After nine years of Ethiopian intransigence and evasiveness Egypt was forced to turn to the UN Security Council (UNSC) in an attempt to check Addis Ababa’s bid to begin filling the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam reservoir unilaterally, without a prior agreement with Sudan and Egypt. Ethiopia, which recently thumbed its nose at a US-World Bank brokered draft agreement based on the input of the three principles, rushed to the arms of Pretoria, in its capacity as chair of the African Union, crying that African problems require African solutions. Evidently, Africa was born yesterday: clearly Ethiopia did not think it existed last year when Egypt chaired the AU, or during the eight years of negotiations before that. Ethiopia believes that by confining the management of this dispute to AU headquarters in Addis Ababa it can keep its behaviour hidden from the world as it continues to procrastinate and evade accountability. Meanwhile, let’s not forget that Ethiopia, which now touts its African affiliation and wants to keep the negotiations African, is the same Ethiopia that contracted an Italian firm to build the dam, a Chinese firm to build its electricity grid and zero African firms for any construction or engineering works related to the dam. To Ethiopia, Africa is only good as a negotiating shield, which is why Egypt was right to give the AU talks two weeks and to ensure that the UNSC was abreast of this process, especially since it is still the UNSC’s role to resolve disputes that threaten international peace and security. While the Egyptian president’s statements following the meeting of the AU Bureau attended by the heads of state of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia were balanced and consistent with Egypt’s diplomatic heritage, those of the Ethiopian prime minister were tendentious and intransigent. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed clung tenaciously to his African solutions only routine, despite how dependant his country is on the World Food Programme, World Bank assistance and loans, the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation’s food security and irrigation development programme, and other UN organisations. As for the Ethiopian water resources minister, his tack was to unleash a vicious attack on Egypt based entirely on falsehoods and misinformation. Describing the 1959 Nile Waters agreement as a “colonialist” document despite the fact that both Egypt and Sudan were fully independent sovereign states at the time, the minister claimed that Egypt obtained 87 per cent of Nile water, Sudan only 13 per cent and Ethiopia, the source of 85 per cent of Nile water, “zero per cent”. If he is going to try to drive a wedge between Sudan and Egypt, which appears to be one aim here, he should be less fanciful with the facts. The truth is that Ethiopia obtains the largest share of Nile water, mostly from Lake Tana, the source of the Blue Nile. The 55 billion m3 of water from this it uses to generate electricity at the Chara Dam. Around the lake it has constructed numerous freshwater stations, factories and farms, including fish farms which yield more than 100,000 tons of fish a year. In addition, Ethiopia has nine billion m3 from the Takezi Reservoir which it uses to generate electricity and produce drinking water. Ethiopia thus has 64 billion m3 from Lake Tana and the Takezi Reservoir, while Egypt and Sudan obtain 60 billion m3 from the Blue Nile and Atbara. This, alone, betrays the fiction being marketed by the Water Tower of Africa, as Ethiopia has been dubbed. It claims that it does not get a drop of water from the Nile whereas, in fact, it gets the lion’s share. By contrast, the countries at the headwaters of the White Nile — the other tributary to the River Nile — have no problem with acknowledging that they receive most of the waters of this branch of the Nile, whether from Lake Victoria, the second largest freshwater lake in the world, or Lakes Kayoga, George, Edward and Albert, through which the Nile proceeds to South Sudan. Similarly, South Sudan acknowledges that it sits atop some 40 billion m3 of water in the Sudd, the largest freshwater marsh in the world. Ethiopia wants to throw dust in everyone’s eyes with its fiction about the Blue Nile and by ignoring the nine other river basins it possesses. Ethiopia has 10 river systems, complete with lakes and tributaries, all fed by abundant rainfall. Egypt has only a single river, the Nile, that cleaves its way through the desert which covers 93 per cent of the country. Ethiopia receives 937 billion m3 of rainfall. Egypt receives about 18 billion m3. Compared to Ethiopia’s 1650 m3 of water per capita, Egyptians obtain only 500 m3 of water per person per year, which is below international water scarcity levels. The Ethiopian minister deliberately overlooks such facts and continues to weave his fictions. He claims that GERD will help Sudan access more than seven billion m3 of the Blue Nile which goes to Egypt but is actually a part of Sudan’s quota. He does not bother to explain how this will work. He also overlooked the fact that the Roseires, Sennar and Khashm Al-Girba dams ensure that Sudan does receive its full quota of Blue Nile waters. In fact, the latter dam was constructed after the 1959 Nile Water agreement precisely for this purpose. Sudan also has the Jebal Aulia dam on the White Nile and the Merowe Dam north of the confluence of the White and Blue Nile. Nor does the Ethiopian minister mention the fact his government will deduct 15 billion m3 from Sudan and Egypt’s quotas during the seven years it will take for the first filling of the GERD reservoir or that it intends to deduct 17 billion m3 more on a permanent basis. If GERD is supposed to be for electricity production, as Ethiopia claims, why does it need to retain such a large amount of water. And by what mathematic feat will Sudan’s quota increase? The Ethiopian water minister is unconcerned by such inconsistencies as he proceeds to toss in red herrings. Ethiopia does not recognise Egypt’s “historic rights” to the Nile. If anything, we should be talking about “accepted rights”, a principle recognised under international law and that refers to the amount of water that Egypt received from the Nile as the result of its natural flow for thousands of years. But even this is beside the point, because Egypt did not bring up the 1959 Nile Water agreement in the negotiations. That agreement grants Egypt a quota of 55.5 billion m3 of the waters of the entire Nile system to which the Blue Nile contributes only 49 billion. There is no connection between Egypt’s quota and negotiations over the dam. The Ethiopian minister has indulged in familiar appeals to pity. The majority of Ethiopians have to carry wood on their backs for fuel and lighting because they have no electricity, whereas all Egyptians have electricity, he said. What about the Sudanese? Moreover, what about the Nile River Basin Initiative (NRBI) report last year that found that 100 per cent of Ethiopia’s urban inhabitants and 60 per cent of rural inhabitants have electricity. Apart from this, is it fair to equate the right to electricity with the right to life, which is at stake for the Egyptian people. It is hard to make up for lost lives, whereas electricity can be produced from a number of alternative sources which Ethiopia also possesses in abundance: wind on the Ethiopian plateau and sunshine. Meanwhile, while millions of Ethiopians are carrying wood on their backs, according to their minister’s narrative, their government is selling the power generated from the three dams on the Omo River to Kenya and Djibouti. They will probably have to go on carrying