Multiple new coronavirus variants have been discovered across several continents, from Europe to Africa to South America. Confirmed cases keep popping up in dozens of countries, Canada included.
Scientists are now racing to understand these sets of mutations, all while concerns are growing over their ability to infect people more easily or, in some cases, potentially evade the army of antibodies we create after being infected or vaccinated.
Read more at:
Scientists
racing to understand new COVID-19 variants and whether they will derail vaccination efforts | CBC News
with news about and related
to the EU, the Netherlands,
and Almere - Europe's most modern multi-cultural city
Showing posts with label Influence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Influence. Show all posts
January 20, 2021
December 6, 2018
Saudi-US Relations: A Guide to Saudi Arabia’s Influence in Washington - by Emma Ashford
At this point,
the evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman knew about—and
likely ordered—the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is compelling. After
CIA Director Gina Haspel’s presentation to Congress earlier this week, Senator
Bob Corker told reporters that a jury would find the prince guilty “in
thirty minutes.” The only holdout is the president, who continues to stand by
his statement that “we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder
of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi.”
His support for Saudi leadership remains unwavering, even in the face of opposition from media, Congress and his own intelligence agencies.
Indeed, between special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation’s increasing focus on Gulf money, and Trump’s repeated support for the Saudis and Emiratis in regional and international affairs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that perhaps it’s these states—not Russia—who have undue influence over the president. While there is no suggestion so far of quid pro quo between the president and his friends in the Gulf, the shady connections built during and after the 2016 election have combined with a broader network of money, personal ties, and some genuine policy agreements to produce what is perhaps the most pro-Saudi administration in U.S. histor
The United States has long pursued a generally pro-Saudi policy in the Middle East, a legacy of the Cold War when the United States relied heavily on the Saudis to push back against Soviet influence. Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical importance–and its position as the world’s swing producer of oil–has often led U.S. policymakers to minimize criticism of Saudi Arabia. Even as fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were shown to be Saudi citizens, for example, the George W. Bush administration pushed to maintain the close U.S.-Saudi relationship while privately criticizing Saudi support for religious extremism. The Trump administration, however, has taken the United States’ selective vision on Saudi Arabia to new extremes.
In May 2018, The New York Times reported that the Mueller investigation into foreign influence in the 2016 election was looking at not just Russian, but possible Middle Eastern influence: Diplomats from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), it appeared, had facilitated meetings between Russian officials, mercenary-for-hire Erik Prince, and members of the Trump transition team. The lens quickly widened to include adviser to the Emirati government George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who helped to set up meetings at Trump Tower with an envoy for Saudi and Emirati leaders, and key officials including Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner.
In addition, the special counsel is apparently interested in Nader’s work on behalf of Saudi and Emirati leaders, funneling at least $2.5 million in Gulf money to Republican donor Elliott Broidy. Some of it appears to have been used for anti-Qatar lobbying following the blockade of that country in June 2017: A separate New York Times report in May 2018 pointed to two Washington, D.C., conferences featuring anti-Qatar views held by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Hudson Institute.
The Gulf states have been among the biggest spenders at Trump hotels and resorts since he was elected. In August of this year, the Trump hotel in New York finally reversed a two-year trend of falling revenues when Mohammed bin Salman’s extensive entourage paid premium prices for a last-minute stay. The Saudi government has also been among the biggest spenders at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel, spending $270,000 in 2016 alone.
Though the Trump Organization has promised that all profits received from foreign governments at these properties will be donated to the Treasury, ethics experts dispute the methods used for calculating these profits, suggesting that the president continues to profit from foreign spending. Several of Trump’s most influential backers–such as Broidy or the investor Tom Barrack—also profit handsomely from business ties and interests in the Gulf States.
The secrecy surrounding Trump’s financial affairs makes it difficult to know exactly how extensive these ties are. During the firestorm following Khashoggi’s death, Trump tweeted that he had no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. As various journalists noted, the statement could be technically true—in other words, no investments physically located within the country’s boundaries—while still misleading, given the Trump hotels’ many Saudi customers. And as always, Trump’s family members further complicate the picture. Over the last few years, for example, the Kushner family’s attempts to refinance or sell their disastrous New York real estate holdings included a failed attempt to secure funding from Qatar–a fact that’s hard not to see as relevant when evaluating Kushner’s unusual hostility toward Doha.
Read more: A Guide to Saudi Arabia’s Influence in Washington | The New Republic
His support for Saudi leadership remains unwavering, even in the face of opposition from media, Congress and his own intelligence agencies.
