Connect with us
Navalny, a fierce critic of the Kremlin, became gravely ill on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow on August 20. He was treated at the Charité Hospital in Berlin and was discharged in late September.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirmed Tuesday that blood and urine samples taken from Navalny showed the presence of Novichok, a Soviet-era group of nerve agents. A Novichok agent was also used in a March 2018 attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the English city of Salisbury.

The foreign ministers of France and Germany released a joint statement Wednesday saying they were putting forward a proposal to European partners that target “individuals deemed responsible for this crime and breach of international norms,” including Russian officials and entities involved in the country’s Novichok chemical weapon program.

“A murder attempt has been made on Russian soil, against a Russian opposition figure, using a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia,” the statement said.

“We believe that there is no credible explanation for the poisoning of Mr Navalny other than Russian involvement and responsibility,” the pair said in a statement.

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said Britain would work with its international partners to take such sanctions forward. “The UK stands side by side with our German and French partners in our response to the abhorrent poisoning of Alexey Navalny,” he said in a statement Wednesday evening.

“Despite having a clear case to answer, the Russian authorities continue to make no credible attempt to investigate this attack. There is no plausible explanation for Mr Navalny’s poisoning other than Russian involvement and responsibility for this appalling attack.”

The Kremlin has strongly denied any involvement in Navalny’s poisoning, and offered to cooperate with Germany in an investigation into the matter, according to state news agency TASS.

TASS previously reported that Russia had “eliminated” all warfare agents, including Novichok, citing Sergei Naryshkin, the Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service. “[Warfare agents] were eliminated in accordance with OPCW procedures and rules which was properly documented. Any speculation Russia still produces or keeps in stock the old reserves of chemical warfare agents are disinformation, of course,” Naryshkin reportedly said.

Asked Tuesday about the OPCW findings, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists, “we do not have the information yet.”

Journalists Gaëlle Fournier in Paris and Nadine Schmidt in Berlin contributed to this report.

Source link

0

Politics

Trump comment on ‘blowing up’ Nile Dam angers Ethiopia

109560489 05693160 9ead 47bd bd9a 1c1244f22b58

image copyrightReuters

image captionThe dam will be the biggest hydro-electric project in Africa

Ethiopia’s prime minister has said his country “will not cave in to aggressions of any kind” after President Donald Trump suggested Egypt could destroy a controversial Nile dam.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is at the centre of a long-running dispute involving Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan.

Mr Trump said Egypt would not be able to live with the dam and might “blow up” the construction.

Ethiopia sees the US as siding with Egypt in the dispute.

The US announced in September that it would cut some aid to Ethiopia after it began filling the reservoir behind the dam in July.

Why is the dam disputed?

Egypt relies for the bulk of its water needs on the Nile and is concerned supplies could be cut off and its economy undermined as Ethiopia takes control of the flow of Africa’s longest river.

Once complete, the $4bn (£3bn) structure on the Blue Nile in western Ethiopia will be Africa’s largest hydro-electric project.

The speed with which Ethiopia fills up the dam will govern how severely Egypt is affected – the slower the better as far as Cairo is concerned. That process is expected to take several years.

  • Who owns the River Nile – and why it matters

  • Egypt fumes as Ethiopia celebrates over Nile dam
  • How the Nile’s mega dam will be filled

Sudan, further upstream than Egypt, is also concerned about water shortages.

Ethiopia, which announced the start of construction in 2011, says it needs the dam for its economic development.

Negotiations between the three countries were being chaired by the US, but are now overseen by the African Union.

What did the Ethiopian PM say?

PM Abiy Ahmed did not address Mr Trump’s remarks directly, but there appears to be little doubt what prompted his robust comments.

Ethiopians would finish the dam, he vowed.

“Ethiopia will not cave in to aggression of any kind,” he said. “Ethiopians have never kneeled to obey their enemies, but to respect their friends. We won’t do it today and in the future.”

Threats of any kind over the issue were “misguided, unproductive and clear violations of international law”.

image copyrightReuters
image captionSudan is worried too – the Blue and White Niles meet in Khartoum

Why did Trump get involved?

The president was on the phone to Sudan’s Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu in front of reporters at the White House on Friday.

The occasion was Israel and Sudan’s decision to agree diplomatic relations in a move choreographed by the US.

The subject of the dam came up and Mr Trump and Mr Hamdok expressed hopes for a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

But Mr Trump also said “it’s a very dangerous situation because Egypt is not going to be able to live that way”.

