Syria: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - by James Downie

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that Donald Trump is always in want of praise from his television. Though other presidents have been busy with the job of being president, cable news — and tweeting about what he’s watching on cable news — is the centerpiece of Trump’s morning and evening routines. It’s clear that what the media cover and how they portray him has a tremendous influence on Trump: This week, the pictures of Tuesday’s chemical attack by Syria played a crucial role in Trump’s decision to order a missile strike Thursday against a Syrian airfield. The president’s sensitivity to his media image makes it all the more important for outlets to be cautious in their coverage of the missile strike and its aftermath.

Fourteen years ago, the media breathlessly reported the George W. Bush administration’s charges against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and then rhapsodized over “shock and awe” in the war’s early months. One would hope that the United States’ subsequent struggle in Iraq (and Afghanistan) might lead talking heads to be more muted or skeptical this time, but Thursday’s coverage suggested otherwise. MSNBC anchor Brian Williams described Pentagon footage of missile launches as “beautiful.” The New York Times headlined one piece in treacly fashion, “On Syria attack, Trump’s heart came first” (before later changing it). Parades of guests largely praised the missile launches as the right course of action.

By contrast, the networks did not focus much on whether it was concerning that Trump had flipped within a week on intervening in Syria, or what Trump’s next steps would be. (It’s worth noting that, after sending 400 Marines to Syria in March, the administration has stopped disclosing how many U.S. troops are deployed there.) There was even less discussion of the legality of the strike, even though Congress had not authorized it. (The Trump administration even forgot to include a justification in its original set of internal talking points.) And absent almost entirely, with the notable exception of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, was any extended dwelling on the United States’ not-so-stellar record of Mideast interventions.

Read more: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - The Washington Post

Syria: US forces fire 'some 50' Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian base

Tomahawk Cruise missile

The US military has fired ‘some 50’ Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian aircraft, an airstrip and fuel stations according to American authorities.

An official confirmed the site targeted is under the control of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. US media says the airfield is located near Homs. The Pentagon confirmed the exact objective was the Shayrat airfield.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Speaking ahead of the strikes, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Assad should have no role in a future Syria.

Ordered by President Donald Trump, the strikes follow a suspected chemical attack on rebel-held Idlib, in which more than 70 people were killed.

He later said: “Today I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched.”

The strikes were, he said, in the national security interests of the US.

Trump’s order to launch the missiles came a day after he accused his Syrian counterpart of responsibility for a deadly chemical attack Assad’s government denies carrying out.

“No child of God should ever suffer such horror,” Trump said in a statement following the military action.

EU-Digest: We have not always been very optimistic about President Trumps actions, but this one was a good move which not only puts Assad on notice but also the Russians. 

Read more: US forces fire 'some 50' Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian base | Euronews

European Union - EU boss threatens to break up US in retaliation for Trump Brexit support - by Nick Gutteridge

In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for California, or Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if US President Donald Trump does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU.

The remarks are diplomatic dynamite at a time when relations between Washington and Brussels are already strained over Europe’s meagre contributions to NATO and the US leader’s open preference for dealing with national governments.

A spokesman for the bloc later said that the remarks were not meant to be taken literally, but also tellingly did not try to pass them off as humorous and insisted the EU chief was making a serious comparison.

They are by far the most outspoken intervention any senior EU figure has made about Mr Trump and are likely to dismay some European leaders who were hoping to seek a policy of rapprochement with their most important ally.

Speaking at the centre-right European People Party’s (EPP) annual conference in Malta yesterday afternoon, the EU Commission boss did not hold back in his disdain for the White House chief’s eurosceptic views.

He said: “Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same.

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of California, Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.”

Mr Juncker's comments did not appear to be made in jest and were delivered in a serious tone, although one journalist did report some "chuckles" in the audience and hinted the EU boss may have been joking. The remarks came in the middle of an angry speech in which the top eurocrat railed widely against critics of the EU Commission.

And reacting to the furore which followed them, EU Commission deputy chief spokesman Alexander Winterstein explained: "You will have seen that this is not the first time the President draws this analogy and I think he’s making a point that is as simple as it is valid.

"He does not suggest that certain states should secede from the United States and at the same time I think he considers it also not terribly appropriate for other heads of states to suggest that member states of the EU leave the EU. So I think that’s the comparison that he’s drawing."

Read more:  more: European Union - EU boss threatens to break up US in retaliation for Trump Brexit support | Politics | News | Express.co.

Dutch Political Scene: Why the Dutch need three months to form a government

Two weeks after the Dutch election, the politician leading talks to form a new coalition says it may take three months or more. But far-right leader Geert Wilders, whose party came second, is nowhere to be seen.

He may be the firebrand Dutch politician who dominated the country's most divisive election campaign in years, but Geert Wilders and his anti-immigration Party for Freedom (PVV) have no option but to watch from the sideline as four mainstream parties seek to build the Netherlands' next government.

Talks to form a new coalition, led by incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte, began immediately after the March 15 general election. But the main party leaders have refused to deal with the PVV, despite it winning the second-largest number of seats in parliament.

Since World War II, Dutch governments have taken an average of 72 days to be decided, compared to four to six weeks for a typical German coalition. The Dutch record is nearly seven months in 1977, but even that pales in comparison to its neighbor, Belgium, who after its 2010 election took 541 days to agree to a coalition.

Center-right politician Edith Schippers, whose job it is to achieve a new alliance to run the country, believes the new government won't be in place until July at the earliest. On Wednesday, she gave parliament a progress report on negotiations, warning that an agreement before Easter was "highly unlikely," Dutch public broadcaster NOS reported.