wood on their backs in order to sustain their ministers’ ad misericordiam appeals for future dams. Turning back to Egypt, the minister argues that Egypt loses 10 billion m3 of water due to evaporation from Lake Nasser. Before the High Dam, Egypt lost 22 billion m3 of water to the Mediterranean which means that dam has made at least 12 billion m3 available to the people if we factor in that 10 billion m3 ostensibly lost through evaporation. Evidently, he would rather Egyptians not have that extra water at all, because he makes no mention of the 45 billion m3 lost through evaporation and transpiration in the Sudanese marshlands in the Sudd and Sobat. He also overlooks the approximately five billion m3 that will be lost to evaporation from the GERD reservoir, not to mention the equal quantity of water lost due seepage. On its official webpage, Addis Ababa claims that Egypt exports water in the form of $5 billion worth of agricultural products, yet claims water poverty. Ethiopia exports five times that amount, but it felt no need to add this on its website, or the fact that Egypt imports 65 per cent of its basic foodstuffs at a cost of $15 billion a year, precisely because of its water scarcity. Instead, the Ethiopian misinformation campaign bills GERD as a “Sudanese dam” because it will enable Sudan to cultivate the area around Roseires and other areas three times a year instead of twice. It does not mention that GERD will withhold the fertile silt from the water that reaches the Roseires and Sannar dams, which may never refill after Ethiopia completes its dam from which Addis Ababa will dispense judicious amounts like a parent giving his children a daily allowance for a school lunch. If, indeed, Sudan plans to keep that land under cultivation after Ethiopia closes the taps to a trickle it will have to construct an enormous irrigation network to the tune of billions of dollars. It will also have to use tons of chemical fertilisers to compensate for the loss of Nile silt, and incalculable quantities of insecticides and other products to fight the insects and diseases that will infest Sudanese soil as it succumbs to salinisation due to the lack of annual replenishment from Nile floods. Is Ethiopia going to fork out some money to help the Sudanese make the necessary readjustments to their agricultural economy? Not very likely. More in keeping with the current Ethiopian government’s thinking is the conclusion, drawn by the German Strategic Studies Institute, that Addis Ababa plans to aggravate Egypt’s water poverty in order to force Egypt to purchase water from Ethiopia. Such realities should help the international community to appreciate the true nature of Ethiopia’s intentions.
On May 25, a video went viral of a White woman calling the police on a Black man in Central Park after he asked her to follow the rules and leash her dog. On her call to 911, she allegedly lied, claiming he was threatening her, and specifically emphasized his race as part of her report. In the days and weeks that followed, the name Amy Cooper became synonymous with the kind of racist, false 911 call often made by White women that can have catastrophic consequences for the Black person on the other end. Within 24 hours, Cooper faced swift retribution online and lost her job. (Amy Cooper later apologized for her action and the birder, Christian Cooper, told CNN "if it s genuine and if she plans on keeping her dog on a leash in the Ramble going forward, then we have no issues with each other.") But until Monday, when Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced that Amy Cooper was being charged with falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, the one repercussion she avoided was criminal prosecution. It s been more than six weeks since Amy Cooper cried wolf. Why is she only now being charged for what appeared to be a very public crime? Making a false report to 911 is a crime in New York and most states. It s also against New York s civil rights law and comes with penalties. Over the past few years, we have become increasingly familiar with this specific kind of false reporting. Whether it s a Black person birding in Central Park, enjoying a barbecue, getting coffee at a Starbucks, working as a home inspector, shopping at Nordstrom Rack, or sleeping in the common room of their own dorm. The list is endless. What we see is a disturbing trend, and not one that typically ends with the caller facing criminal prosecution for putting a Black person in harm s way. Writing as a Black man, it is obvious that these calls are racially motivated. And writing as a White woman, it must be said that it is our responsibility to stop using the state as our personal security force. But where is the incentive for that when there s seldom any consequence? The White woman who accused 14-year-old Emmett Till of whistling at her in 1955 -- resulting in a famously brutal lynching -- recanted her testimony two years ago and no one was ever brought to justice. It s not just White women, though. In Georgia, two White men (who happened to be connected with law enforcement) called 911 and then hunted down Ahmaud Arbery. Authorities say they shot and killed a man in broad daylight for essentially jogging while Black, yet it took prosecutors 74 days and immense public pressure to finally charge them. If we truly want to stop White people from calling the police on Black people for just going about their lives, district attorneys need to start by actually prosecuting this kind of crime when it occurs, not six weeks later. The existing penal code is already clear, but New York and California lawmakers have also introduced legislation that would allow prosecutors to classify race-based, false reporting calls as a hate crime. As a former prosecutor and a practicing defense attorney, we both understand the likely reality of justice delayed in Amy Cooper s case. Our justice system has a long history of ignoring or downplaying the crimes of White people, from bailing out the heads of the financial industry who brought about the 2008 housing crash to the so-called "Karens" who police public space. At the same time, as we have both seen firsthand, our system often aggressively punishes and trumps up charges against Black and brown people. While we need sweeping changes to address these inequalities, district attorneys -- because of their power and prosecutorial discretion -- have the power, right now, to start leveling the scales. At its core, the job of district attorneys is to prosecute cases on behalf of their county. They decide which charges to bring and what evidence to provide in those cases. This means the DAs have incredible power to shape what reform looks like. We need progressive district attorneys across the country who are willing to institute policies to protect Black and brown people from mass incarceration. District attorneys who will decline to prosecute low-level offenses against people of color and end cash bail that poorer people cannot pay; who will replace laws and practices rooted in racism with effective reforms that can reverse some of the most damaging effects of the past few decades of tough-on-crime policies. But at the same time, it is the job of those same district attorneys to take seriously the crimes that stem directly from the racism in our system. Crimes that may seem minor, like calling the police on a man in the park, can have disastrous consequences. As we well know, calling 911 can result in the loss of innocent Black lives like Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, and could have ended Central Park birder Christian Cooper s, too. It s time to stop giving the Karens of the world a pass.