He continued: “And I said it and I say it loud and clear – they’ll blow up that dam. And they have to do something.”

image copyrightReuters
image captionThe dam came up in a phone call with Sudan’s prime minister

What is the state of the negotiations?

Mr Abiy maintains that the negotiations have made more progress since the African Union began mediation.

But there are fears that Ethiopia’s decision to start filling the reservoir could overshadow hopes of resolving key areas, such what happens during a drought and how to resolve future disputes.

Related Topics

  • Nile

  • Sudan
  • Donald Trump
  • Egypt
  • Ethiopia

Source link

0
Continue Reading

Politics

Boris Johnson used to be the Teflon man of British politics, brushing off scandals, gaffes and mistakes. Not any more

200724092221 boris johnson face mask 0713 super tease

Now Johnson’s plans appear ruined. He’d wanted to use his personal enthusiasm for Brexit to instil a fresh sense of optimism that the UK’s future was brighter outside the European Union. Free from the Brussels bureaucracy, Johnson’s government vowed to address the UK’s socio-economic imbalance that in some sense led to Brexit by “leveling up” deprived areas. He would also seek to strengthen the bond between the four nations of the UK, which had been stretched to near-breaking point amid the bitterness following the 2016 referendum. In short, the man who led the campaign that caused so much division was on a charm offensive to heal the country.

However, 10 months on, his government is short on resources and losing good will. Johnson’s opponents point to numerous errors made early in the pandemic over testing and confusing messaging over lockdowns, the highest death count in Europe and worst recession of any major economy as evidence of his failures. Worse, members of his own party fear that his lack of attention to detail and instinct for combative politics is causing a shift in the PM’s public perception: From affable optimist to incompetent bully who is hopelessly out of his depth. And they worry what long-term damage this might do both to Johnson’s personal mission and the brand of the Conservative party writ large.

One former Conservative cabinet minister and colleague of Johnson, who declined to be named, agreed with this analysis. “To deal with a crisis like this, you need public confidence and you need different bits of the state working together as effectively as possible,” the politician said. “Instead, they have managed to enrage the leadership in Scotland and Wales while picking largely pointless fights with mayors of major cities where Conservatives historically don’t do well. It’s a very strange way of going about uniting the country.”

Over the past week, Johnson has been in a protracted and public spat with the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. Johnson wanted the city to enter the UK’s highest tier of Covid restrictions. Burnham didn’t want this to happen without more financial support from the central government. The whole thing ended in a complete mess, as Johnson’s government didn’t make clear after talks collapsed that the money deemed insufficient by Burnham was still on the table. This led to a televised press conference in which Burnham supposedly found out live on air that the government had withdrawn their offer of £60 million ($78 million) for the city, instead only offering £22 million.

The government claims the whole thing was a set up by Burnham and in fact the minister responsible had talked with him before the press conference.

A government minister told CNN that there is “zero evidence that the PM picked a fight with Burnham,” adding that a central government “naturally has to balance economic and public health issues while local politicians have a much narrower focus,” implying Burnham was playing politics with Johnson.

However, worryingly for Johnson, his personal approval ratings and trust in his government have plummeted sufficiently since the crisis that the truth doesn’t entirely matter.

“When you look at Boris’s personal brand you see dramatic drop-offs in people who think he is likeable and trustworthy since the start of the pandemic. He now lags behind Keir Starmer (leader of the opposition Labour party) on almost all of those metrics,” says Chris Curtis, Political Research Manager at pollster YouGov.

This dip in trust is particularly toxic for Johnson when you combine it with the reputation Conservatives have in parts of the country that historically vote Labour and Johnson was able to pick up seats in last December’s election — the so-called Red Wall.

This reputation was not helped when Johnson found himself in round two of a fight with popular Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford over providing meals for the poorest children during the Christmas holidays this year. On Wednesday night, Johnson directed his party to vote against the proposal.

“People will remember in six or 12 months that the government didn’t seem to care if children went hungry over Christmas during an economic crisis. It costs relatively little to fund compared to other government spending this year,” says Lauren McEvatt, former special adviser to a previous Conservative administration. “It feeds into a narrative which still exists that Conservatives ultimately don’t care as much about poor people.”

What’s perplexed many observers over the Rashford affair is that Johnson had to U-turn earlier this year on exactly the same matter for summer holidays. “This government is like that GIF where Sideshow Bob keeps stepping on the same rakes and whacking himself in the face,” says Rob Ford, professor of politics at the University of Manchester.