Indeed, between special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation’s increasing focus on Gulf money, and Trump’s repeated support for the Saudis and Emiratis in regional and international affairs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that perhaps it’s these states—not Russia—who have undue influence over the president. While there is no suggestion so far of quid pro quo between the president and his friends in the Gulf, the shady connections built during and after the 2016 election have combined with a broader network of money, personal ties, and some genuine policy agreements to produce what is perhaps the most pro-Saudi administration in U.S. histor
The United States has long pursued a generally pro-Saudi policy in the Middle East, a legacy of the Cold War when the United States relied heavily on the Saudis to push back against Soviet influence. Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical importance–and its position as the world’s swing producer of oil–has often led U.S. policymakers to minimize criticism of Saudi Arabia. Even as fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were shown to be Saudi citizens, for example, the George W. Bush administration pushed to maintain the close U.S.-Saudi relationship while privately criticizing Saudi support for religious extremism. The Trump administration, however, has taken the United States’ selective vision on Saudi Arabia to new extremes.
In May 2018, The New York Times reported that the Mueller investigation into foreign influence in the 2016 election was looking at not just Russian, but possible Middle Eastern influence: Diplomats from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), it appeared, had facilitated meetings between Russian officials, mercenary-for-hire Erik Prince, and members of the Trump transition team. The lens quickly widened to include adviser to the Emirati government George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who helped to set up meetings at Trump Tower with an envoy for Saudi and Emirati leaders, and key officials including Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner.
In addition, the special counsel is apparently interested in Nader’s work on behalf of Saudi and Emirati leaders, funneling at least $2.5 million in Gulf money to Republican donor Elliott Broidy. Some of it appears to have been used for anti-Qatar lobbying following the blockade of that country in June 2017: A separate New York Times report in May 2018 pointed to two Washington, D.C., conferences featuring anti-Qatar views held by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Hudson Institute.
The Gulf states have been among the biggest spenders at Trump hotels and resorts since he was elected. In August of this year, the Trump hotel in New York finally reversed a two-year trend of falling revenues when Mohammed bin Salman’s extensive entourage paid premium prices for a last-minute stay. The Saudi government has also been among the biggest spenders at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel, spending $270,000 in 2016 alone.
Though the Trump Organization has promised that all profits received from foreign governments at these properties will be donated to the Treasury, ethics experts dispute the methods used for calculating these profits, suggesting that the president continues to profit from foreign spending. Several of Trump’s most influential backers–such as Broidy or the investor Tom Barrack—also profit handsomely from business ties and interests in the Gulf States.
The secrecy surrounding Trump’s financial affairs makes it difficult to know exactly how extensive these ties are. During the firestorm following Khashoggi’s death, Trump tweeted that he had no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. As various journalists noted, the statement could be technically true—in other words, no investments physically located within the country’s boundaries—while still misleading, given the Trump hotels’ many Saudi customers. And as always, Trump’s family members further complicate the picture. Over the last few years, for example, the Kushner family’s attempts to refinance or sell their disastrous New York real estate holdings included a failed attempt to secure funding from Qatar–a fact that’s hard not to see as relevant when evaluating Kushner’s unusual hostility toward Doha.
Read more: A Guide to Saudi Arabia’s Influence in Washington | The New Republic
November 14, 2018
USA: The Mueller Probe: Mueller seeking more details on Nigel Farage, key Russia inquiry target says
Robert Mueller is seeking more information about Nigel Farage for his
investigation into Russian interference in US politics, according to a
target of the inquiry who expects to be criminally charged.
Jerome Corsi, a conservative author, said prosecutors working for Mueller questioned him about Farage, the key campaigner behind Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, two weeks ago in Washington.
Corsi said investigators for the special counsel also pressed him for information on Ted Malloch, a London-based American academic with ties to Farage, who informally advised Donald Trump and was interviewed by FBI agents earlier this year.
“They asked about both Nigel and Ted Malloch, I can affirm that they did,” Corsi told the Guardian on Tuesday. “But I’m really not going into detail because I respect the special counsel and the legal process.”
Mueller’s interest in Farage comes amid questions in the UK about whether Russia attempted to influence the June 2016 vote to leave the European Union, and Brexit’s most vocal political supporters.
Note EU-Digest: Nigel Farage - the King of the British Brexit drama is now also eyed by the Mueller investigation, in particular, as it relates to his connection with the Russians and Donald Trump.
Once again we see how dangerous populism is to basic human rights values, whether it comes from Donald Trump, Marian LePen, Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Jörg Haider ,Jair Bolsonaro, Victor Orban, Lech Kaczyński, and the list goes on and on.
Populism is a fast growing danger and must be stopped, before it destroys humanity..
Read more: Mueller seeking more details on Nigel Farage, key Russia inquiry target says
Jerome Corsi, a conservative author, said prosecutors working for Mueller questioned him about Farage, the key campaigner behind Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, two weeks ago in Washington.
Corsi said investigators for the special counsel also pressed him for information on Ted Malloch, a London-based American academic with ties to Farage, who informally advised Donald Trump and was interviewed by FBI agents earlier this year.
