a meeting between David Frost, the U.K.'s EU envoy, and European Commission officials in Brussels on Wednesday.The two sides agreed to "intensify discussions," the spokesperson said. Frost and members of the commission's Brexit taskforce discussed the contentious Irish border backstop, the spokesperson said.Corbyn Doubles Down in Response to Trump (5:15 p.m.)Jeremy Corbyn has responded to U.S. President Donald Trump, who tweeted earlier (see 2:50 p.m.) that the Labour leader would find it "hard" to call a no-confidence vote in the government given that Boris Johnson "is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for.""I think what the U.S. president is saying, is that Boris Johnson is exactly what he has been looking for, a compliant prime minister who will hand Britain's public services and protections over to U.S. corporations in a free trade deal," Corbyn replied.Corbyn, Swinson Both Seek Meeting With Queen (3:50 p.m.)Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his Liberal Democrat counterpart Jo Swinson have both requested meetings with the Queen to raise concerns about Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament.Corbyn asked for a meeting along with other privy councilors, and said in his letter that there is a danger the royal prerogative is being set directly against the wishes of a majority of the House of Commons.Johnson "is outrageously stifling the voices of both the people and their representatives," Swinson said in a statement. "I've written to the Queen to express my concern at Boris Johnson's anti-democratic plan to shut down Parliament, and to request an urgent meeting."Barclay Reiterates U.K. Leaving EU on Oct. 31 (3:30 p.m.)Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay followed Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney onto the stage in Paris (see 3:15 p.m.), telling the audience of entrepreneurs the U.K. would be leaving the EU on Oct. 31 "whatever the circumstances."He also repeated the government's demand that arrangements for the post-Brexit Irish border -- the key sticking point between the two sides -- should be dealt with in negotiations on the future relationship rather than as part of the withdrawal agreement. It's a demand the EU has repeatedly rejected.Coveney: Backstop Only Viable Solution 'Currently' (3:15 p.m.)The backstop is "currently" the only viable solution to the post-Brexit border issue, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said at a conference in Paris. While the withdrawal agreement can't be renegotiated, Coveney said it is too late anyway to do so ahead of the Oct. 31 deadline for the U.K. to leave."Even if we wanted to do that, which we don't, we can't do it in six or 10 weeks," he said. While the EU is open to exploring alternative arrangements, they must achieve the same objectives as the backstop, he said.The EU regards the backstop, a fallback mechanism meant to keep the Irish border free of checks after Brexit, as vital to protecting its single market and ensuring the peace process in Northern Ireland isn't jeopardized. But it's despised by Brexiteers, who say it will keep the U.K. tied to the bloc long after it's supposed to have left.Queen Approves Johnson Suspension Request (3 p.m.)The Queen approved Boris Johnson's request for Parliament to be suspended "on a day no earlier than Monday the 9th day of September and no later than Thursday the 12th day of September 2019 to Monday the 14th day of October 2019."The privy council -- senior politicians who advise the monarch -- issued a statement saying the Queen had given her approval after she met with Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg, Chief Whip Mark Spencer and Leader of the House of Lords Natalie Evans at her holiday home in Scotland.U.K. Firms Fret for Economy (2:55 p.m.)A no-deal Brexit is the worst case for British companies and they've been warning against it for years. The Confederation of British Industry said only a deal could protect the economy. Bloomberg Economics analyst Dan Hanson said a disruptive break could cause a recession.Trump: Johnson 'Exactly What U.K. Looking For' (2:50 p.m.)U.S. President Donald Trump weighed in on British politics again, saying it would be "very hard" for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to call a vote of confidence in Boris Johnson's government. "Boris is exactly what the U.K. has been looking for," Trump said on Twitter.Earlier on Wednesday, Corbyn accused Johnson of running "headlong into the arms of Donald Trump with more determination than I've ever seen anyone else before."Rees-Mogg Says Suspension is 'Completely Proper' (2:30 p.m.)Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg told the BBC that Johnson's move to suspend Parliament is "a completely proper constitutional procedure."Asked by a BBC reporter at Aberdeen airport, the nearest airport to Queen Elizabeth II's vacation home in Balmoral, northern Scotland, if the government is trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, he said "certainly not."Rees-Mogg traveled with Chief Whip Mark Spencer to relay Johnson's request to the Queen, and declined to be drawn on how the monarch responded. "Anything the Queen says is private, as you know," he said.Barclay Wants Bilateral Talks With France on Brexit (2 p.m.)In a speech in Paris on Wednesday, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay will urge the French government to start bilateral talks with the U.K. on how to mitigate the worst impact of a no-deal Brexit.According to an emailed statement from his department, Barclay will also call for France to match the U.K. government's offer to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in the U.K., adding that it is more generous than the French government's offer to British citizens living in the country.President Emmanuel Macron's administration said last week that a no-deal Brexit is now its central planning scenario. Barclay will say both sides should work to keep the "exceptional fluidity" of cross-Channel trade.No-Deal Brexit Now Irish Govt's Main Scenario (1:45 p.m.)Irish Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe gave the clearest signal yet that a no-deal Brexit is now his government's central scenario. In an interview with broadcaster RTE, he repeated his warning that the risk of a no-deal split is rising and that he needed to take that into consideration as he formulates next year's budget.He also said Wednesday's events in London won't prompt any concessions from the EU on the backstop, the fallback mechanism for the post-Brexit Irish border which lies at the heart of the impasse with the U.K.Corbyn: 'Will Do Everything We Can' to Block Govt (1:20 p.m.)Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the main opposition Labour Party, said he and lawmakers opposed to a no-deal Brexit will do everything they can to prevent Prime Minister Boris Johnson from suspending Parliament, laying out his strategy for when MPs return from summer recess next week.In a pooled TV clip, Corbyn said his first priority would be to find a way to use legislation to block the government from taking the U.K. out of the EU without a deal and to seek a Brexit extension. After that, the opposition leader said he would seek a confidence vote in the government "at some point.""What the prime minister is doing is a sort of smash and grab on our democracy in order to force through a no-deal exit from the European Union," he said, adding that the majority in Parliament was against that scenario.Verhofstadt Adds to Johnson Criticism (1 p.m.)Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit coordinator for the European Parliament, said Britain's campaign to leave the European Union under the 'take back control' slogan has "never looked so sinister.""Suppressing debate on profound choices is unlikely to help deliver a stable future EU-U.K. relationship," Verhofstadt wrote on Twitter, adding that he stood by lawmakers in Britain "fighting for their voices to be heard."EU Commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva declined to comment on the U.K. government's plans, and it's unlikely that either EU Council President Donald Tusk or EU President Jean-Claude Juncker will comment on what the bloc regards as a domestic political matter.But Norbert Roettgen, a lawmaker in German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Union party, said on Twitter that suspending Parliament was incompatible with democracy.Petition to Stop Suspension Soars (12:50 p.m.)An online petition to stop the government suspending Parliament has received more than 125,000 signatures, passing the threshold for it to be considered for debate in Parliament -- though it's not clear how much weight it will carry given the government's plans.The petition demands: "Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the U.K.'s intention to withdraw from the EU has been canceled."MPs Ask Court to Block Parliament Suspension (12:45 p.m.)A cross-party group of MPs and peers filed a motion asking the Court of Session in Edinburgh to block Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament."Legal action to prevent the prime minister suspending Parliament has already been fast-tracked through the courts and we are now seeking an emergency hearing to prevent this undemocratic action," Labour MP Ian Murray said in an emailed statement from the group.The motion was filed by attorney Jolyon Maugham, who spearheaded a landmark case that led the EU's top court to rule that Britain can reverse the Brexit case if it chooses. According to Sam Fowles, an attorney at Cornerstone Barristers who is working with Maugham on the case, suspending Parliament "arguably" goes against legislation demanding Parliament scrutinize any agreement between the U.K. and EU -- even if that deal was limited in scope.Even an agreement to keep planes flying "would arguably be an agreement Parliament would have to scrutinize, and Parliament can't do that if it's prorogued," he said in an interview.Johnson Gives City of London New Headache (12:20 p.m.)The U.K. government has been working for months to make sure financial regulations are enshrined in domestic law in the event of a no-deal Brexit. But Boris Johnson's move to suspend Parliament puts this process into limbo, adding extra uncertainty before the Oct. 31 deadline for the U.K. to leave the European Union.Legislation is pending in Parliament to give policy makers more time to make changes post-Brexit, but the measure hasn't yet been enacted. The end of session usually sees uncontentious bills in their final stages rushed through by mutual agreement, a process known as "wash-up." It remains to be seen whether Johnson has the goodwill to get that done this time.DUP to Negotiate New Support Deal With Govt (12:10 p.m.)Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, which props up Boris Johnson's minority government, said it welcomed his decision to have a new Queen's Speech and said it would renegotiate the support deal it agreed with the Conservative administration in 2017."This will be an opportunity to ensure our priorities align with those of the government," DUP Leader Arlene Foster said in an emailed statement.The original so-called confidence and supply agreement that former Prime Minister Theresa May negotiated with the DUP, which included 1.5 billion pounds of spending for Northern Ireland, stipulated that its terms would be renewed at the start of a new parliamentary session.It's a not-so-subtle warning that the DUP will be seeking more funds and concessions in exchange for its votes in Parliament.Gauke, Hammond Warn Johnson Over Plan (12 p.m.)Former Justice Secretary David Gauke, a prominent Conservative opponent of a no-deal divorce, said Johnson's plan sets a "dangerous precedent" for future governments."Put to one side your views of a no-deal Brexit,'' Gauke said on Twitter, invoking the leader of the opposition Labour Party. "Imagine that Jeremy Corbyn is PM, pursuing a policy that is unpopular in Parliament & in the country. At a crucial moment he finds a way to evade parliamentary scrutiny for several weeks. This is a dangerous precedent.''Philip Hammond, who was chancellor of the exchequer in Theresa May's government and has also said he is working to oppose a no-deal split from the EU, said it would be "profoundly undemocratic'' if Parliament was stopped from scrutinizing government "at a time of national crisis.''Both men are still on the Tory backbenches and could be a thorn in Johnson's side when Parliament returns next week.Corbyn Accuses Johnson of Dodging Scrutiny (11:50 a.m.)Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn accused Johnson of suspending Parliament to avoid scrutiny of his plans for a no-deal Brexit."I am appalled at the recklessness of Johnson's government, which talks about sovereignty and yet is seeking to suspend Parliament to avoid scrutiny of its plans for a reckless No Deal Brexit,'' Corbyn said in an emailed statement. "This is an outrage and a threat to our democracy.''"If Johnson has confidence in his plans he should put them to the people in a general election or public vote," Corbyn said.Bercow: Suspension Is 'Constitutional Outrage' (Earlier)Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow, who has previously said he would fight any attempt to suspend Parliament, called the government's move a "constitutional outrage" in a statement cited by the Press Association."However it is dressed up, it is blindingly obvious that the purpose of prorogation now would be to stop Parliament debating Brexit and performing its duty in shaping a course for the country," Bercow said, according to the PA. "At this time, it is vital that our elected Parliament has its say. After all, we live in a parliamentary democracy."Grieve: Decision Is 'Deeply Questionable' (Earlier)Dominic Grieve, one of the Conservative rebels trying to stop a no-deal Brexit, told the BBC Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision was "deeply questionable and frankly pretty outrageous.""It's a deliberate attempt to make sure that Parliament doesn't sit for a five-week period," he said.Johnson's opponents in Parliament on Tuesday appeared to be uniting around a strategy to pass a law compelling the government to seek a Brexit extension, rather than use a no-confidence vote to try to oust the prime minister. But Grieve said they might now have no choice, and that Parliament's return next week would see moves to stop the government, probably including a vote of no confidence.Earlier:Queen Gets Drawn Into Drama Over Brexit: Balance of PowerPound Falls as Johnson Seeks Parliament Suspension Before BrexitU.K.'s Javid Signals Government Austerity May Not Yet Be Over\--With assistance from Silla Brush, Kaye Wiggins, Jonathan Browning, Jill Ward, Eddie Spence, Neil Callanan and Dara Doyle.To contact the reporters on this story: Jessica Shankleman in London at jshankleman@bloomberg.net;Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.net;Ian Wishart in Biarritz, France at iwishart@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Robert Hutton at rhutton1@bloomberg.net, Stuart Biggs, Thomas PennyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Johnson Plan to Suspend Parliament Challenged by Gina Miller Posted: 28 Aug 2019 11:30 AM PDT ![Johnson Plan to Suspend Parliament Challenged by Gina Miller]( "Johnson Plan to Suspend Parliament Challenged by Gina Miller") (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit, sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, and tell us your Brexit story. Gina Miller, a Brexit opponent, has filed an urgent application for a legal challenge to stop Prime Minister Boris Johnson from suspending Parliament.Miller has applied for a judicial review about whether suspending Parliament undermines its sovereignty, she said in a statement. It comes after Johnson said Wednesday he plans to close Parliament for almost five weeks, until a Queen's Speech on Oct. 14.That move is "a brazen attempt, of truly historical magnitude, to prevent the executive being held accountable for its conduct before Parliament," Miller said in the statement. The 54-year-old previously led a lawsuit that forced the government to allow lawmakers to vote on starting the Brexit process.A similar legal challenge is already pending in Scotland and could be heard as soon as Thursday.To contact the reporter on this story: Kaye Wiggins in London at kwiggins4@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| UN: Northwest Syria hostilities escalate, with barrel bombs Posted: 28 Aug 2019 11:07 AM PDT ![UN: Northwest Syria hostilities escalate, with barrel bombs]( "UN: Northwest Syria hostilities escalate, with barrel bombs") The U.N. is calling on Syria's warring parties to ensure the safety of civilians as clashes, shelling and airstrikes escalate in Idlib, western Aleppo and northern Hama, including the use of barrel bombs. On Monday, he said 15 civilians, including women and children, were reportedly killed in airstrikes on seven communities in Idlib province.
|
| Ruth Davidson Set to Resign as Scottish Tory Leader, Sun Reports Posted: 28 Aug 2019 10:55 AM PDT ![Ruth Davidson Set to Resign as Scottish Tory Leader, Sun Reports]( "Ruth Davidson Set to Resign as Scottish Tory Leader, Sun Reports") (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit, sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, and tell us your Brexit story. Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative Party leader credited with turning around Tory fortunes in Scotland, will resign her post over Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit policies and the pressures of being a new mother, the Sun newspaper reported.A spokesman for Davidson said she would make her position clear "in due course" and there would be no further comment Wednesday on the Sun report, which cited people in the Scottish Tory party it didn't identify.Losing Davidson would be a huge blow to the Scottish Tories, and English ones too. Former Prime Minister Theresa May's government only survived the 2017 election -- and Johnson is only prime minister now -- because of Davidson's campaigning in Scotland that delivered 13 seats for the party.She was a leading advocate for staying in the EU in the 2016 referendum and repeatedly clashed with Johnson in a TV debate days before the vote, accusing him of misleading voters.Since Johnson became prime minister, Davidson has criticized him over his refusal to rule out a no-deal Brexit, and also for sacking Scottish Secretary David Mundell and replacing him with an English -- rather than Scottish -- member of Parliament.Davidson made her feelings about Johnson clear during the leadership contest when she told the BBC she wanted to see him change his behavior, and argued it wouldn't be in the national interest to dissolve or suspend Parliament to get Brexit done. At the time, Johnson was doing little to counter speculation he was leaning toward doing so if chosen as party leader.Seeking Change"I would want to see Boris the prime minister do things differently than Boris the foreign secretary or Boris the candidate or leader of the Leave campaign," Davidson said.But the two reached what appeared to be an uneasy truce just five days after Johnson became prime minister when he visited her in Edinburgh, the premier offering his support for Davidson's ambition to become First Minister at the Scottish parliament elections in 2021.Still, the politics of Brexit always had the potential to trigger another rift. Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the European Union during the 2016 Brexit referendum, while the ruling Scottish National Party gained momentum from Johnson's failure to rule out a no-deal Brexit. The SNP has said that would bolster the case for Scotland splitting away from the rest of the U.K.Scottish Labour MP Ian Murray, also a prominent campaigner for staying in the EU, said in a statement Davidson's departure would be "deeply felt" by her party."She campaigned tirelessly for a Remain vote in the EU referendum, but the Tories under Boris Johnson have become a hard Brexit party, so it is not surprising that it has come to this," he said.(Updates with lawmaker's comment in penultimate paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Jessica Shankleman in London at jshankleman@bloomberg.net;Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Stuart Biggs, Thomas PennyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| The Latest: Lebanese army fires at 2 Israeli drones Posted: 28 Aug 2019 10:50 AM PDT  Lebanon's official news agency and a security official say the military has fired at two Israeli reconnaissance drones that violated Lebanese airspace. The National News Agency says the incident happened Wednesday night over the village of Odeisseh, near Marjayoun, near the border with Israel. The incident came just days after an alleged Israeli drone crashed in a Hezbollah stronghold in southern Beirut while another exploded and crashed nearby.
|
| Lebanon shoots at Israeli drones in dramatic escalation of tensions Posted: 28 Aug 2019 10:42 AM PDT  The Lebanese army opened fire on Israeli surveillance drones over southern Lebanon on Wednesday night, raising the stakes in the conflict between the warring neighbours. The military, which does not possess air defence systems, fired shots from M16s assault rifles at low-flying Israeli drones over the village of al-Adaisseh, near their shared border. Israel regularly flies unmanned surveillance planes into Lebanese airspace, but it is rare for the Lebanese army to attempt to down them. It appeared to be making good on a promise to protect its sovereignty after an Israel drone strike on Hizbollah territory in the capital Beirut over the weekend. Michel Aoun, Lebanon's president, whose Christian Free Patriotic Movement party is allied with Hizbollah, on Tuesday stressed its right to defend the country "by any means". Two crates reportedly belonging to Hizbollah containing critical technical machinery that were destroyed in a drone strike attributed to Israel in Beirut on August 25 Credit: Twitter As well as having a military wing, Hizbollah is represented in parliament and has become an increasingly powerful force in the Mediterranean country. The group had already warned that it was preparing its own "calculated strike" against Israel in retaliation for its raid on a Hizbollah position near the Syrian city of Damascus on Saturday that left two fighters dead and a drone attack in southern Beirut hours later that reportedly damaged missile-making equipment. "We want the strike to be a surprise...and so there is no interest in diving into the details," said Sheikh Naim Qassem, the Lebanese Shia group's deputy leader. "The coming days will reveal this." Sources familiar with decision-making in the militia told the Telegraph that it would likely send a drone into Israel in a like-for-like response to the drone attack in Beirut and that it would attempt to target Israeli soldiers on patrol near the border to "avenge" the killing of its men. It was reported in Israeli media on Tuesday night that Israel had targeted and successfully destroyed machinery used for the production of precision-guided missiles. The specific targets were an "industrial planetary mixer," eight tons in size, used for the production of solid fuel propellant for precision guided missiles, as well as an electronic control system for the machine held in a separate crate. The crate, which had reportedly been delivered by Hizbollah's sponsor Iran, was temporarily being stored in the group's stronghold of Dahieh in southern Beirut before it was to be transported to a factory. Pictures from the scene showed two crates on fire and badly damaged. Israel has been trying to disrupt the flow of weapons and technology from arch-rival Iran to the Islamic republic's proxies in Syria and Lebanon. It has carried out hundreds of strikes against Hizbollah and Iranian forces' positions in Syria, which have so far been met with little response. Such an attack on Hizbollah on home turf, however, will be more difficult for them to ignore. Sheikh Qassem said Hizbollah deemed it an attack that necessitated a response, but said they were not seeking a new war with its long-time foe. Members of Hizbollah movement carry the coffin of the fellow comrade, who was killed in Israeli strikes in Syria Credit: AFP "I rule out that the atmosphere is one of war, it is one of a response to an attack," he told Russia's RT Arabic channel on Tuesday night. "Everything will be decided at its time." Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in a speech on Sunday threatened Israel with reprisal, saying: "From tonight, I tell the Israeli army on the border, be prepared and wait for us," he said, taunting that a retaliation could come in "one day, two days, three days…" The attack was the first inside Lebanon since the deadly Summer War of 2006, which saw more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and 43 Israeli killed. The group has since seen several flare-ups with its neighbour, however it has always stopped short of an all-out conflict.
|
| Former UK finmin Hammond says move to block no-deal Brexit will have to be next week Posted: 28 Aug 2019 09:23 AM PDT ![Former UK finmin Hammond says move to block no-deal Brexit will have to be next week]( "Former UK finmin Hammond says move to block no-deal Brexit will have to be next week") British lawmakers who want to stop a possible no-deal Brexit will have to take action next week, former finance minister Philip Hammond said on Wednesday after Prime Minister Boris Johnson moved to suspend parliament from late September. Hammond said that many lawmakers opposed to a no-deal Brexit had wanted to wait until later in September to see whether Johnson would be successful in his bid to negotiate a new Brexit deal before taking action.