Breathe easy, America. President Donald Trump s got this. A deadly pandemic is tearing through the country, but the statues are going to be all right. Trump swooped into the heartland on Friday and delivered this news, along with a message of rage at the foot of Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota. Ignoring the fact that nearly 130,000 Americans have already died from Covid-19, with new cases topping 50,000 a day, he stoked fears of an "angry mob" engaged in "a merciless campaign to wipe out our history." In an address that could be called "American Carnage II" for following the emotional blueprint he laid out in his inaugural address, Trump declared that federal officers would be dispatched to protect monuments and statues wherever they were threatened. Yes. You read that correctly. The President is moving quickly and decisively "to protect our monuments, arrest the rioters, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law." As a matter of fact, he said with pride, "yesterday federal agents arrested the suspected ringleader of the attack on the statue of the great Andrew Jackson in Washington, D.C." Last week, protesters tried in vain to topple the bronze statue of Jackson in Lafayette Park, which faces the White House. (Four men were charged with destruction of federal property. Only one of the four has been apprehended so far, according to the Justice Department, and it s unclear whether he led the effort to topple the statue). The statue was just one of many that have been targeted in recent weeks as the country reconsiders the value in memorializing important historical figures who supported slavery or white supremacy. The renewed fervor around this debate is part of a nationwide reckoning with racism after the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Rayshard Brooks sparked mass protests calling for reform under the slogan "Black Lives Matter." While substantial change in the justice system will take time, the removal of monuments honoring Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis and others who are readily identified with racism provides the country with a sense of symbolic progress. In South Dakota, Trump tried to cast the anti-racist protest movement as a terrifying enemy. "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children," he said. "They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive, but no, the American people are strong and proud and they will not allow our country and all of its values, history and culture to be taken from them." Trump s 40-minute speech was a master class in rhetorical deception. He lumped together the racists of the Confederacy with the figures on Mt. Rushmore, insisting they are all being reconsidered in the same way. Several elected officials have ordered the removal of Confederate monuments in an effort to recognize the painful legacy of slavery, while the debate over monuments of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt is more nuanced, given their positive contributions to the nation. No sweeping effort is being made to remove all of these monuments and to suggest one exists amounts to sounding a false alarm. In his speech, Trump appeared to want to associate himself with the more admired figures of the past; as he spoke of Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and others, Trump sounded like a fifth-grader reading random pages of a history book. There was Washington crossing the Delaware, Jefferson dispatching Lewis and Clark and Roosevelt overseeing the construction of the Panama Canal. In the simpleton s view of history offered by Trump, there is no room for the slaves owned by Washington and Jefferson or for Roosevelt s white supremacy. According to this perspective, sins and flaws must be denied; otherwise the greats of history cannot be honored. This is, of course, what a child might think upon learning that his or her parents are not quite perfect. But with maturity, children, like citizens, can both revere their heroes for their strengths and criticize them for their failings -- and judge who, in the end, deserves to be on a pedestal. While Native Americans have long sought the removal of Mt. Rushmore, arguing that it is carved on sacred land, this is an old conflict unlikely to be resolved. By suggesting there s a new national drive to destroy this well-known monument, and that some inflated enemy threatens all that is holy, Trump was playing a political cartoonist on Friday, exaggerating grotesquely for effect in an attempt to energize his reelection campaign. He summoned his followers to fight yet another culture war by dividing the nation he supposedly leads into patriots and traitors. "Here tonight," he said, "before the eyes of our forefathers, Americans declare again, as we did 244 years ago, that we will not be tyrannized, we will not be demeaned and we will not be intimidated by bad, evil people. It will not happen." This declaration, like so many of the disjointed passages in Trump s speech, would make a perfect soundbite for a campaign ad. Always eager to be seen as a fighter and a champion, Trump left out the real battle he is losing -- to the coronavirus-- and invented another so that he could pose as a valiant defender of this country. To satisfy Trump s selfish vanity, he had brought together more than 7,000 people, packed in tight to hear the speech. The gathering flouted the federal government s public health guidance on social distancing and very few in attendance wore the face masks recommended to slow the spread of the deadly coronavirus. As the band played at Mt. Rushmore, news broke that Kimberly Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign official and Donald Trump Jr. s girlfriend, tested positive for the virus. The absurdity of Donald Trump s night in South Dakota might be merely laughable if the country weren t staring in the face of death and suffering. In days, or perhaps weeks, we ll likely learn whether the gathering facilitated the spread of the coronavirus. By then, pollsters may also be able to tell us whether Trump s political pathogens -- anger, distortion, misinformation -- are spreading as widely or rapidly.
Over the last few months and especially due to the exceptional and emergency circumstances that the world has been going through as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of disputes and conflicts arising out of contractual obligations has increased enormously, particularly those related to cross-border transactions, employment, rental and construction services. In parallel, traditional methods of dispute settlement have faced numerous challenges, and e-litigation has been the subject of long debates and negotiations. On the other hand, the importance of mediation as an alternative means of resolving conflicts has been underlined by dispute-resolution institutions, as well as several countries legislators. These have recommended, more than ever before, the use of mediation and raised awareness of its importance. Mediation is a process in which a neutral and independent third party, called a mediator, assists the parties involved in a dispute to settle their differences and reach a mutual agreement. This method differs from other dispute-settlement methods in that the parties are in full control of the process. They draft the terms of the settlement agreement by themselves, since the role of the mediator is limited to identifying the points of disagreement, and the agreement between the parties reaches the best solutions that maintain the continuity of their relationship. The mediator creates an appropriate atmosphere for the negotiations without having the authority to impose a solution or a settlement during the process. This dispute-settlement mechanism may be conducted between two contracting parties or by one contracting party and a state, known as investor-state mediation. Given the importance of mediation as an amicable means of settling disputes that may resolve investment, commercial, labour and other disputes, it has been codified in national legislations. For instance, the Irish legislature issued its Mediation Act of 2017 that placed an obligation on all solicitors to advise their clients to consider mediation as a means of attempting to resolve a dispute prior to proceeding to litigation and to clearly outline to their clients the benefits of mediation that include cost and time efficiencies. Likewise, the Chinese Civil Procedure Law includes a special chapter on mediation, which is conducted by a court in which judges sit as mediators. Similarly, in Egypt the Economic Courts Law 120 of 2008 was amended last August to establish a Preparation and Mediation Committee. The law gives authority to the judges on the committee to advise litigants or their representatives to resolve their dispute through mediation before referring it to litigation. If the parties reach a settlement agreement, this will have enforceable legal effect, and the law represents noticeable progress in the field of alternative dispute resolution. The aforementioned type of mediation, that conducted by judges in civil proceedings, is called court-connected mediation, which is codified in legislation in most cases and not always subject to enforcement difficulties if it occurs inside borders. The other type of mediation, which is mainly conducted outside of courts through lawyers, experts or others, is commonly known as out-of-court mediation and is in many cases not codified by national laws. It also faces several problems at the time of the enforcement of a settlement agreement either inside or outside the borders of a country. In other words, despite its importance, the main problems faced by mediation processes conducted outside of the courts are usually the enforcement of settlement agreements, especially if foreign parties are involved and the agreement is to be enforced abroad. To this end, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNICTRAL) has adopted the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements resulting from Mediation, also known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation. The aim of this convention is to draw up a legal framework that enhances the cross-border enforceability of mediated settlements concluded in writing by parties that have their places of business in different states and want to resolve a commercial dispute. In 2019, 46 countries had signed the convention, which will enter into force on 12 September 2020, and these have included the world s two largest economies, the United States and China. Among the Arab countries, only three have signed the convention – Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar. It is vitally important that Egypt and the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA) countries join the Singapore Convention on Mediation to enhance the enforceability of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation, as it represents an efficient way for parties, particularly investors, to solve their disputes in short periods of time and preserve their funds and assets, as well as their commercial relationships. In brief, the businesses of any signatory country will find it valuable to resort to mediation when a settlement agreement is enforceable in their country, as well as in that of their counterparty abroad.