“They asked about both Nigel and Ted Malloch, I can affirm that they did,” Corsi told the Guardian on Tuesday. “But I’m really not going into detail because I respect the special counsel and the legal process.”
Mueller’s interest in Farage comes amid questions in the UK about whether Russia attempted to influence the June 2016 vote to leave the European Union, and Brexit’s most vocal political supporters.
Note EU-Digest: Nigel Farage - the King of the British Brexit drama is now also eyed by the Mueller investigation, in particular, as it relates to his connection with the Russians and Donald Trump.
Once again we see how dangerous populism is to basic human rights values, whether it comes from Donald Trump, Marian LePen, Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders, Jörg Haider ,Jair Bolsonaro, Victor Orban, Lech Kaczyński, and the list goes on and on.
Populism is a fast growing danger and must be stopped, before it destroys humanity..
Read more: Mueller seeking more details on Nigel Farage, key Russia inquiry target says
Labels:
Brexit,
Britain,
Donald Trump,
Influence,
Mueller Probe,
Nigel Farage,
Populism,
USA
February 2, 2016
Europe’s Declining Influence: Europe’s Growing Illiberalism - by Judy Dempsey
European politicians frozen in time on unity |
On May 1 of that year, eight countries from Eastern and Central Europe became EU members. Poland’s Mission to the EU threw a marvelous party. There was a cacophony of languages. There was dancing, singing, and a real sense of relief. Poland and other countries in the region had returned to Europe.
There was also a sense that this bigger, united EU was ready to exert its influence beyond its borders. Almost twelve years later, that Europe is hardly recognizable.
Europe has retreated into its shell. With the exception of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and her finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, both of whom understand what is happening to Europe, EU leaders are acting as if they have no obligation to defend Europe’s values and the principles of freedom and openness. More worryingly, they don’t seem to care about the EU’s influence in the world.
This is confirmed by a new report by the World Economic Forum called Europe: What to watch out for in 2016-2017. To say it makes grim reading is an understatement. “European leaders must deliver solutions, and fast, if they want to prevent support for the EU [from] imploding in coming years,” the report states.
The EU has always had its share of doomsayers. But what is particularly worrying about this report is the Eurobarometer survey it cites. Respondents were asked what were the most important issues facing the EU at the moment. The first in the list was migration, mentioned by some 58 percent of those surveyed.
The last was the EU’s influence in the world, cited by about 6 percent. What a depressing indictment of Europe’s priorities: influence doesn’t matter.
The report also reflects how the EU’s influence inside Europe is waning, and this is more troubling. If the EU’s role is weakening or if the bloc is less attractive even to its own members, how can the EU have influence beyond its borders?
The EU’s values are under threat in many member states. The Polish, Hungarian, and Slovene publics are intent on upholding the role of the traditional family only months after the Irish, once a bastion of Catholicism, voted in a referendum to legalize gay marriage. Warsaw and Budapest are meddling in the courts and the media—not that Italy’s former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi had any qualms over how he used his media empire to further his own interests.
The members of the Visegrad Group, which consists of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, want nothing to do with the refugees (read Muslims) fleeing the wars in Syria and Iraq. They are not alone. Other countries across Europe are closing their borders too, mostly in response to the growing appeal of populists who are Euroskeptic, oppose immigration, and fear globalization. The November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris gave the populists a boost.
Those issues aside, the refugee crisis has exposed the inability of the EU to deal with the challenge of migration. Above all, it has shown that most European leaders do not see the connection between helping the refugees and the EU’s influence.
Refugees, migrants, and students who are offered the opportunity to live, work, and study in a democratic country give something back to that country if they remain and integrate. As the Economist argued in its January 29 issue, if migrants and students return to their homeland with new skills, they are more likely to do business with the country that welcomed them.
Other reports make similar arguments about Europe’s dwindling influence. The Eurasia Group’s Top Risks 2016 includes a chapter called “Closed Europe.” In it, authors Ian Bremmer and Cliff Kupchan argue that the rise of populism and nationalism, the erosion of the rule of law, and the risks to the Schengen system of open borders are chiseling away at the principles on which the EU was founded. “Closed Europe is first and foremost a Europe that closes itself up to the outside world, and whose countries close themselves up to one another,” the authors write.
Merkel is key to the EU’s future and influence. She has kept the eurozone countries afloat, although the single currency’s woes are far from over. She has kept the EU together in standing up to Russia despite wavering from her Social Democrat coalition partners and other EU leaders. She has tried to preserve Europe’s values of humanity and decency through her open-door policy toward the refugees.
Yet for all that, Merkel has been pilloried by several European leaders. She has been denied the solidarity that Germany had unflinchingly extended to its EU allies when asked. As a report by Citi GPS argues, the basic tenets of the European model of liberal democracy that Merkel is trying to defend are being challenged. And with it, Europe’s influence.
Read more: Europe’s Declining Influence, Europe’s Growing Illiberalism - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)