|
| Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg arrives in New York for UN summit on sailboat Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:43 AM PDT  Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has inspired young people around the world to strike in masses, anchored in New York on Wednesday morning after two weeks at sea. The 16-year-old took a sailboat across the Atlantic Ocean, from the United Kingdom, to reach New York City for the upcoming United Nations Climate Action Summit, hosted by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Sept. 23.
|
| Autodesk Analysts: Sell-off May Be Overreaction, Fundamentals Remain Strong Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:42 AM PDT ![Autodesk Analysts: Sell-off May Be Overreaction, Fundamentals Remain Strong]( "Autodesk Analysts: Sell-off May Be Overreaction, Fundamentals Remain Strong") Sell-side analysts remained mostly bullish, though with lowered price targets, on Autodesk, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSK) after a strong second-quarter print that was marred for investors by lowered guidance that reflects international economic concerns. Autodesk beat quarterly targets soundly, with revenue well above the consensus estimate, but lowered its full-year outlook on macro concerns, a cautionary move tied to Brexit, softening manufacturing in Europe and the trade war with China. KeyBanc Capital Market's Jason Celino maintained an Overweight rating on Autodesk and lowered the price target from $196 to $184.
|
| If Australia Wants Collective Defense, Then It Should Get Its Own Navy in Ship Shape Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:40 AM PDT  With the South China Sea dispute back on the front burner and trade tensions between the United States and China bubbling over, some of America's regional allies are starting to feel the heat. Yet when Mike Pompeo told a Sydney forum that "You can sell your soul for a pile of soybeans or you can protect your people," Australia's good and great were "gobsmacked," according to an eyewitness account from The Spectator Australia. Substitute a lump of Australian coal for a pile of American soybeans, and Pompeo's message was clear.China's rise and rearmament has introduced a security schizophrenia into Australian politics. Canberra's China doves argue that Australia should accommodate its giant neighbor and number one export partner, sign up to Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative, and do whatever it takes to avoid attracting China's ire.Meanwhile a certain species of Australian hawk believes that the United States is no longer a reliable ally, and that Australia should muscle up for a potential future confrontation with China. The most prominent of these is Professor Hugh White of the Australian National University, who thinks that Australia should be considering the development of an independent nuclear deterrent.He's not alone in worrying about American staying power in the Pacific. One of Australia's most prominent conservative commentators, Paul Kelly, says that "the strong and astute America [that Australia] needs is not on display," while the governor of Australia's central bank says that he does "not have a clear idea of what strategy the U.S. has" for dealing with China.Now a major research paper from the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre concludes that the United States "no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific" region and "has an atrophying force that is not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured for great power competition." The paper was partly funded by the Australian Department of Defence, American defense giant Northrop Grumman, and the French multinational Thales Group.The paper's authors, Ashley Townshend, Brendan Thomas-Noone, and Matilda Steward, call for a NATO-style strategy of "collective defense" in the Indo-Pacific as a "way of offsetting shortfalls in America's regional military power." They repeatedly highlight the "decline," "inadequacy," and "questionable abilities" of the United States Armed Forces.Meanwhile they laud Australia's "significant submarine modernisation" program, which consists of the construction of twelve new diesel-electric boats to enter service in the 2030s and 2040s. Australia's Defence Minister Christopher Pyne has described the submarines "regionally superior," which only makes sense if the region they're talking about is Southeast Asia. He can't mean the Indo-Pacific region. India and China already have nuclear-powered attack and ballistic missile submarines.They also praise Australia's "surface vessel recapitalisation" program, with nine new frigates to be built on a British design. Like the submarines, these likely won't enter service until the 2030s. They are mainly designed for anti-submarine warfare, but as the Royal Australian Navy's new workhorse vessels, they will have to do general duty as well.They criticize the United States for planning to buy "only" 2457 fifth-generation F-35 fighters and cancelling the F-22. For the record, Australia has committed to buying just seventy-two F-35s in total. They expect to have ten by the end of the year. The USAF, Navy, and Marines already fly more than three hundred.A Look in the MirrorIf, as the Australian report claims, the United States "no longer enjoys military primacy in the Indo-Pacific" region, then who does? If the United States is "not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured for great power competition," then who is? Webster's defines primacy as "the state of being first," and no one seriously doubts that the United States is first in the Indo-Pacific region. Great-power competition implies a great-power competitor, and no one seriously believes that China is better-prepared for competition than the United States.If Australians really are worried that the United States is no longer able to come to their defense, then perhaps they should take White's advice and take a long, hard look in the mirror. No one expects a country of twenty-five million people to match the military spending of a global superpower thirteen times its size. But since the turn of the millennium, Australia has spent an average of only 1.8 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on defense, compared to 3.7 percent for the United States.What the Australians do spend, they often spend inefficiently. For example, Australia's politicized navy is buying diesel-powered submarines out of an ideological aversion to nuclear power. The United States, which has a real fighting navy, hasn't built a diesel submarine since 1959.There are also questions about readiness. Australia's two main naval bases, Fleet Base East and Fleet Base West, are located in the pleasant southern cities of Sydney and Perth, ideally placed to defend the country against the march of the penguins from Antarctica. Meanwhile the U.S. Marines are sweating it out in Australia's remote northern outpost of Darwin, where they serve as a rapid reaction force ready for deployment throughout the Indo-Pacific region.Naval GazingThe Royal Australian Navy's Sydney headquarters is particularly self-indulgent. Strategically stationed in the posh inner-Sydney suburb of Potts Point, the RAN's top brass can comfortably grab a croissant on their morning walk to work from subsidized housing in one of Australia's most expensive neighborhoods. In 2018, the city of Sydney wanted to acquire the base, which has golden sunset views of the landmark Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge, to use as a cruise ship terminal. The Navy turned them down.Yet the base is incredibly insecure—and incredibly dangerous. Pedestrians walk on a public inner-city street within ten yards of the bows of the nearest ships. The whole base is hemmed in by a city park on one side and a luxury hotel on the other. Any decent quarterback could hit six ships with bombs lobbed from the park overlooking the base; a determined terrorist could sink half the fleet with a portable rocket launcher. Even an onboard accident could take out the civilian hotel just one hundred yards away.A serious fighting navy would move north to the country town of Townsville, fifteen hundred sea miles closer to any potential threat emanating from China or emergency arising in the Pacific. The RAN has refused to move out of congested Sydney Harbour to nearby suburban Botany Bay. They say the reason is "tradition." Another word for it is "lifestyle."Australia's Fleet Base West should also be relocated fifteen hundred sea miles north to Port Hedland (population fifteen thousand). Australia's iron miners tough it out on the country's remote northwest coast, but then they have to: that's where the iron is. The RAN prefers the comfortable climate and urban amenities of metropolitan Perth (population two million). And who can blame them? But if Australians prefer the good life to the rigors of military readiness, they're in no position to demand additional American sacrifices on their behalf.The Political Reality of Collective DefenseAs the experience of NATO amply demonstrates, "collective defense" is really just a polite way of saying "American defense." When it comes to collective defense, what is everyone's responsibility becomes no one's responsibility—except America's. In 2018, America's European NATO allies spent an average of 1.5 percent of GDP on defense, in flagrant violation of their long-standing commitments to raise spending to 2 percent. Only five NATO members meet their 2 percent spending commitments: three frontline Eastern European countries, the United Kingdom, and the United States.Australia is an important political ally that has provided welcome symbolic support for American missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and (most recently) the Persian Gulf. Australia lost forty-one soldiers in fierce fighting in Afghanistan after taking up the call of Operation Enduring Freedom. Americans will always be grateful and proud to have Australians standing beside them in time of need.But if Australians are serious about defending freedom in the Indo-Pacific region, then they should take a more active role in their own defense. That means buying the most effective weapons systems available and deploying them as efficiently as possible. It also means accommodating and hosting American forces, when its own aren't sufficient to do the job. But most of all, it means making a genuine commitment to security partnership.Opinion polls consistently show that the Australian people are willing to take on these responsibilities. It's long past time for Australia's political class to step up to the plate.Salvatore Babones is the author of The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts.Image: Reuters
|
| How Russia and Iran Dominated the G7 Summit Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:37 AM PDT  Monday concluded the three-day summit held in Biarritz, France, by the Group of Seven (G7), which is composed of the most advanced economies in the world: France, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. European Union Council President Donald Tusk was also present, along with a litany of heads of state who were each invited by a participating G7 member.This year's meeting comes at a precarious time for all of the key participants. The host, French president Emmanuel Macron, has approval ratings that hover in the low thirties after his response to the yellow vests movement. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau is being dragged down by a corruption scandal. Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe is in the middle of a trade war with South Korea. German chancellor Angela Merkel has announced this will be her last term in office, as she tries to cobble together a successor. Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte resigned days before the summit and attended only as a caretaker role. British prime minister Boris Johnson has been in office only a month and is staring down a no-deal Brexit come October. And President Donald Trump brings his own repertoire to wherever he visits.The biggest headline of the weekend came with the visit of Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, on invitation from the French government. This surprised many in the United States since recent months have seen an escalation of tensions with Iran that have narrowly avoided war. This has included putting sanctions on Zarif himself."If the French did in fact invite Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif to the G7 without consulting the US, it would be a signal of great weakness to Iran and terribly disrespectful to President Trump. Hope President Trump maintains steady resolve against Iranian aggression," tweeted Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an influential hawk in Trump's shadow cabinet."This is completely disrespectful to @realDonaldTrump and the other leaders at the G7. Iran supports terrorism at every turn and continues to pursue 'Death to America'. Manipulative of Macron to do this and very insincere," agreed former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.When asked during a press conference, Trump said he did in fact know about the invitation and that it was the opposite of disrespectful. "President Macron asked my approval. We have a very good relationship," he told reporters."That was really foolish of them [Haley, Graham] to say," said Barbara Slavin, director of the Atlantic Council's Future of Iran Initiative. "Obviously, Macron let Trump know that Zarif was coming ahead of time. He wouldn't have blindsided him that way. I think that showed a real lack of judgement on the part of the two individuals you mentioned. Trump is his own man. He's going to do what he wants to do."Daniel DePetris, a fellow at Defense Priorities, believes the domestic criticisms of Iran hawks just add up to hot air. "I think it's false outrage. A lot of it is geared for domestic political purposes. I think we've gotten to a situation now with the Iranians where we've dug ourselves into a hole, and instead of trying to get out of it we're digging ourselves deeper," he told the National Interest. "I think Macron did Trump a favor by inviting Zarif to Biarritz. Obviously, Trump didn't meet with Zarif this time, but the fact that he's open to a discussion, even with President Rouhani, maybe the two will meet at the General Assembly next month."President Trump reiterated this weekend that he's interested in new negotiations with the Iranian government with no preconditions."The other part I think we should mention is that it's great that Macron showed that the U.S. sanctioning of Zarif was meaningless in many ways, and gratuitous, and counterproductive. Zarif is flying all around the world, he's going to see everybody else, so obviously nobody was paying attention to these U.S. sanctions on Zarif," added Slavin.The other key player in the G7 was the one who wasn't there at all: Russia, which was removed from the G8 after Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014.Jack Matlock, U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, explained the context of Russia's ejection from what was then the G8: "It was a reaction to the situation in Ukraine, which was largely an internal Ukrainian affair. Russia would not have acted as it had if there had not been an attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO and to bring it into the EU without Russia. This was considered highly provocative and so what happened in Ukraine was a tragedy, certainly for Ukraine, but it was brought about by Russian reaction to Western policy," he told the National Interest.Both Presidents Trump and Macron have advocated including Russia during next year's meeting, which will take place in the United States. This has drawn criticism both internationally, including from the UK, Canada, and the European Union, and from President Trump's domestic critics."As the United States takes on the responsibility of organizing and hosting the next G-7 summit, it is appalling that President Trump appears hell-bent on inviting Vladimir Putin back as Russia continues to forcibly occupy Crimea, interferes in our elections, and initiates a new arms race. Allowing Russia back into the G-7 would only show President Trump's weakness in the face of Putin and his oligarchs and make the United States less secure," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Monday.Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at both New York University and Princeton, believes excluding Russia from Western institutions will not degrade its geopolitical flexing. "Historically the West, particularly the United States, has done a lot of things to 'change Russia's behavior.' And I can't think of any instance, except when it was in the form of carrots (détente) rather than sticks (more Cold War) when it's ever been successful. So, this seems to be folly," he said."I thought it was a mistake to begin with," agreed Matlock. "It seems to me it's a detriment to the institution itself, not to have Russia's participation. And the idea that this will somehow change some of their foreign policy I think has been proven wrong."When it came to the prospect of Trump inviting Putin to next year's meeting, neither DePetris, Matlock, or Cohen put much stock in the result. DePetris emphasized that the G7 was more show than substance, and that Russia doesn't need to be a member for Trump to meet with Putin. Matlock said that Putin should refuse to attend unless he's considered an equal peer with the other members.Cohen doesn't look forward to the media outrage such a visit would cause. International visits by Russian and Soviet leaders were once ordinary, but now they've become politically toxic. "There was a time when having a successful East-West summit with a Soviet or Russian leader was an electoral plus. Because you'd go to the people say look, 'I'm ridding Europe of nuclear weapons, I'm keeping the peace, I'm reducing the nuclear threat, we're having new arms control agreements.' We don't have that world anymore," warned Cohen.Hunter DeRensis is a report for the National Interest.Image: Reuters
|
| Rodrigo Duterte Strikes Back Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:24 AM PDT  In an early-August speech before the powerful Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte made a startling announcement. Ahead of his upcoming visit to China, the fifth in less than three years, the Beijing-leaning Filipino leader promised to raise the 2016 Arbitral Tribunal ruling against China's claims in the South China Sea. This marked a remarkable shift from his earlier position. Duterte had previously dismissed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) arbitration award as an exercise in futility. His stance was aligned with the one taken by China, which has categorically rejected UNCLOS as "null and void" and a "piece of trash paper." If anything, Duterte earlier suggested that confronting China over the disputes risks nothing short of war and a suicidal conflict.A few months into power, Duterte went so far as stating, "China has the kindest soul of all" and "[we] will never be ready to fight with China." Thus, he boldly declared: "In the play of politics now, I will set aside the arbitral ruling. I will not impose anything on China. Why? Because the politics here in Southeast Asia is changing." What he meant by "Southeast Asia is changing" was this: The United States is in a permanent state of decline and, therefore, China is the new boss in the town. Like a small town mafia boss, he called for conciliation with the new Big Boss. To cap it all, Duterte shamelessly called on smaller nations to be "meek" and "humble" in exchange for China's "mercy."Against this backdrop of rhetorical kowtow, a mixture of disbelief, bemusement and triumphant relief greeted the Filipino president's latest statement. All of a sudden, Duterte signaled a tougher stance against China. And there was immediately a chorus of support. Even his most strident critics expressed support for him.A more careful analysis, however, suggests that Duterte isn't signaling a more confrontational policy towards China; instead, he is making tactical adjustments to protect his rapprochement with his self-professed strategic patron. This is the president who once brazenly claimed that Xi vowed to protect him from ouster by U.S.-aligned elements. His biggest concerns center around his top generals, who have openly lashed out at China's "bullying" of the Philippines, and finding a legal justification for proposed resource-sharing agreements with China in disputed waters.False Dawn"The arbitral ruling, we will talk about [it] . . . That's why I'm going to China," Duterte said during his speech before Filipino-Chinese businessmen, referring to his scheduled meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping, whom he has met at least twice in the past year alone. "I'm going to China to talk. Did I not tell you before, that before my term ends, I [would] be talking about the [disputes]?"Former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, who oversaw the Philippines' arbitration proceedings against China, was ecstatically supportive. "Let us salute him and assure him of the support of all Filipinos," said Del Rosario, a former ambassador to Washington, DC following years-long public spat with the president over the country's China policy. Though less impressed, prominent statesmen such as Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a staunch China critic who prefers to team up with the United States against China, were visibly pleased."We need to discuss this thoroughly. So it's perfect timing since there will be a meeting with President Xi Jinping," the senator said in a mixture of Filipino and English.When the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Zhao Jianhua made it clear that China would reject the arbitration in any bilateral talk, Duterte claimed that he was hell bent on forging ahead.Not long after, however, Philippine foreign secretary Teodoro Locsin poured ice on fire by raising doubts over Duterte's earth-shaking announcement: "There is no final date yet. I will be talking to the Chinese ambassador and finalize the agenda [of the early-September meeting]."The Man on HorsebackShortly before Duterte's startling announcement, something interesting took place. The Philippine defense establishment, including top Filipino generals, stepped up their public criticism of China and its behavior in Philippine waters almost in unison. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, who earlier lashed out at a suspected Chinese militia vessel sinking of a Filipino fishing boat, blatantly accused China of "bullying" behavior right after the Chinese envoy tried to portray his country as a peaceful neighbor in a high-profile event in Manila.The Philippine defense chief, formerly a defense attaché in Washington, DC, highlighted Chinese de facto seizure of Manila-claimed Scarborough Shoal, harassment of Filipino fishermen, and swarming of Philippine-held islands in the Spratly Islands through an armada of militia forces, and even unilateral deployment of research vessels into the Philippines "exclusive economic zone."Lorenzana also lashed out at Chinese warships, which deliberately switched off their Automatic Identification System (AIS) during their passage within Philippine territorial waters in the past month. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), foreign warships, when passing through the territorial sea of a coastal state, should refrain from any activity which, "[is] prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state." The Philippine defense chief didn't rule out the possibility of hostile actions, including espionage, by Chinese warships. Lorenzana called on Duterte to raise the issue with Xi.The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesperson Brig. Gen. Edgard Arevalo openly accused Beijing of "duplicity" and "deception" by intruding into Philippine waters. Meanwhile, Philippine National Security Advisor Hermogenes Esperon didn't shy away from raising concerns over warming ties with China, describing the influx of Chinese nations into the Philippines as a potential national security "threat," following an incident involving Chinese tourists caught illegally taking pictures of a Philippine naval base near the Spratly Islands. Then things took an even more interesting turn, with Lorenzana criticizing the establishment of China's billion-dollar casinos near Philippine military bases. He suggested they could quickly shift into a den of spies.After years of systematically courting the defense establishment, which has shown remarkable institutional independence from presidential whims, Duterte likely felt compelled to take a tougher (rhetorical) stance against China.There is, however, another motivation for Duterte to raise the arbitration award, namely a desperate search for any justification for resource-sharing agreements with China in the South China Sea. By vaguely citing the 2016 arbitration award's ruling on China's 'traditional fishing rights' in a tiny portion within Philippine waters, namely around the Scarborough Shoal, as well as the UNCLOS' provisions on resource sharing, the Filipino president wants to facilitate controversial and potentially illegal deals with China.Ahead of his visit to China, Duterte unabashedly announced the possibility for sharing energy resources in the contested Reed Bank, which falls in Philippines' waters and China's nine-dashed-line. The negotiations seem to be going smoothly, thus it's likely that Duterte is looking for any quasi-legal pretext to cement controversial deals with Beijing. In short, to those who welcomed Duterte's raising of the arbitration award as an optimal way to confront China: be careful what you wish for.Richard Javad Heydarian is a Manila-based academic and author. His forthcoming book is The Indo-Pacific Age: US, China and the New Global Struggle for Mastery.Image: Reuters
|
| South Korea and Japan Have More in Common Than They Think (Like the China Challenge) Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:20 AM PDT  Ties between South Korea and Japan are in a free-fall.With South Korea's decision to scrap the 2016 military intelligence sharing agreement with Japan, the two sides have dramatically aggravated their fraught relationship. Bilateral ties had never been great, but in the past several weeks, a trade spat has snowballed into a confrontation that apparently has yet to reach rock bottom. Earlier this month, Tokyo removed South Korea from its list of favored trading partners, which includes the United States, Germany, France, and two dozen other countries, placing export curbs on industrial and high-tech products. This sparked a reciprocal move from Seoul, sending ripples of fear about the potentially destabilizing and detrimental effect of these moves.The rhetoric from the leadership in the two capitals has exacerbated the degraded relationship, whipping up nationalist fervor among the populace, leaving little space for compromise. Of the 1965 treaty that established diplomatic relations, Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe stated that South Korea has unilaterally "violated the treaty that served as the basis for us to normalize ties," and South Korean president Moon Jae-in declared, "We will never again lose to Japan," invoking Japan's colonization of the Korean Peninsula from 1910–1945. Of the General Security of Military Information Agreement that Seoul recently decided to exit, the Blue House said that the pact did not comport with Seoul's national interest, while protesters outside the Japanese Embassy cheered when the news was announced.Moon's comment underscores the lingering history of issues that have become increasingly toxic, seeping into the economic and security realms of the present. During World War II, Japan conscripted Korean women—possibly as many as two hundred thousand—to "serve" in military brothels. Questions regarding proper reparations to the victims of sexual exploitation, as well as for other conscripted Koreans laborers, have hampered bilateral relations ever since. Though many hoped a 2015 agreement between then-South Korean president Park Geun-hye and Prime Minister Abe would resolve the comfort women issue "finally and irreversibly," President Moon later dissolved a joint fund that was set up with the Japanese government in 2018 to compensate the surviving comfort women. Shortly after, the South Korean Supreme Court ordered the seizure of certain Japanese companies' assets to compensate victims of wartime forced labor, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the 1965 normalization treaty and reigniting the history disputes dramatically unfolding today.As tensions between the United States' two closest allies in East Asia threaten to boil over, former U.S. policymakers, such as Evan Medeiros and Victor Cha, have sounded the alarm on the negative effects on alliance relationships and policy coordination. They have provided prudent suggestions to stanch the bleeding, including quiet intervention by President Donald Trump and a suspension of the implementation of the retaliatory trade actions to allow for the two sides to cool off and investigate their respective complaints.While negotiation and engagement at the leader level are critical, both sides also should be reminded about their convergence of interests and potential ways that the two countries could—and should—cooperate to confront their present and future challenges.From Victimization to Women's EmpowermentThe wartime sex slavery issue is at the core of the historical disputes, with South Korea framing the "comfort women" as victims and the Japanese as aggressors who have not properly atoned for their wrongdoing. But there is an opportunity to turn a narrative of victimhood and grievance toward one of empowerment and support.At home, both leaders have made efforts to show their support for women. A self-described feminist, Moon has pledged to bridge the pay gap and increase women's representation in the cabinet. Abe has called for increasing female participation in the labor force to create "a society where women