All of which only goes to reopen the question of government competence. “From the start, this government set out to hyper-centralize everything from a small team in Downing Street in order to have a tight grip on the Johnson project,” says a senior Conservative lawmaker. “That means a small group of people are making decisions in areas they might not be experts. That’s hard enough at the best of times, but during a crisis which affects the whole country and is constantly changing, it’s virtually impossible.”

The lawmaker goes on to explain that he thinks they “rely too much on focus groups” in order to appeal to public opinion. “The trouble is, focus groups don’t have much foresight. Something might be very popular one day but six months down the line look like a massive mistake. Normal practice in government is to find the right policy and sell it to the public, not the other way around.”

Numerous current and former Downing Street insiders told CNN that while it was true this government did run a lot of focus groups and deemed them to be very important, opinion was divided on their precise influence over policy making. Some said that decisions were made on the basis of focus groups; some said they helped shape how the government would sell policy to the public; some claimed it had led to major policy U-turns, including over Rashford’s summer campaign. A government official denied this claim.

Whatever the truth, it is hard to deny that Johnson’s credibility has taken a significant hit this year. Many point to a scandal surrounding his most senior adviser, Dominic Cummings, as the worst moment of the year. Cummings, having displayed symptoms for Covid, decided to drive hundreds of miles from his home in London when government advice clearly stated that he should self-isolate. Cummings claimed that he did so to provide childcare for his young son.

“They could have killed that story in 48 hours if they said he was desperately worried about his baby and now realizes it was wrong,” says the former cabinet minister. Instead, Cummings gave a bizarre press conference where he defended not only his initial trip, but a further outing in his car which he claimed to merely be testing his eyesight. “The refusal to show any kind of contrition led to a big change of mood. That episode symbolizes what has been wrong about the approach,” the former minister adds.

Whether that’s fair or not, it’s certainly possible to argue the case that the Cummings scandal had three key ingredients: Cock-up; lack of apology; aggressive response. It is also possible to superimpose this playbook onto both the responses to Burnham and Rashford. In the case of the latter, Johnson was not helped by members of his own party implying that some poor parents are feckless and not interested in feeding their children and that children have always gone hungry anyway.
Marcus Rashford clashes with lawmakers as UK parliament votes against free school meals proposal

All of this leaves Johnson vulnerable to those who want to paint him as a mean-spirited bully running a shambolic government. “Fairly or unfairly, it does play to the stereotype of Conservatives as not interested in the poor and not interested in the north. This, unfortunately, does really damage his agenda for leveling up, cementing the red wall and defending the union,” says the former minister.

It’s worth pointing out that as things stand, Johnson’s party is still ahead in the polls. A government minister puts this down to the fact that despite all the headlines, Johnson’s real actions present an alternative narrative that voters understand. “If you move away from Covid, all the big announcements we have made are focused on investments in skills, and we didn’t go for austerity 2.0 despite massive pressure. All of these things suggest that leveling up is still the PM’s top priority,” the minister said.

However, despite those polls, Johnson only won his majority last December and that lead has been slipping. And as the crisis continues, many of his previous supporters are increasingly skeptical that Boris Johnson was ever really the man to unite a country divided by political chaos for which he was largely responsible.

Source link

0
Continue Reading

Politics

Pelosi and Mnuchin brush past stimulus deadline amid hopes for a deal

ap20275576411722 1

Pelosi later told reporters that she hoped to get something done by the end of the week: “That’s the plan. That’s what I would hope.”

But the California Democrat’s biggest obstacle may be across the Capitol — with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) privately urging the White House not to settle with Pelosi before the election.

Most Republicans and many Democrats still say it is unlikely a relief package can be shepherded through Congress in the coming weeks — because of both resistance in the GOP-controlled Senate as well as lingering differences between Pelosi and Mnuchin.

“You never know what’s going to happen around here at the last minute, but it’s getting to be toward the last minute and the clock keeps ticking away,” Senate Appropriations Chair Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told reporters Tuesday. “I’m not optimistic about doing anything.”

But Pelosi had sounded hopeful ahead of her call with Mnuchin, and she seemed to downplay the “48-hour” deadline she announced over the weekend Pelosi said that timeline was needed to finalize a bill before the election but that she and Mnuchin could keep negotiating even if an agreement didn’t materialize by the end of the day Tuesday.

“We’re on a path,” Pelosi told Bloomberg TV before the most recent negotiating session. “As the secretary and I say to each other, ‘If we didn’t believe we could get this done, why would we even be talking?’”

“We could still continue the negotiation. It might not be finished by Election Day,” Pelosi added.