As the Syria crisis enters its 10th year, the situation is especially dire for women and girls, with the effects of COVID-19 compounding the risks and hardships for millions of people inside the country and for refugees around the region. Today nearly 12 million people in Syria require urgent humanitarian assistance and around 4 million depend on cross-border aid. Some 5.7 million Syrians have fled and are now residing in countries throughout the region. Of those who need humanitarian aid, half are women and girls. Syrian women have higher rates of poverty than men; they face increased risk of gender-based violence; and they shoulder the responsibility of caring for their children and other family members. The rapid spread of COVID-19 is further increasing the risks faced by women. It is estimated that more than half a million women inside Syria and in host communities throughout the region are pregnant. In some places, pregnant women are refraining from visiting health facilities due to movement restrictions or fears about exposure to the virus. This is putting the lives of women and newborns at risk. Perhaps most egregiously, the crisis has exposed a shadow pandemic of violence against women, one that has spiked in the face of lockdowns and quarantine measures. UNFPA projects that the pandemic could result in millions more cases of gender-based violence around the world. COVID-19 is not only a health and protection crisis, it is also a socio-economic crisis threatening the most vulnerable populations and their precarious livelihoods. The impact of COVID-19 on the Arab States economies is likely to be tremendous, with 1.7 million jobs expected to be lost in 2020, including 700,000 jobs for women. Even before the pandemic, the economic situation of Syrian refugee women was already extremely precarious, with jobs hard to come by and women making up almost 62% of those working in the informal sector, such as daily and agriculture workers. A UN Women study found that the majority of Syrian refugee women said that finding income to support their families was their main concern. In Lebanon, only 1% of the women in the study had a work permit. In Iraq, while 78% of surveyed refugee women were entitled to legal employment, only 4% had found employment. In Jordan, women got only 5% of the work permits issued to refugees so far. Despite significant risks and challenges, Syrian women and women s organizations continue to play a central role in the response to the Syria crisis—in humanitarian assistance and peacemaking efforts, healthcare and education, and in other sectors in their own communities. Humanitarian actors are working together to advocate, scale up and adapt service delivery to address urgent needs. Since January 2020, UNFPA has provided life-saving sexual and reproductive health services to nearly one million people in need in countries affected by the Syria crisis, and delivered essential gender-based violence services to more than 420,000 people. In light of COVID-19, UNFPA and partners are providing personal protective equipment to protect health workers, distributing dignity kits that contain essential hygiene and sanitary supplies, and systemizing the use of telemedicine to ensure continued access to reproductive health services. As donors meet at the Brussels IV Conference on Syria, the needs and rights of women and girls should be front and centre. Let us work together to strengthen their resilience by increasing their livelihood and employment opportunities and including them in all measures to mitigate the economic shocks of COVID-19. Funding for women s leadership, economic empowerment, gender-based violence programmes and essential sexual and reproductive health services must match the increased needs we are seeing in Syria and neighbouring countries, including those brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. More than ever, global solidarity, urgency, and predictable and sustained international support is needed for the Syria response. The international community must continue to support local communities as we collectively work for a better Syria during and after the coronavirus pandemic. After years of conflict, women, girls and all the people of Syria need a future that they can believe in — a future of peace, democracy and equality that we can build together.
Arab public opinion has held to a large extent the Arab League politically and morally responsible for the disastrous fate that befell Libya in 2011. The League in a hurried way adopted a decision in March 2011 concerning the popular uprising against late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The UN Security Council, at the request of France, followed suit and passed a resolution that was used as a pretext by NATO to intervene. The pretext was that the Libyan army was advancing towards Benghazi to annihilate the popular uprising. An unrelentless and senseless bombing campaign followed that decimated the Libyan army. After the mission was accomplished, NATO left the country in complete disarray, without recognised state institutions to manage the situation, and the political transition towards a modern and a democratic state. On the contrary, Libya descended into insecurity and almost near anarchy with unattended stocks of arms that were taken by renegade and armed groups. In the last nine years, neither the international community nor Arab nor African countries have succeeded in restoring political normalcy in Libya, despite several Security Council resolutions from March 2011 till February 2020. The former imposed an arms embargo on Libya that has never been seriously enforced, and the latter, recalling the said resolutions, gave an international and official seal of approval to the Berlin Declaration of 19 January 2020. At the end of 2015, the Security Council had passed a resolution in support of what is known as the Skhirat Accord that established a “Government of National Accord” in Libya, bypassing — strangely enough — the only elected legislative body in Libya, the House of Representatives, that had been elected in fair and free elections the year before. The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, through their control over the Supreme Court, invalidated the elections. The reason is that they lost the 2014 elections after their failed attempt at governance from the end of 2011 till the legislative elections of 2014. This background explains why Libya has two governments and two legislatures, and two warring military forces. A government in Tripoli, called the “internationally-recognised government”, and another temporary government in Benghazi that few countries have recognised and dealt with. The United Nations, through various envoys, tried to mediate and negotiate a political framework that could, hopefully, put the country on the road of reconciliation and reconstruction. However, these attempts and plans always failed because the international community and the Arab world had other strategic priorities, till the Turkish wolf entered the arena and turned a local military conflict into a regional one, and almost an international one. The Syrian example was about to replicate itself in Libya. Turkey and Russia, supporting opposing sides in the Libyan conflict, in the meantime are trying to share the pie without getting involved in a direct conflict. All the while, the Arab League was paying lip service to UN efforts as well as to the Berlin Declaration. Its secretary general participated in its sessions. Turkish intervention in the conflict was a strategic surprise for the region and the world. It allowed the Tripoli forces to push back the forces of the government in the East, led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. The retreat of his forces led to an escalation on the ground that could torpedo any chances for the resumption of political talks between the two Libyan governments. The pro-Tripoli forces want to regain control of all of Libya; that is, to advance eastward, getting closer to the Egyptian borders. On 23 June, visiting a military base not far away from these borders, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Egyptian army would intervene directly in the Libyan conflict in the case that pro-Tripoli forces, backed by the Turks, advance towards Sirte and Al-Jafra. The two are almost 1,000 kilometres from the Libyan borders with Egypt. Of course, the Egyptian president talked about such an intervention in the context of a blueprint for the restoration of security and stability in Libya, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, on the