shine," introduced the concept of "womenomics" to connect economic growth with women's empowerment, and vowed to curb sexual violence against women.Still, these moves are insufficiently addressing the problem: Japan and South Korea have the highest gender pay gap (24.5 percent and 34.6 percent) among countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. As far as political representation goes, women make up only percent of the Japanese Diet, while women make up 17 percent of the South Korean National Assembly.Given the leaders' stated commitments to advancing the status of women, the two sides should support governmental, multilateral, and civil-society programs and initiatives designed to empower the women they claim they want to help and increase general awareness about wartime violence against women. Such actions would show that their concern for women is not merely political opportunism and sloganeering. To accomplish this, Jennifer Lind, a political scientist who specializes in East Asian affairs, has long suggested that constructing a shared and nonaccusative narrative, initiating multilateral inquiries into violence against women, and cooperating on textbook initiatives are promising approaches for reconciliation. Such programs should include international scholars, historians, activists, and women leaders to quarantine the issue from politicization and to pursue meaningful progress on reconciliation and real improvements for women in both countries. A Looming Demographic Time BombJapan and South Korea also share a unique domestic issue: super-aging societies.Simply put, women aren't having enough babies; a fertility rate of 2.1 is considered necessary to maintain stable population numbers. In Japan, the fertility rate is 1.45; in South Korea, it's an even more dismal 1.05. A major study conducted by the South Korean government in 2014 concluded that the country faces "natural extinction" by the year 2750 if the then-birth rate of 1.19 did not rise, a study that has obvious parallels in Japan.Meanwhile, high life expectancy in both countries means that elderly people make up a progressively larger proportion of the population over time. Projections by the United Nations show Japan's population of 126 million shrinking by 40 percent by 2080. Korea's population of 51 million could also shrink by 40 percent, potentially reaching pre-Korean War levels (eighteen million) if corrective action isn't taken in the near future. The aging problem in Japan has led to the sale of adult diapers surpassing that of baby diapers. And in South Korea, some universities have begun offering classes on dating and relationships to help combat falling marriage and fertility rates. Even then, a recent survey found that only 68 percent of female South Korean college students intend to marry, with most respondents citing "dual burdens at home and work" as the biggest obstacles to raising children.For both countries, the impending population collapse is a threat to economic productivity, growth, social stability, and national defense. One possible answer—liberalizing immigration policies—is unpopular in largely homogeneous Japan and South Korea, while government efforts to increase fertility rates have proven to be expensive and ineffective. For these reasons, economists have formulated an array of policy options such as implementing phased retirement schemes, allocating funds to childcare facilities, raising the ages for retirement and pension eligibility, and even investing in artificial intelligence to meet caregiving needs.Regardless of the specific policy solutions implemented, sharing know-how and innovative technological solutions may help Japan and South Korea realize there's much to be gained from cooperation—and together they might potentially shape global approaches to aging populations.Powerful Economies with Room to Integrate and ThriveFor all the historical rancor between the two over the past decades, Japan and South Korea have enjoyed massive economic growth. Japan is the world's third-largest economy, with a GDP per capita of $39,286. South Korea, the world's eleventh largest economy, has slowly caught up with its neighbor over the past two decades, reaching a GDP per capita of $31,362. At the same time, both countries have fostered entertainment industries worth billions that have projected South Korean and Japanese cultural influence far and wide.On the people-to-people level, South Korea sends more tourists to Japan than any nation except for China, while South Korea's tourism industry (worth $71.4 billion) benefits from Japanese tourists, whose numbers are exceeded only by those from China. Finally, Japanese suppliers and South Korea's tech industry have become increasingly interdependent, with a sizeable chunk (43.9 percent) of South Korea's hydrogen fluoride—necessary component in electronics—coming from Japanese firms alone this year.There is room for improvement. For one, even though both boast robust electronics industries and are geographical neighbors, only 4.5 percent of South Korean exports were bound for Japan in 2017. At the same time, only 7.8 percent of Japanese exports were bound for South Korea. Indeed, many of these gaps can be explained by China's growing economy, which attracts investment from South Korean and Japanese firms. Still, increasing economic integration, such as through a potential South Korea-Japan-China Free Trade Agreement (which has been in the works since 2013, making little progress) could generate nearly $16.3 billion in joint economic benefits in the first decade alone, according to a report by the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.Furthermore, both leaders have real reasons to reverse course. In June 2019, Abe stood before world leaders at the G20 summits in Osaka, where he stressed the importance of free trade in a rules-based international system. Such a statement now stands in stark contrast to his government's confrontation with South Korea, risking the health of Japanese companies and his country's reputation as a global economic leader. Meanwhile, South Korea's economy recently contracted for the first time since the global financial crisis, coinciding with double-digit youth unemployment and some of the lowest happiness levels in the world. It would be in South Korea's interest to seek ways to combat stagnation and spur growth at home, rather than doubling down on a costly trade war with Japan. Given the damage to the economic foundations of the relationship created by both governments' actions, however, it would be difficult to get back to status quo ante.Confronting Common Security ChallengesThe trade dispute between Japan and South Korea also has implications for regional security.North Korea's Kim Jong-un appears committed to advancing his military capabilities, eroding the sanctions regime, and weakening the U.S. alliance relationships with South Korea and Japan. The North's actions in recent months—brazenly conducting multiple missile and weapons tests, showing off a potentially nuclear-capable submarine, hurling invective at Moon and Abe, and refusing to engage in nuclear negotiations with Washington—are obvious and urgent reminders for Seoul and Tokyo get along. Letting the current trade row get in the way of progress on North Korea, which gladly exploits such fissures in regional ties, presents a real security risk to Japan, South Korea, and to the stability of the East Asian region.Finally, Japan and South Korea shouldn't lose sight of countering China's growing influence and aggressiveness in the region. They don't have to look too far back in history to see examples of Beijing's willingness to use its clout to punish its neighbors. In 2017, Beijing targeted a range of South Korean industries to punish Seoul's decision to deploy a U.S. missile defense system; the South's tourism industry alone suffered a loss of nearly $8 billion. But when Russian and Chinese bombers last month flew over the disputed islets that Tokyo calls Takeshima and Seoul calls Dokdo, Japan and South Korea squabbled over who had the right to issue warnings to the intruders, rather than persuasively countering the provocative move. Seoul's jettisoning of the intelligence-sharing agreement this week has weakened the security relationship shared by the two countries. Chinese leaders have made it clear that they are willing to use coercion to drive a wedge between Washington and its allies in East Asia—to the detriment of the economic and security environment for Seoul and Tokyo—and it would behoove Moon and Abe to separate problems of the past from the challenges of the present.The tension surrounding the past is unlikely to go away anytime soon. Additionally, it will be difficult for either country to recover from the trust they lost due to their recent actions. And even if Moon and Abe temporarily reconcile, grievances and underlying tensions undoubtedly will resurface. But to mitigate the impact of these all-too-frequent flare-ups, so easily manipulated by opportunistic politicians, both countries must focus on their shared interests, challenges, and values. They must enable problem-solvers at the local, national, governmental and nongovernmental levels. This would go a long way toward building an infrastructure—and attendant habits—of cooperation. Jung H. Pak is a senior fellow and the SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies at The Brookings Institution. Ethan Jewell is a student at University of Texas at Austin. Image: Reuters
|
| The Earth Will Remember Humans for the Mess We Left Behind Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:00 AM PDT ![The Earth Will Remember Humans for the Mess We Left Behind]( "The Earth Will Remember Humans for the Mess We Left Behind") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Some scientists are trying to name our current geologic epoch after us – calling it the Anthropocene. That's no brag, because most of the changes we're making to our planet are embarrassing. We've caused huge shifts in the plants and animals sharing the planet with us, driven many species to extinction, left a layer of radioactive fallout from exploding nuclear bombs, accidentally changed the composition of our atmosphere, and left a layer of plastic that will in all likelihood still be around in a million years. Long after time and erosion have turned all our feats of art and engineering to dust, our mess will remain. Naming this era after ourselves is more of a confession. That acknowledgement is a first step toward strategies for minimizing our damaging influence.A fascinating feature in Nature this month describes the search for what scientists call a golden spike – a marker somewhere on the planet displaying a clear, sharp signature of significant change that would mark the dawn of the Anthropocene. What makes the process interesting isn't what they settle on as a starting point, but what it's revealing about the way humans have become an earth-changing force, and how long human-wrought changes will persist. With that understanding could come strategies for minimizing our damaging influence. These scientists are coming to favor atomic bomb blasts of the 1950s, which are leaving a long-lasting layer of isotopes in lake beds and deposits of ice. People have also considered the advent of widespread chicken farming, which leaves behind the bones of almost 60 billion birds each year. There is a subjectivity to this process, said planetary scientist David Grinspoon, whose book "Earth in Human Hands" makes a case for the Anthropocene. A person exploring Earth 50 million years from now may not find any obvious signs that we were here, he said, but if they were trained archaeologists and did some digging, they would see that something extraordinary happened.Naysayers argue that we don't warrant our own geologic era because we are too short-lived a species. We've only been around 200,000 years, and for most of this time we did nothing to cause lasting change. It wasn't until 50,000 years ago that people started to spread around the globe, leaving in our wake a wave of extinctions of the animals we liked to eat. And it was only in the last century – insignificant in geologic time – that we've really started adding new materials, such as plastics, to the geologic strata. Geologic time is long, and our existence short, at least so far. But we can already know that our influence on the planet will last into geologic time. The nuclear remnants of our bomb blasts will last for hundreds of thousands of years, and so will traces of those mountains of plastic we've been throwing away, some of which is already forming a new kind of stone, dubbed plastiglomerate. Scientists estimate that human-generated changes in the chemistry and temperature of our oceans will persist for thousands of years after we learn how to stop burning fossil fuel. In Greenland's ice cap, layers dating back to the Roman era show contamination with industrial lead. Leaded gasoline from the 20th century will leave an even bigger layer that also includes cadmium, arsenic and chemical changes that took place when the ozone layer sprung a hole. (While the edges of the ice are melting fast, the cap itself, and buried traces of our pollution, could last another million years.)Even more profound will be the change in the fossil record of life. The United Nations recently estimated that, globally, human activity is likely to cause a million species to go extinct. We don't really know how many species exist now; biologists have cataloged about two million but estimate a total of around 10 million. Another recent study showed that we've already radically changed the populations of living things – destroying 83% of all wild animals and half of wild plants. Currently, researchers estimate, 96% of mammals today are humans or livestock, and only 4% are wild animals. To make the Anthropocene official, a committee called the Anthropocene Working Group will need to agree on a golden spike and create a proposal, which would eventually come up for approval from the International Union of Geological Sciences. But even without official sanction, the idea is catching on in the popular imagination. Back in the 20th century, when I wrote about the predictions that greenhouse gases were warming the globe, people accused me of being arrogant for even thinking human beings could affect this vast planet. But the earth is not, as long believed, too vast to be changed by humans, and with a population of 7 billion and climbing, we are not too small to leave an indelible mark.To contact the author of this story: Faye Flam at fflam1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has written for the Economist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Psychology Today, Science and other publications. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Trump attacks Jeremy Corbyn for trying to oust Boris Johnson Posted: 28 Aug 2019 08:00 AM PDT ![Trump attacks Jeremy Corbyn for trying to oust Boris Johnson]( "Trump attacks Jeremy Corbyn for trying to oust Boris Johnson") This isn't the first time Trump has injected himself into the Brexit debate.