So why does coalition-building take so long in the Netherlands, especially when Wilders - the most divisive political player - is not participating?

"What makes it difficult is our truly multi-party parliament, with 13 parties now represented in the lower house," Professor Ruud Koole, a political scientist at Leiden University, told DW. He said Rutte's liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) would not be content with a minority government.

"You don't really have big parties anymore that dominate a coalition. The VVD now needs three other parties to participate, and that takes a long time," Koole said.

Read more: Why the Dutch need three months to form a government | News | DW.COM | 30.03.2017

France: Marine Le Pen: Loans from Russia - Who's funding France's far right? - by Gabriel Gatehouse

Putin and LePen: Is LePen doing her banking in Russia ?

When Marine Le Pen appeared in the Kremlin on 24 March, it was Vladimir Putin himself who gave voice to the thought that was surely on many people's minds:

"I know that the presidential campaign is developing actively in France," the Russian president said, adding: "Of course, we do not want to influence events in any way."

The Russian president appeared to be suppressing a grin as he spoke those words. Marine Le Pen appeared unperturbed.

She repeated her support for Moscow's annexation of Crimea, and her opposition to the sanctions subsequently imposed by the EU. If elected to the Elysee Palace, she pledged: "I would envisage lifting the sanctions quite quickly."

So the meeting was a win for both. Madame Le Pen looked like a world-leader-in-waiting; Mr Putin received assurances from a woman who might become president of France, and who, like him, opposes the EU and Nato.

But there is more to the relationship between Mr Putin and Ms Le Pen than ideological convergence. Because of the National Front's racist and anti-Semitic past, French banks have declined to lend the party money.

So Marine Le Pen has been forced to look elsewhere for financing.

In 2014, the National Front took Russian loans worth €11m (£9.4m). One of the loans, for €9m, came from a small bank, First Czech Russian Bank, with links to the Kremlin.

The loan was brokered by Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, an energy consultant turned MEP, who has called himself "Mr Mission Impossible".

Read more: - by Gabriel GatehouseMarine Le Pen: Who's funding France's far right? - BBC News

Turkish Referendum: Turkish citizens living abroad have started voting at their Embassies and Consulates - by RM

Voting on referendum for Turks abroad  started March 27

Large numbers of Turks all over the world have started going  to the polls since March 27 to vote yes or no on a new Turkish Constitution,

This referendum which President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is currently putting to vote around the world and in Turkey on April 16 will bring about a complete overhaul in the Turkish system of governance.

The change will abolish the office of the prime minister and concentrate dictatorial power in the president’s hands.

If the referendum is successful, Erdoğan could stay on as president not only for two terms, until 2029, but also uncontested.

Unfortunately, all opposition is just about wiped out, due to the systematic crackdown against any dissent in Turkey by President Erdogan.

Turks in Turkey today seem reluctant to protest this anti-democratic (Referendum) move.

In Turkey itself the Pew Research Center finds that on a number of issues, Turks are almost evenly split between those who are happy with Erdogan’s leadership and the state of the nation, and those who believe the former Istanbul mayor is leading the country down the wrong path. Overall, 44% are satisfied with the country’s direction, while 51% are dissatisfied. Half say the economy is doing well, while 46% think it is in bad shape. Forty-eight percent say Erdogan is having a good influence on the country, while  the same percentage believes he is having a negative impact.

Young and old taking their voting rights very serious

There are some 7 million Turks living outside Turkey, of which close to 5 million live in Europe, approximately half a million in the US, and about 44.000 in Canada. The rest are scattered  around the world

Given early exit polls, verified by EU-Digest, the yes vote in Europe is ahead by about 2 % , while in the US and Canada, which both have a larger number of higher educated and economically more prosperous Turks than in Europe, the no vote is ahead by close to 35 %

With Democracy seemingly  on the way out in Turkey it is remarkable, that when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Turkey last week he failed to raise concerns that the country may be sliding toward a dictatorship and made no mention at all of mass arrests of protesters and the purge of opponents that followed last year’s failed coup attempt, or the crackdown on the news media.  Turkey now has more than half of the world’s journalists in jail.

Turkey is also  internally at war with the Kurds, which make up close to a quarter of its population,

As of today the Erdogan Government has dismissed over 130,000 people from their jobs and filled the prisons with them. Also some 6,300 academics were fired from their jobs, while fifteen universities were  closed.

Bottom-line, a win for NO in the referendum is probably the last chance for Turkey to reestablish a more positive image of the country abroad and the fact that Democracy there is not totally dead.  

EU-Digest

France- danger looms with LePen - Is Emmanuel Macron the new Napoleon Bonaparte of France? - "lets hope so" - by Dominique Moisi

Sixty years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome, France is poised to hold an election that could make or break the European Union.

A victory for the pro-EU independent centrist Emmanuel Macron could be a positive turning point, with France rejecting populism and deepening its connections with Germany. If, however, French voters hand the presidency to the far-right National Front’s Marine Le Pen – who was, tellingly, just warmly received by Vladimir Putin in Moscow – the long European project will be finished.

Clearly, this is no ordinary French election. With the EU’s survival on the line, the stakes are higher than in any election in the history of the Fifth Republic. So, does France’s nationalist, xenophobic right have a real chance of coming to power? 

Read the complete report View: Is Emmanuel Macron the new Napoleon Bonaparte of France?