one hand, and the Berlin Declaration, on the other hand. He enumerated the objectives of such an intervention, and most of the elements he mentioned do conform with UN resolutions. He stressed the importance of unifying state institutions, in addition to bringing all economic agencies and the oil industry under one command. The Egyptian position was seconded by a resolution adopted 23 June through an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers, via video conference, that Egypt requested after the announcement of the Cairo Declaration on Libya on 6 June. The resolution reflected an Arab consensus — save a few reservations on certain paragraphs by Qatar, Tunisia, Somalia and the Libyan delegation to the Arab League. Most of the clauses are in conformity with the Berlin Declaration and resolutions adopted by the United Nations related to Libya. So far, these developments led to a pause in military preparations by forces loyal to the Tripoli government. In the meantime, the Turkish government is still sending reinforcements as well as Syrian mercenaries. The spectre of a major military confrontation between Egypt and Turkey has raised alarm bells in Europe and the United States, pushing them to reiterate their demands for an immediate and total ceasefire, and the resumption of political talks in Libya. The US State Department called — on 26 June — on the warring parties in Libya to cease fire forthwith and resume talks, while condemning foreign intervention, without singling out any country in particular. Moreover, the US administration warned the Tripoli government that the United States is against launching an attack on Sirte and Al-Jafra. This statement came two days after the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, accused Washington of lacking decisiveness in dealing with the situation in Libya. It remains to be seen if the US administration will push hard for an immediate ceasefire on the part of the Tripoli government and its Turkish backers. If both the US and the European Union act in concert in this respect, that could be a turning point in Libya that opens the way for launching a diplomatic and political process that would save Libya from disintegration and avoid a repeat of the Syrian scenario in Libya. Egypt and most Arab countries have learned the lessons of the fateful years of the “Arab Spring”. Consequently, they have decided to confront Turkey in Libya. They should not back down, whatever the cost.
This title has been published thousands of times on social media, as an expression of gratitude towards the efforts of doctors during the coronavirus pandemic, and in protest of a statement made by the Prime Minister that has angered Egyptians everywhere. The medical profession is one of the oldest professions in our dear country, with its history beginning with the ancient Egyptians and onward to the Alexandria school, where ancient Egyptian and Greek medicine mixed. In the modern era, Mohamed Ali asked Clot Bey to establish a medical school which moved from Abu Zaabal to Qasr al-Aini on the Nile bank. The first mission dispatched to study medicine to France after graduation, after which they came back to teach in the medical school, thus making Egypt the first country in the region to practice modern medicine through diagnosis and treatment of all kinds. When modern devices, microscopic surgeries and sophisticated drugs entered the world of modern medicine, Egypt s doctors were at the forefront of the world in receiving these tools and training with them. Because of the difficult economic conditions Egypt has faced following a critical period in its history, no modern hospitals had been built to keep up with the times, though the government and the private sector have remedied the matter and built modern teaching and private hospitals on international standards. Egyptian doctors have spread across the world, achieving great success in Europe and America, and for many years they have efficiently led the health system in Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf region. Some people may think that these doctors are all very wealthy, but this is not true, because the vast majority of doctors and all young doctors suffer greatly in life due to poor salaries and incentives, so most of them try to travel abroad, which has already happened, and is why half of Egypt s doctors now work outside. As we all know, studying medicine in addition to the residency period lasts seven years, followed by three to seven years of training to start practicing the profession, and if a doctor wishes to train and obtain a certificate in a specific field then they ll need to study for another five years. Doctors all over the world receive distinguished treatment and get paid well. The Medical Syndicate is a long-established and distinguished union that provides distinguished union services for its members. This was the first union in Egypt that rose up at the beginning of the Muslim Brotherhood era and brought them down from its council. I recount here the great day when the voting queue in the committee for over 60-year-olds during the union s elections reached nearly one a kilometer, even when it was a rainy day. Before 1952, doctors participated in the 1946 uprising against the dictatorship, and against the British occupation, and participated with the guerrillas in the Canal Zone against the British aggression. Many of them died during the October war. And this year, doctors performed admirably when the world was invaded by the coronavirus pandemic, which so far has killed nearly half a million people. In third world countries, including Egypt, it is difficult to know the numbers of those killed by the virus, because an unknown amount died in their homes, villages and hospitals without undertaking an analysis. We also have, as is well known, a very weak health budget and the efficiency of the Ministry of Health is limited. Doctors, nursing stuff and medical workers struggled under difficult conditions, as their protective equipment was insufficient, and therefore the death rate among physicians was very high. Around 100 doctors died, and more than 2,000 were infected with the coronavirus, and many of the ones who died were young doctors from difficult financial conditions. In light of the coronavirus and the possibility of its continuation or the emergence of a second wave globally, which is expected until a vaccine is prepared, we need everyone in the medical staff, and we should encourage them, raise their spirits and compensate the families of those who fell to the virus. On the ground, it has become natural for the families of patients to attack doctors, break hospital equipment, and the government does nothing to defend them. There is no law issued or firm stance to stop this chaos, which has become a routine thing happening every day. The relationship between the Health Ministry and the Medical Syndicate must be one of of cooperation and understanding, and relations between the minister and doctors should be good, with the minister making the utmost effort to cooperate and make decisions after consulting with doctors and the medical syndicate in the interest of patients, the profession and the ministry as well. In a major crisis such as the coronavirus, we must all stand together to fight the pandemic. A while ago, the Prime Minister attempted to defuse the crisis. He received the head of the Medical Syndicate and issued reassuring statements. However everyone was shocked when the Prime Minister issued a controversial statement, angering physicians and citizens alike, when he announced that the Health Minister had said that the cause of the coronavirus pandemic was a lack of commitment by some doctors to their duty. The Prime Minister has forgotten the martyred doctors and the thousands of medical workers keeping watch every night on the sick across all of Egypt, and he knows very well how weak the health system is and how weak the Health Ministry s plan is in confronting this disease. The minister should avoid upsetting doctors, instead encouraging their work and cooperating with them, because relations between the ministry and the people during a pandemic must be good. I think that this statement has severely shaken public opinion of the Prime Minister throughout social media, which is used by about 50 million citizens. I was waiting for an apology from him to resolve this issue, as this is a normal practice in first world countries, but in the third world things are different. The government is always right and the people are wrong. Rise, Egyptians! Egypt is always calling you.