|
| UPDATE 2-U.S. sanctions networks it says are connected to Iran's government, military Posted: 28 Aug 2019 07:59 AM PDT ![UPDATE 2-U.S. sanctions networks it says are connected to Iran's government, military]( "UPDATE 2-U.S. sanctions networks it says are connected to Iran's government, military") The United States imposed sanctions on Wednesday on two networks it says helped boost Iran's nuclear program and evade U.S. and international sanctions to benefit Tehran's government and military, the Treasury Department said. One of the networks used a Hong Kong-based front company to avoid sanctions and target U.S. technology and components on behalf of people tied to Iran's government and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the U.S. Treasury Department said in a statement. The other network obtained aluminum alloy products controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a body that oversees the export of goods that can be used for nuclear weapons manufacturing, on behalf of companies owned or controlled by Iran's defense ministry, the department said.
|
| UPDATE 2-Iran's Rouhani calls for unity to overcome U.S. 'economic war' Posted: 28 Aug 2019 07:49 AM PDT ![UPDATE 2-Iran's Rouhani calls for unity to overcome U.S. 'economic war']( "UPDATE 2-Iran's Rouhani calls for unity to overcome U.S. 'economic war'") Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday called on citizens to unite to overcome an "economic war" waged by the United States, while his government said it would use diplomacy to try to solve the standoff even though it distrusted U.S. President Donald Trump. Tensions between Tehran and Washington have heightened since Trump pulled out of a 2015 deal to curb Iranian nuclear development with six world powers and reimposed sanctions on Iran. "We need to unite to fight against and to win this economic war that America has launched against Iran," Rouhani said in a televised speech.
|
| Brexit Backstop Won’t Be Traded for Vague Promises, Irish Warn Posted: 28 Aug 2019 07:42 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Follow @Brexit, sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, and tell us your Brexit story. Ireland needs more than promises from the U.K. to compromise in the Brexit stand-off, the nation's foreign minister warned.U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants the so-called backstop, the fallback mechanism to keep the Irish border invisible after Brexit, stripped from its divorce agreement with the European Union. Johnson says the device risks shackling the U.K. to EU rules indefinitely.In Paris on Wednesday, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney challenged the U.K. to table realistic alternatives to the backstop."We can't give up on something that we know works on the back of a promise without any idea as to how it's going to work," Coveney told reporters.Coveney said Northern Ireland's peace process was "fragile," and needed to be protected. Earlier, he said that the backstop is "currently" the only viable solution to border issue and even if the EU wanted to reopen the divorce deal, it's too late to do so ahead of the Oct. 31 deadline for the U.K. to leave."Even if we wanted to do that, which we don't, we can't do it in six or 10 weeks," he said.While the EU is open to exploring alternative arrangements, they must achieve the same objectives as the backstop, he said.\--With assistance from Francois de Beaupuy.To contact the reporters on this story: Peter Flanagan in Dublin at pflanagan23@bloomberg.net;Caroline Connan in Paris at cconnan@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Caroline Connan at cconnan@bloomberg.net, Dara DoyleFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| U.S. sanctions networks it says are connected to Iran's government, military Posted: 28 Aug 2019 07:30 AM PDT ![U.S. sanctions networks it says are connected to Iran's government, military]( "U.S. sanctions networks it says are connected to Iran's government, military") The United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on two networks it says are linked to Iran's government and military organizations, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday. One of the networks used a Hong Kong-based front company to evade U.S. and international sanctions and target U.S. technology and components for people tied to Iran's government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the U.S. Treasury Department said in a statement.
|
| Russia: No involvement in Berlin daytime slaying of Georgian Posted: 28 Aug 2019 07:17 AM PDT ![Russia: No involvement in Berlin daytime slaying of Georgian]( "Russia: No involvement in Berlin daytime slaying of Georgian") Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman on Wednesday denied media reports that Moscow may have been involved in the brazen daytime slaying of a Georgian man in Berlin. Berlin prosecutors have released little about Friday's killing, except to say the 40-year-old victim was shot by a cyclist, who was captured shortly afterward and identified as a 48-year-old Russian man. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia had nothing to do with the crime.
|
| Gazans bury policemen killed in rare attacks within strip Posted: 28 Aug 2019 07:14 AM PDT  Thousands of Palestinians took part Wednesday in funerals for three Hamas policemen killed the previous night in two coordinated bombings at checkpoints in Gaza City, which bore the hallmarks of extremists influenced by the Islamic State group. Hamas set up additional checkpoints across Gaza, inspecting passing cars and travelers' IDs. A security officer close to the investigation told The Associated Press that in the second blast at a traffic police checkpoint on Gaza City's coastal road, a suicide bomber blew himself up, killing a policeman.
|
| How Iran's F-14 Tomcats Fought a War (And Shot Down 160 Combat Planes) Posted: 28 Aug 2019 06:42 AM PDT  Iran's force of American-made F-14 Tomcat interceptors dominated the sky during the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988. F-14s reportedly downed more than 160 Iraqi planes.Journalist Kash Ryan in his book Air Combat Memoirs of the Iranian Air Force Pilots compiled first-hand accounts of some of these aerial battles, including one by F-14 radar intercept officer Capt. Parviz Moradi."Departing from 8th [Tactical Fighter Base] Isfahan as Dragon 5 flight piloted by then-major Amir Aslani to perform the day's [combat air patrol] over oil facilities near Kharg Island, we were vectored by ground based radar controllers to sweep the skies in anticipation of enemy intruders," Moradi told Ryan.From the book: > Most of the time our combat air patrols were done within the distinct shapes of parallel triangles. The base of the triangle was towards our own soil, while the two other arms of the triangle faced the enemy territory. This tactic would give us a better radar sweep and plenty of time to detect incoming enemy aircraft.> > Heading 90 degrees back after completing our first turn, Bushehr radar warned us that an enemy jet was right behind us. Going in afterburner, we did a sharp left turn to face the enemy head-on. I started sweeping the sky electronically, scanning the scope in order to locate the enemy jet. Shortly after our left turn, I managed to find an Iraqi jet on my Tactical Information Display. As soon as I locked on him, the sole Iraqi jet turned and ran back to Iraq. This happened one more time.> > Since we knew Iraqi SIGINT/ELINT posts were listening in on our conversation with ground radar controllers, I decided to hatch a plot to deceive the next Iraqi fighter. Through the intercom, I told Maj. Aslani of my plan. "Sir, I have a plan. We are going to ignore our radar controllers' warnings and we are going to delay our eventual turn toward the enemy fighter as long as possible in order to draw them further inland. Also, I request to be doing all the talking with radar controllers from now on."> > Maj. Aslani agreed with my plan and gave me the thumbs up. We did our routine turn once again inside the triangle and headed back towards base. As radar controller wasn't in on our plan he started to panic. "Dragon 5, enemy fighter is right behind you. Turn 270 degrees now!" I stayed silent. Seconds passed and once again an anxious radar controller came on to repeat the same warning. "Dragon 5 flight, you're being pursued. Turn 270 degrees now!" We stayed quiet yet again.> > These warnings continued. "Dragon 5 flight, can you read me? Enemy jet right behind you. Danger close. Turn 270 degrees right now!"> > The radar controller's warnings were also helpful. His continuous warnings gave us the possible location of this specific intruder that by now had come far inland in the hopes of hunting us. Moments later while maintaining our radio silence, I mic'd to Maj. Aslani. "Now!" And he immediately went to afterburner, turned towards the enemy jet and started an aerial duel. Even though, I now could see the Iraqi jet, I declared on radio so all sides could hear it. "I can't see the bandit. Where is it?"> > The radar officer gave me the latest radar data. I once again said, "I still can't see him!" And now a panicked ground radar controller begged us to just run away.> > My plan worked. Apparently the Iraqi side thinking we really couldn't see him came closer and was now in our trap. He must have thought we had a radar malfunction or were complete idiots. But it was too late. I had been able to run [track while scan radar mode] on him. He had no chance. I did a quick radar lock and my pilot Maj. Aslani launched it. At the same time, ground radar was screaming at us to disengage and run back.> > Our missile hit the Iraqi fighter head on as I shouted in the radio. "Enemy target destroyed. Long live Iran!" There was dead silence on the radio for a minute then we could hear the ground radar controllers breaking in cheers and clapping, which meant they were confirming our kill as well. It was crazy.David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix,War Is Boring and Machete Squad.