Pelosi said she and Mnuchin have made significant progress in some key areas, including on provisions outlining a national coronavirus testing and tracing plan — a key element for Democrats that appeared to be derailed over the weekend when the two sides couldn’t agree on legislative text. Pelosi described the GOP stance as “a change from over the weekend.”

Pelosi’s spokesman said Tuesday that committee chairs have been tasked with resolving differences “about funding levels and language” before the two negotiators speak again on Wednesday. The chairs had already been tapped to reach out to the top Republicans on their panels to begin hammering out some of the finer details of a broader deal.

But key hurdles remain, including disputes over one of Democrats’ top priorities — funding for state and local governments — and liability protections for businesses and schools that Republicans have long demanded. There are also smaller outstanding disagreements on language related to vaccines, health care worker protections and the child tax credit.

“The two bookends of our differences right now… one is state and local and the other is liability,” Pelosi said on Bloomberg TV.

Pelosi and Mnuchin are more broadly aligned on the need to revive expanded unemployment benefits, send aid to small businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program and deliver stimulus checks to individuals, though there is still some disagreement on the assistance levels for those initiatives.

Much of Capitol Hill remains skeptical that Pelosi and Mnuchin can reach an agreement on anything that will make it to President Donald Trump’s desk, especially without the support of McConnell and other key Republicans.

McConnell has largely steered clear of the stimulus talks and is focused on confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before the election. Most GOP senators are also opposed to spending anything close to the $2 trillion being discussed by Pelosi and Mnuchin; they’re instead backing a narrower, approximately $500 billion proposal that is set to get a vote Wednesday. The Senate also held a procedural vote on Tuesday to put pressure on Democrats over a lapse in Paycheck Protection Program funding, though most Democrats dismissed it as a political stunt.

On Tuesday McConnell appeared to publicly soften his stance on whether to allow any Pelosi-Mnuchin deal to come to the Senate floor for a vote.

In a statement over the weekend, McConnell only agreed to “consider” a Pelosi-Mnuchin agreement. But on Tuesday, the Kentucky Republican said he would allow the Senate to vote on it, provided that Trump had agreed to sign it first.

“What I’m telling you is that if such a deal were to clear the House, obviously with the presidential signature promised, we would put it on the floor of the Senate and let the Senate consider it,” McConnell told reporters following a Republican policy lunch.

McConnell, however, didn’t say when any such measure would come up for a vote, and it’s increasingly unlikely that such an agreement could see action before Election Day.

And privately, McConnell told Republican members at lunch Tuesday that he had warned the White House against reaching a large stimulus deal before the election; doing so could divide the GOP conference and delay Barrett’s confirmation, according to two people familiar with his remarks. McConnell’s private remarks were first reported by the Washington Post.

There isn’t unanimity among Democrats either — several of whom are uneasy with the negotiations over liability provisions. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told Pelosi on a private caucus call Monday that she didn’t see how any Democrat could vote for a deal with the current liability provisions.

Mnuchin, meanwhile, has argued that Senate Republicans would get behind an accord if Trump himself backed the deal. But that prospect is still uncertain in a GOP-controlled Senate on edge ahead of an election where the majority is up for grabs.

Trump, too, said on “Fox and Friends” on Tuesday that McConnell “will be on board if something comes.”

Trump then went on to call for a stimulus package that’s even pricier than the $2.2 trillion Democrats want — though the GOP has shown zero interest in spending more than Democrats after months of talks.

“I want to do it even bigger than the Democrats. And not every Republican agrees with me, but they will,” Trump claimed, adding that Pelosi does not want to reach a deal, despite weeks of lengthy talks with Mnuchin.

“Here’s the problem, she doesn’t want to do anything until after the election because she thinks that helps her,” Trump said. “I actually think it helps us, because everyone knows that she’s the one that’s breaking up the deal. Now, they are talking. Let’s see what happens.”

Pelosi, meanwhile, has continued to insist publicly and privately that a massive economic rescue package could be done before the election, with her caucus eager to see money go out the door as quickly as possible. The bill would have to be written by the end of this week and move through Congress next week, Pelosi said Tuesday.

In a private call with Democrats on Monday afternoon, Pelosi said she’s determined to reach a deal and push it through the House in part to help clear the decks ahead of a potential Joe Biden presidency.

But that effort seemed futile at best on Tuesday, as multiple Democrats reported an icy reception from House Republicans. And a bipartisan phone call between House Appropriations Committee staffers on Monday yielded little progress.

Source link

0
Continue Reading

Trending