Shortly after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Ghadeer, a woman from Homs, Syria, told humanitarian actors of the violence she witnessed against the backdrop of the lockdowns that came in response to the pandemic. “I met many women who also face violence at the hands of their husbands, violence has clearly increased. A friend told me that she is constantly suffering from domestic abuse since her husband lost his job." Ghadeer once witnessed a wife being beaten in front of her children. These stories paint a painful picture of the stark reality that women and girls continue to face in Syria. In March, the crisis in the country officially entered its 10th year, effectively marking one of the most protracted and complex crises our world is facing today. A decade later, Syria continues to experience an array of instabilities and challenges that continue to put the lives of innocent people at risk. With COVID-19 creating a crisis within a crisis, the consequences of insufficient action can be dire. Today, of the estimated 11.7 million people in need inside Syria, 5.9 million are women and girls, exposed to an array of increased risks that include greater restrictions on movement for women and girls, family violence, forced and early marriage, and sexual and domestic violence. Meanwhile, an additional 5.7 million Syrians are refugees throughout the region and beyond. And even as parts of Syria appear to be stabilising, the situation is far from stable, particularly given the ongoing conflicts and mass displacements in the country s northern region as well as increasing instability in parts of the south. Meanwhile, the socioeconomic ramifications of COVID-19 will inevitably produce further protection concerns and other challenges, including socio-economic, for a significant portion of the Syrian population. This month, the international community convenes during the Brussels IV Conference on supporting the future of Syria and the region. In the run-up to this dialogue taking place, it is critical to understand the various dimensions of vulnerability from a needs perspective. The situation in Syria not only remains critical but has arguably become even more volatile due to the advent of COVID-19, which presents a myriad of health and socioeconomic challenges for the country and its people, both inside Syria and in host communities region-wide. Moreover, the cumulative effects of 10 years of instability have created a number of far-reaching structural challenges, including disruptions in community networks and safety nets that complicate the delivery of life-saving services. This situation is further compounded by a rapidly deteriorating socio-economic situation, increasing food insecurity and poverty across the country. The risks or deprioritisation of women s health and protection in the given context is very real and needs to be addressed hands-on. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) -- the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency -- firmly believes in a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe, and every young person s potential is fulfilled. This is precisely why UNFPA has continuously advocated for the fundamental right of every woman and girl to access quality sexual and reproductive health services and to be protected from gender-based violence (GBV). Today, it is estimated that more than half a million women inside Syria and female refugees throughout the region are pregnant. Providing them with medicines, equipment, midwives and doctors support, and working collectively to support basic rehabilitation of healthcare facilities in devastated communities, should remain a key priority for the global response to this crisis. Failing to do so will mean that more mothers and their infants will die, particularly in the time of COVID-19. In 2019, UNFPA provided life-saving sexual and reproductive health services to nearly 2.4 million individuals in Syria crisis countries throughout the region. Maintaining and even expanding this life-saving work will require the continued collaboration of the international community, including through the maintenance and increase of flexible, multi-year funding to allow actors to respond effectively to the multifaceted challenges on the ground. Meanwhile, responding to GBV in 2020 will require taking the challenges presented by COVID-19 in perspective, and ensuring that any response takes gender, gender inequality, and the restrictions of movement that have accompanied this pandemic into consideration. These programmes must be made even more accessible to adolescent girls, who continue to be the most at-risk segment to GBV and life-threatening early pregnancies. UNFPA has updated its 2020 regional Syria response to include funds required to respond to COVID-19, with an estimated total appeal of $137 million. This includes $6.5 million geared towards responding to the pandemic and its ramifications for women, girls and young people throughout the region. Ensuring that gender issues, gender equality, and women s rights are consistently considered when tailoring resilience programmes is of paramount importance, particularly those that attempt to stave off the worst impacts of both the crisis itself and the COVID-19 pandemic. Such programmes are not only effective at delivering short-term support to people in need, but also stand to address many of the long-term structural challenges and socioeconomic ramifications of this crisis.