|
| Boris Johnson’s Brutal Game of Truth or Dare Posted: 28 Aug 2019 06:37 AM PDT ![Boris Johnson's Brutal Game of Truth or Dare]( "Boris Johnson's Brutal Game of Truth or Dare") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- The brawl over Brexit is getting dirty. Boris Johnson's decision to suspend parliament marks a sharp escalation of hostilities.The prime minister hasn't only increased the likelihood that Britain leaves the European Union without a deal on Oct. 31, he has dared the opposition to trigger a general election. Beyond Brexit, his plan risks unleashing an unprecedented constitutional crisis.Johnson's supporters justify the decision to prorogue parliament with three key arguments. First, that it is merely routine; second, that it is in the service of honoring the result of the 2016 referendum, which parliament is bent on frustrating; and third, that it will help the government in its eleventh-hour negotiations with the EU.You have to squint hard to see Johnson's decision as part of the normal course of things. It is true that parliament is normally suspended for a brief period before each new session and doesn't sit during the party conference season in September when lawmakers are at their respective annual meetings. Certainly, this session has dragged on; while most last a year, the current one started in June 2017.Yet by any other measure, the decision to prorogue now with the express intention of ensuring that a minority government's view prevails over the will of parliament – and on the most important issue to face the country since World War II – can only be considered extraordinary.The House of Commons Library notes that prorogation has rarely lasted longer than two weeks; this one will be for five. Some constitutional watchers suggest that it may violate the stipulation in the 1688 Bill of Rights that "for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."The last time the House was prorogued to get around opposition to a bill was in 1948, when the then Labour government legislated to restrict the power of the unelected House of Lords. Yet that was different from today: A majority of MPs wanted that bill to pass.The second argument – that the directly expressed will of the people should override that of the legislature – is highly dubious. There was nothing in the 2016 referendum, or indeed in the Leave campaign that Johnson fronted, which told voters that a no-deal Brexit would be an option, let alone the government's preferred choice. There was nothing that told the electorate of the potential costs. Nor is it fair to tar lawmakers as "remainers." Most have committed to manifestos supporting Brexit; their opposition is to leaving without a deal, for which there is also no great public support.But what of the argument that the EU will only move if its feet are put to the fire? If Brussels believes that parliament will stop Johnson, why should it give an inch? It is difficult to say for sure that at this late stage the EU will suddenly find a way to rewire the backstop to allow both sides to declare victory – but it looks highly unlikely.Johnson appears to be goading his opponents into calling a vote of no confidence that would trigger an election. He has lined up two scapegoats to blame during the campaign: the EU, for refusing to change the terms of Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement, and parliament for frustrating the will of the people. He wants to be able to claim that only his party can deliver Brexit after obstructionists in parliament and Brussels closed off more reasonable courses of action.Politically, this gamble may just pay off. If Johnson's most important objective is to win an election and stop Farage from cannibalizing the Conservative vote, elbowing parliament out of the way makes perfect sense.His timing looks to be spot on. Attempts by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to assemble a temporary government of national unity under his leadership have flopped spectacularly. Given the depth of opposition in parliament to a no-deal Brexit, that was an astonishing vote of no-confidence in Corbyn.At a meeting this week, opposition party leaders agreed that they would seek legislative means to block a no-deal Brexit. But that too wouldn't be straightforward as it would require taking control of the parliamentary timetable. Much will depend on whether Speaker John Bercow can offer assistance.Whatever he says, it is unclear whether Corbyn would welcome an election now. His poll ratings have been abysmal, and many voters distrust his party's confused stance on Brexit. He faces a stiff challenge from Jo Swinson's resurgent Liberal Democrat party, which has robustly opposed leaving the EU.Constitutionally, though, Johnson has unleashed forces he may be unable to control. Conservatives have always argued that the 2016 vote to leave the European Union was about restoring sovereignty to Westminster. He is now gagging parliament.Johnson could still be challenged. One route is through the courts. Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major has previously threatened litigation, while the Scottish National Party has already brought a legal challenge in Edinburgh. But the judges may be reluctant to prevent a prime minister from exercising the historic right to prorogue parliament.If the courts won't intervene, expect protests. "If Parliament is silenced on the biggest issue of our time we must take to the streets," Labour lawmaker David Lammy wrote on Twitter. Those threats may be overblown – Britain doesn't have the same tradition of street protests as France – but these aren't normal times.Johnson's bid to circumvent parliament has made the country's once stable legislature look impotent. The rage of lawmakers will rebound for weeks. The only question, for the prime minister, will be how it all plays out at the ballot box.To contact the author of this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Therese Raphael writes editorials on European politics and economics for Bloomberg Opinion. She was editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Boris Johnson’s Brutal Game of Truth or Dare Posted: 28 Aug 2019 06:37 AM PDT ![Boris Johnson's Brutal Game of Truth or Dare]( "Boris Johnson's Brutal Game of Truth or Dare") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- The brawl over Brexit is getting dirty. Boris Johnson's decision to suspend parliament marks a sharp escalation of hostilities.The prime minister hasn't only increased the likelihood that Britain leaves the European Union without a deal on Oct. 31, he has dared the opposition to trigger a general election. Beyond Brexit, his plan risks unleashing an unprecedented constitutional crisis.Johnson's supporters justify the decision to prorogue parliament with three key arguments. First, that it is merely routine; second, that it is in the service of honoring the result of the 2016 referendum, which parliament is bent on frustrating; and third, that it will help the government in its eleventh-hour negotiations with the EU.You have to squint hard to see Johnson's decision as part of the normal course of things. It is true that parliament is normally suspended for a brief period before each new session and doesn't sit during the party conference season in September when lawmakers are at their respective annual meetings. Certainly, this session has dragged on; while most last a year, the current one started in June 2017.Yet by any other measure, the decision to prorogue now with the express intention of ensuring that a minority government's view prevails over the will of parliament – and on the most important issue to face the country since World War II – can only be considered extraordinary.The House of Commons Library notes that prorogation has rarely lasted longer than two weeks; this one will be for five. Some constitutional watchers suggest that it may violate the stipulation in the 1688 Bill of Rights that "for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."The last time the House was prorogued to get around opposition to a bill was in 1948, when the then Labour government legislated to restrict the power of the unelected House of Lords. Yet that was different from today: A majority of MPs wanted that bill to pass.The second argument – that the directly expressed will of the people should override that of the legislature – is highly dubious. There was nothing in the 2016 referendum, or indeed in the Leave campaign that Johnson fronted, which told voters that a no-deal Brexit would be an option, let alone the government's preferred choice. There was nothing that told the electorate of the potential costs. Nor is it fair to tar lawmakers as "remainers." Most have committed to manifestos supporting Brexit; their opposition is to leaving without a deal, for which there is also no great public support.But what of the argument that the EU will only move if its feet are put to the fire? If Brussels believes that parliament will stop Johnson, why should it give an inch? It is difficult to say for sure that at this late stage the EU will suddenly find a way to rewire the backstop to allow both sides to declare victory – but it looks highly unlikely.Johnson appears to be goading his opponents into calling a vote of no confidence that would trigger an election. He has lined up two scapegoats to blame during the campaign: the EU, for refusing to change the terms of Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement, and parliament for frustrating the will of the people. He wants to be able to claim that only his party can deliver Brexit after obstructionists in parliament and Brussels closed off more reasonable courses of action.Politically, this gamble may just pay off. If Johnson's most important objective is to win an election and stop Farage from cannibalizing the Conservative vote, elbowing parliament out of the way makes perfect sense.His timing looks to be spot on. Attempts by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to assemble a temporary government of national unity under his leadership have flopped spectacularly. Given the depth of opposition in parliament to a no-deal Brexit, that was an astonishing vote of no-confidence in Corbyn.At a meeting this week, opposition party leaders agreed that they would seek legislative means to block a no-deal Brexit. But that too wouldn't be straightforward as it would require taking control of the parliamentary timetable. Much will depend on whether Speaker John Bercow can offer assistance.Whatever he says, it is unclear whether Corbyn would welcome an election now. His poll ratings have been abysmal, and many voters distrust his party's confused stance on Brexit. He faces a stiff challenge from Jo Swinson's resurgent Liberal Democrat party, which has robustly opposed leaving the EU.Constitutionally, though, Johnson has unleashed forces he may be unable to control. Conservatives have always argued that the 2016 vote to leave the European Union was about restoring sovereignty to Westminster. He is now gagging parliament.Johnson could still be challenged. One route is through the courts. Former Conservative Prime Minister John Major has previously threatened litigation, while the Scottish National Party has already brought a legal challenge in Edinburgh. But the judges may be reluctant to prevent a prime minister from exercising the historic right to prorogue parliament.If the courts won't intervene, expect protests. "If Parliament is silenced on the biggest issue of our time we must take to the streets," Labour lawmaker David Lammy wrote on Twitter. Those threats may be overblown – Britain doesn't have the same tradition of street protests as France – but these aren't normal times.Johnson's bid to circumvent parliament has made the country's once stable legislature look impotent. The rage of lawmakers will rebound for weeks. The only question, for the prime minister, will be how it all plays out at the ballot box.To contact the author of this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Therese Raphael writes editorials on European politics and economics for Bloomberg Opinion. She was editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| U.K. Companies Fret for Economy After Boris Johnson’s Latest Move Posted: 28 Aug 2019 06:29 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. The worst case Brexit for British companies is a step nearer to reality after Boris Johnson's latest move to force a departure from the European Union on Oct. 31.The prime minister's plan to suspend Parliament for almost five weeks ahead of the planned departure date means the chances of an economically damaging no-deal are on the rise. That's a possibility corporate lobbies have been warning against for years.The pound slumped after the announcement Wednesday, adding to the uncertainty that is already discouraging companies from investing."Businesses feel like Westminster is playing an endless game of political chess, while their futures and the health of the U.K. economy hang in the balance," said Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce. "None of the events of the last few days have given businesses greater confidence."A sudden imposition of trade barriers could induce a major supply and demand-side shock, economists say. A break in the harmonization of regulations between the U.K. and its largest trading partner alongside limits on the movement of people would also be devastating for services, the largest part of the British economy.The severity of the hit will ultimately depend on the extent of the disruption at the border and just how much the fallout knocks sentiment, according to Dan Hanson of Bloomberg Economics. If there is no deal, growth will probably slow sharply, though the economy should avoid a recession, he said. If there's a more disruptive break from the bloc, there could be a yearlong recession where output drops 2%.What Our Economist Says:"The chances of the U.K. leaving without a deal just took another leg higher."-- Dan Hanson. For the full INSIGHT, click here"No matter how much preparation the government and businesses do for no deal, only a good deal with the European Union protects jobs, communities and the economy," said a spokesman for the Confederation of British Industry. "This must be the relentless focus of politicians."Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has said that businesses are doing what they can to prepare, but they still expect output to fall. Speaking at a Federal Reserve symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming last week, Carney said that "the biggest economic headwind is weak business investment, which has stagnated over the past few years" and "there is overwhelming evidence that this is a direct result of uncertainties over the U.K.'s future trading relationship with the EU."It's not the first time that Johnson has clashed with companies. Long before he became prime minister, he reportedly responded to concerns about a so-called hard Brexit with a four-letter epithet at an event for EU diplomats in London last year. In his first speech as premier, he changed tack, saying he was "giving business the confidence to invest across the U.K."Business investment dropped 1.6% in the second quarter from a year earlier. The BOE sees it declining 2% this year and continuing to fall in 2020."We continue to urge firms to make whatever preparations they reasonably can," said Allie Renison, head of Europe and trade policy at the Institute of Directors. "We also hope to see more detail from No. 10 on its pathway to a deal and greater substance from the government on boosting overall preparedness."To contact the reporters on this story: Jill Ward in London at jward98@bloomberg.net;Eddie Spence in London at espence11@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Fergal O'Brien at fobrien@bloomberg.net, Brian Swint, Paul GordonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Brexit: Ireland will not support abolition of backstop, says Coveney Posted: 28 Aug 2019 06:22 AM PDT ![Brexit: Ireland will not support abolition of backstop, says Coveney]( "Brexit: Ireland will not support abolition of backstop, says Coveney") Ireland will not support an abolition of the so-called 'backstop" regarding Brexit, said Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney on Wednesday, who also said Ireland was committed to exploring other arrangements in future. "The ratification of the withdrawal agreement, including the now-famous backstop, cannot simply be renegotiated," added Coveney, speaking in Paris where he was attending a conference hosted by the 'Medef' French business organisation. Coveney said a "no-deal" Brexit was increasingly likely.