The #NeverTrump movement -- made up of a small cohort of Republicans who refuse to support President Donald Trump -- is a revealing phenomenon in American politics. During Trump s presidential bid in 2016, Mitt Romney made a huge splash by delivering a blistering speech condemning Trump s candidacy. "He s playing members of the American public for suckers: he gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat," Romney said, describing his party s standard bearer as a "fraud." But once Trump was elected, Romney kissed the ring in hopes of becoming the next secretary of state and the Republican Party coalesced around the new President. Now a Utah senator, Romney saw the light in February 2020 and voted to convict the impeached President for abuse of power. This election cycle he has announced once again that he won t support Trump s reelection bid. And now more prominent Republicans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, are joining him. But the question remains: can this movement make a difference beyond publicly disavowing Trump? After all, most Republicans rallied around Trump in 2016 and voted for him. More importantly, they stood by him in the years that followed. Even Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, once prominent detractors, turned into his most important foot soldiers on Capitol Hill. While some conservative pundits such as David Frum and William Kristol have continued to fight against Trump with both their words and actions, many #NeverTrumpers have simply shared their disapproval of the President. This allows some #NeverTrumpers to distance themselves from the President when it s convenient, while still benefiting from being part of the GOP. Sen. Susan Collins, who has repeatedly spoken out against the President, has in many instances voted in favor of Trump and his agenda after much hemming and hawing. Is it possible for this faction to become more substantive in 2020 and actually take steps to help Joe Biden win the election? Of all the figures who are defining the new wave of #NeverTrumpism, George Conway, a conservative attorney who is married to Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, leads the pack. Conway knows Trump better than most, and he has made it clear that this commander-in-chief poses a threat to our democracy. Conway and his allies at the political action committee Lincoln Project are producing hard-hitting ads against Trump, while releasing pro-Biden ads in swing states. "Joe Biden is a strong, caring leader who can guide us out of the hell Americans find ourselves in. It s imperative Joe Biden wins this November," said John Weaver, a co-founder of the group. Besides producing ad campaigns, there is another way the #NeverTrump movement can take action. The Lincoln Project has shown the way by directly supporting Biden s candidacy. Elected officials in the GOP need to announce, in public and on the record, that they will vote for Biden. This is the only real measure of where one stands on the current presidency. Choosing to abstain from voting for Trump (Romney said he wrote in his wife s name in 2016) is simply not enough. Biden will need every possible vote to achieve victory, especially if the pandemic threatens turnout. Reporters should also pressure these politicians and ask who they will vote for in 2020. The #NeverTrump movement can make a difference -- and prove the GOP can change course — by producing a long list of powerful Republicans who will vote for Biden. Given the recent New York Times and Siena College poll that shows Trump s support among white voters is waning, a number of prominent Republicans who will publicly throw their support behind Biden could help turn the tide. Most politicians are unlikely to take a public stand out of fear they might anger Republican voters who by and large still support the administration. They understand, more than they are willing to admit, that Trump is a reflection of the modern Republican Party rather than someone who has distorted it. As Republican political operative Stuart Stevens, a member of the Lincoln Project and the author of a forthcoming book, "It Was All A Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump," writes: "The reality is that President Trump is a symptom, not the source, of the disease that is ravaging the Republican Party." It remains to be seen whether the serious dysfunction and failed leadership that we see every day might prompt more Republicans to admit that something has gone profoundly wrong with their party and that the only way to start a new era is by making sure Biden defeats Trump.
Dams are important to conserve water for sustainable development, prevent flood damage, and store water in seasons of plenty to use in seasons of drought. Today, over 900,000 dams are estimated to exist worldwide, 40,000 of which are on a scale large enough to be considered as mega-dams. Although there is no universal definition of what qualifies as a mega-dam, as a general rule they are large structures over 15 metres in height and generating on average over 400 Megawatts of power. Mega-dams in upstream river countries are not recommended under the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses because they infringe on the right to water and the accepted rights of downstream countries. They cause extreme impacts on the downstream environment and biodiversity, in addition to on the river course itself.
The great fathers founded the United States of America on sublime values, and great men like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson swore an oath on the sacred right to life, safeguarding freedom, dignity and equality for all human beings, and freedom of religious belief and all constitutional rights, spearheaded by the right to peaceful protest.
The seven years in the life of the 30 June Revolution make up the most critical period in contemporary Egyptian history. In fact, we might dub the numerous and diverse battles Egypt has fought on different fronts during this period “the new crossing”. In 1973, the Egyptian army s crossing of the Suez Canal culminated in the liberation of Sinai. The current period we might dub the “inward crossing”; another liberation process that addresses crucial challenges on the home front starting from the need to rebuild a state that had been severely shaken by the political turmoil that erupted in 2011. The institutional reconstruction of the state and reinstitution of its civil character evolved into a comprehensive nation construction process involving national infrastructural development mega-projects hand-in-hand with an ambitious economic reform programme to revitalise the Egyptian economy and set it on the path to increased productivity and greater competitiveness. At the same time, it was essential to counter threats to the home front. The most serious was the terrorism that had begun to proliferate in Sinai and elsewhere. Our heroic army and police fought at the forefront of this battle, which Egypt has fought on behalf of the world. Egypt, since its June 2013 Revolution, has also fought to rebuild its status and influence in foreign affairs. In the process, Cairo struck a finely calibrated balance in its relations with the two superpowers, Russia and the US, based on the principles of mutual respect and appreciation, friendship and mutual support. A similar spirit prevails in its long-established relationship with the EU, Egypt s most important trading partner which is bound to Egypt and the Arab region as a whole by long historic bonds. At the regional level, Egypt has taken a lead, again, in turning Arab relations into a force that safeguards Egyptian/Arab national security and that fends off the ill-intentioned designs of non-Arab regional powers from Turkey and Iran to Ethiopia and Israel. As always, Egypt is keen to help its fellow Arab nations reach solutions to crises in order to protect the security and territorial integrity of Arab countries. The Cairo Declaration, an Egyptian initiative to revive the political process in Libya, was the most recent example of Egyptian efforts in this regard. We continue to hope that Egyptian diplomacy will lead to firmer international resolve to bring peace to Libya and to stand up to the warmongers bent on exploiting the turmoil of the Libyan crisis and perpetuating the conflict to achieve their own ends. Egypt continues its long drive to develop its important and historic relations with China, India, Japan, South Korea and other Asian countries, and it is forever open to new relations with potential foreign partners on the basis of mutual respect and benefit. Egypt also continues to earn international respect and admiration as a model for the preservation of region security and stability. It stands firm in the face of destabilising designs, as is currently the case in its negotiations over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project, in which Egypt seeks to avert conflict with a fellow African nation, apply the principles of international law and ensure the fulfillment of the rights of all parties in a fair and equitable manner. A similar spirit applies to Egypt s handling of the Palestinian cause, the central Arab cause in the defence of which Egypt has made enormous sacrifices. Currently Cairo is working with other Arab governments to prevent the Israeli annexation of more occupied Palestinian territory. Since President Al-Sisi took the helm six years ago, Egyptian diplomacy has been particularly active on the African front. In 2017, Egyptian-African relations entered an unprecedented period of blossoming as Cairo worked together with other African capitals to further inter-African cooperation and integration and African security and stability, as epitomised by Egyptian contributions to the “Silencing of the Guns” initiative and the establishment of the Aswan Forum as a regional platform for the exchange of ideas on security and strategy related issues. Egypt has defended African rights in numerous international forums from the Paris Climate Conference to major economic summits in which it urged for debt relief, investment drives and other urgent measures to support African economies and to alleviate economic hardship and unemployment in Africa, the chief causes of illegal migration. In July last year, when Egypt chaired the African Union, Egypt worked together with its fellow African nations to establish the African Free Trade Zone, a major landmark towards the realisation of African economic integration. Egypt has striven not just to fight threats to global and regional peace and security, it has also worked to build a nation with the power to protect the resources and capacities of the people, to protect national and Arab security, to support African countries and to forge solid partnerships with all countries of the world without discrimination and to work together with them individually and collectively to counter the threats posed by the meddling of certain regional powers in Arab domestic affairs. Egypt prays that its efforts in collaboration with brotherly Arab nations will reenergise the Arab position and bolster Arab national security strengths in the face of outside threats, and above all Iranian meddling in the Gulf and Turkish interventions in Libya, Syria and Iraq. The June Revolution made it possible to rebuild and revive the national economy. Not only did it become possible to launch the difficult but successful economic reform programme, it also generated conditions for nationwide infrastructural projects that included 7,000 kilometres of roads, a new administrative capital and a second Suez Canal; for the development of the oil and energy infrastructure and a modernised banking infrastructure; and for the establishment of new universities, the modernisation of the educational system and a crucial digitalisation drive in banking and other sectors. Thanks to all these advances, the Egyptian economy has been able to recover its robustness and dynamism, earning the appreciation and esteem of international financial institutions. However, the inspiration for all this progress and, indeed, the very heart of the 30 June Revolution is the Egyptian people. The national spirit expresses itself most explicitly in healthcare projects such as the “100 Million Healthy Lives” initiative to eliminate the hepatitis C virus, the educational reform and modernisation drive, and renewed attention to culture and the arts. After all, health, education and culture and the arts are quintessential components of human development. As we celebrate this anniversary of the 30 June Revolution, we mark another year in the Egyptian people s march to the future. We are working quickly to make up for years lost. But we are on course in our development as a nation capable of safeguarding its interests, protecting its region and advancing the cause of peace and security in this region and in the world.