|
| Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg completes transatlantic crossing on zero-emissions yacht Posted: 28 Aug 2019 06:08 AM PDT  A 16-year-old Swedish climate activist has crossed the Atlantic on a zero-emissions sailboat to attend a conference on global warming. On Wednesday before dawn, Greta Thunberg tweeted: "Land!! The lights of Long Island and New York City ahead." She and a sailing crew encountered rough seas on the way to New York. They are expected to step off the boat at a marina in lower Manhattan on Wednesday afternoon. The teenager refused to fly to avoid a plane's gas emissions. Action against climate change has been a theme of protests she's led in Sweden that inspired student strikes in about 100 cities worldwide. She is also set to speak at the United Nations Climate Action Summit next month.
|
| Airstrikes in Syria's Idlib hit near Turkish military post Posted: 28 Aug 2019 05:55 AM PDT  Syrian government warplanes struck towns and villages Wednesday in the northwestern province of Idlib, including one near a Turkish observation post, opposition activists said. The intense airstrikes came a day after insurgents launched counterattacks on the edges of Idlib, near areas that were recently captured by government forces. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the airstrikes targeted the town of Maaret al-Numan and villages near it, with one hitting close to one of Turkey's 12 observation posts in Idlib.
|
| Afghan Peace Deal in Sight as U.S.-Taliban Talks Hit Final Stage Posted: 28 Aug 2019 05:48 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and the Taliban appear close to announcing an agreement to end nearly two decades of war in Afghanistan, which would include a timetable for foreign troop withdrawal and direct discussions between the militants and the local government.The withdrawal of the U.S. and NATO forces has been the most contentious point in the negotiations. The initial withdrawal is expected to include roughly 5,000 of the 14,000 U.S. troops still stationed in Afghanistan. In return, the Taliban must ensure it does not provide a base from where terrorist groups can carry out attacks against other countries, and to respect the civil and political rights of Afghan citizens.The ninth round of peace talks began in Qatar on Sunday and are continuing. Afghan authorities have been largely sidelined in the process and the Taliban have escalated attacks as the negotiations continue. The extremist group -- which controls or contests 50% of the country -- refuses to talk directly with the Afghan government until foreign troops leave.A spokesman for the Taliban's political office in Doha, Suhail Shaheen, said on Twitter Wednesday the militant group was close to finalizing the peace accord with the U.S., however there was no word from U.S. special envoy for the talks, Zalmay Khalilzad.President Ashraf Ghani's spokesman, Sediq Sediqqi, told reporters in Kabul that Khalilzad would meet the president in "a day or two days" to brief him on the talks and the details would then be shared with the public. Afghanistan will enter negotiations with the Taliban from a "position of strength" in order to safeguard the gains made in the past 18 years, Sediqqi said."We're hopeful the Taliban-U.S. Talks will result in comprehensive ceasefire and a direct negotiations between Taliban and Afghan government," he added. Potential ChaosStill, many fear that a rapid U.S. withdrawal might lead to chaos in Afghanistan.One clear danger is that the Taliban could sign a deal with the U.S. and then return to the battlefield, without agreeing to a ceasefire or intra-Afghan talks, said Michael Kugelman, South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Center."It's certainly a possibility, given how much of a battlefield advantage the Taliban would derive from a withdrawal of U.S. forces," Kugelman said in an email. "The group would have an opportunity for the ages to try to overthrow the Afghan government by force."In an online poll conducted by the country's largest news channel, Tolonews, 54% of the 800 respondents said they're "optimistic" the U.S.-Taliban peace talks can help end the war.There's a lot of pressure on Ghani -- who is seeking another five year term -- to postpone the presidential election, which is due on Sept. 28 and has already been delayed twice. The majority of the presidential candidates say peace with the Taliban should come before the elections, suggesting an interim government should be formed -- a suggestion Ghani has rejected."One of the worst-case scenarios for the peace process is that you get a US-Taliban deal, only to have all the progress and momentum squandered in an election that takes attention away from reconciliation and sharpens the political rivalries that already constrain movement on the reconciliation front," Kugelman said.The Taliban declared the presidential election process a "sham" and called on Afghans to boycott them or face death penalties, according to the group's spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed.IS GrowthThe talks have coincided with the growth of the Islamic State group in the region. This month alone, IS has claimed responsibility for an attack on a wedding in Kabul, in which 80 people died."ISIS would be a big winner from a US-Taliban deal," Kugelman said. "U.S. air power has pummeled the group in Afghanistan for several years, and a reduction of the U.S. force presence would ease a lot of that military pressure on ISIS."At the same time, Afghanistan's women -- who have won hard fought gains in education and employment since the Taliban were ousted in 2001 -- remain deeply concerned about any potential deal."The Taliban cannot be trusted, and we're gravely concerned over the possible negative consequences from the deal," said Mashal Roshan, a member of the Afghan Women's Network."The presence of international forces serve as a guarantor for the protection of women's rights. If they're gone, the Afghan women will lose hard-won gains in education, politics and other arenas of the government," Roshan added, urging the United Nations to monitor any deal that involves the Taliban.(Updates with Taliban spokesman's comment in 12th paragraph. An earlier version of the story corrected the presidential spokesman's name.)To contact the reporter on this story: Eltaf Najafizada in Kabul at enajafizada1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Ruth Pollard at rpollard2@bloomberg.net, Unni KrishnanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Mattis details differences with Trump over Nato allies and torture in new book Posted: 28 Aug 2019 05:18 AM PDT  Ex-defense secretary avoids direct criticism of the president in his memoir, Call Sign Chaos, but notes the pair disagreed over NatoJames Mattis in Washington DC, on 12 April 2018. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesJames Mattis, who quit as US defense secretary last year, highlights his sharp differences with Donald Trump over Nato allies and the use of torture in a new and eagerly awaited memoir.The book, Call Sign Chaos, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy. In it, Mattis avoids direct criticism of his former boss but offers some pointed comments that will probably be seized on by opponents of the president.The retired US marine corps general recalls being surprised in November 2016 when he was called by the then vice-president-elect, Mike Pence, and asked to meet Trump to discuss the job of defense secretary.Mattis describes being driven to the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and having an "amiable" meeting.But, he notes: "I figured that my strong support of Nato and my dismissal of the use of torture on prisoners would have the president-elect looking for another candidate."Trump had voiced support for torture during the 2016 campaign, suggesting he might order the military to break the law on interrogation tactics, including using waterboarding.He said: "Don't tell me it doesn't work – torture works."Mattis apparently managed to change Trump's mind. The president told the New York Times: "[Mattis] said: 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.' And I was very impressed by that answer."The pair also disagreed over Nato, which Trump described as "obsolete", the Iran nuclear deal, negotiations with North Korea and the creation of a space force. Mattis' sudden resignation last December came after Trump moved to withdraw all US troops from Syria.The book offers insight into the riddle of why some mainstream political and military figures have agreed to serve under a president widely seen as dangerous, dishonest and a threat to national security.Mattis writes: "In my view, when the president asks you to do something, you don't play Hamlet on the wall, wringing your hands. To quote a great American athletic company's slogan: 'Just do it.' So long as you are prepared, you say yes."But Mattis makes clear that his book – co-written with the author, combat veteran and former assistant secretary of defense Bing West – is about how his career in the marines brought him to to becoming defense secretary, not an exhaustive post-mortem on his 712 days in the role.Mattis offers a brisk but telling explanation of his departure: "When my concrete solutions and strategic advice, especially keeping faith with allies, no longer resonated, it was time to resign, despite the limitless joy I felt serving alongside our troops in defense of the constitution."Mattis, who in 2017 urged troops stationed abroad to "hold the line" despite partisan division at home, expands on that point in his book."Unlike in the past, where we were unified and drew in allies, currently our own commons seems to be breaking apart," he writes."What concerns me most as a military man, coming out of a diverse yet unified culture, is not our external adversaries; instead, it is our internal divisiveness."He adds: "We are diving into hostile tribes cheering against each other, fueled by emotion and a mutual disdain that jeopardizes our future, instead of rediscovering our common ground and finding solutions."Many commentators blame Trump for stoking division, particularly along racial lines. Mattis, who has returned to the Hoover Institution thinktank at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, does not identity the president as the source of such rancor.
|