"Treason." That s what President Donald Trump accused Barack Obama of committing in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network Monday night. With Trump s daily diatribes it s easy to shrug this off as just the latest insult. But no American president has ever publicly accused a predecessor of treason. It is a serious specific charge that often carries with it the penalty of death. And while Trump and his team use the word promiscuously, they also seem to fundamentally misunderstand its meaning. Team Trump seems to think "treason" is about personal disloyalty. That s fitting for a president who sees everything through the lens of self-interest. But the charge of treason is actually about betrayal of the national interest in pursuit of self-interest. And that s a definition that may hit closer to home in the Trump administration. The dictionary definition of "treason" is "the offense of acting to overthrow one s government or to harm or kill its sovereign." The US Constitution defines it even more narrowly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Beyond unhinged partisan attacks, the target of the Trump team s cries of treason are members of their own administration who have run afoul of the President s wishes or -- even worse -- decided to tell the truth about what they saw in the room where it happened. So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed former National Security Advisor John Bolton as a "traitor" for the massively unflattering revelations in his book, backed up by contemporaneous notes, perhaps trying to distract from the account that Pompeo passed a note to Bolton describing the President as "so full of shit." Trump called former Attorney General Jeff Sessions a "traitor" after he appropriately recused himself from the Russia investigation and Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. While ignorance is often used as a defense for President Trump, he s shown a clear understanding of the traditional punishment for traitors, getting caught railing against the whistleblower whose complaint unleashed his impeachment, saying "I want to know who s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that s close to a spy ... You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now." That s a clear reference to execution. If that sounds like an overstatement listen to what the former chief speechwriter for Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Guy Snodgrass, told Brian Stelter on Reliable Sources. He heard Trump go on a 10 minute tirade against a Washington Post reporter that Trump said "should be thrown in jail" and ultimately said You know, in the good old days, if you had a traitor, you know what you would do? You would just line them up in the street and have them shot. " "That kind of language," Snodgrass concluded with severe understatement, "is not something you want to hear your commander in chief saying about freedom of the press, about members of the press who are seeking to inform the American public." Defending Trump in light of this persistent pattern of calling his opponents traitors is complicity. Only in a cult of personality does someone ignore the obvious to defend the indefensible. Of course, for people in this administration, proving their unquestioning loyalty is the best and only job protection barring being a member of the Trump family itself. But there s an obvious irony in Trump s attempts to label critics traitors. His core political playbook is to deny, deflect, project and divide. And so when he reflexively reaches for an attack on others it reveals his own anxieties. Because President Trump can be credibly accused of giving our enemies "aid and comfort." Trump strenuously avoids criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite his long list of insults to American democracy and attempts to undercut the international system America helped build. Trump of course expected to benefit from Russian interference in our elections on his behalf. He subsequently invited foreign interference in the 2020 election by withholding military aid for Ukraine until they announced an investigation into Joe Biden s family. And according to Bolton s book, Trump begged Chinese President Xi to help him win re-election while personally approving of the construction of concentration camps. (Trump has denied Bolton s account and called him a liar -- though this response should be viewed with skepticism because of Trump s record of lying, especially when confronted with uncomfortable facts.) Bolton attests that Trump agreed to interfere in investigations into a Turkish bank and undercut attempts to impose crippling sanctions on Chinese telecom company ZTE, which had violated sanctions against Iran. And, of course, he chose to shrug off the Saudi-backed assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. None of these actions are in America s interest -- but they can only be explained that Trump believes they benefit his self-interest, political or otherwise. So let s get clear about the definition of treason and traitor. It has nothing to do with personal loyalty to President Trump. It has everything to do with loyalty to the transcendent interests of the United States of America. Ignoring that basic difference for job security or partisan purposes is defining deviancy down while degrading our democracy.
Egypt currently faces two major challenges. The first, which is existential, is related to the issue of water rights and to Ethiopia s insistence on completing construction on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) with no regard to Egypt s “right to life.” The second challenge relates to borders, and to the threat to Egypt s national security posed by the terrorist militias in Libya that are backed by Turkey. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi s recent speech sparked lively discussion (most of which does not appear in the media) among a large number of Egyptian people, discussion that is far from the calls for war that some have made, knowing that they will not pay the price of their warmongering. One side was supportive of the speech, while another posed the question: Will Egypt give priority to Libya over Ethiopia? Will the tough language the president used with Libya s Government of National Accord (GNA) result in a misplaced arrangement of Egyptian priorities? I do not think that the only priority should be to confront the threats of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and extremist groups, while ignoring the existential issue of the Renaissance Dam. Egypt s tougher stance toward Libya likely aims to influence Ethiopia, part of a strategic vision. This may be the case, provided that Egypt is not involved in a comprehensive long-term war with Turkey — which is something we do not expect in any case — and that the limit of Egyptian intervention remains the cities of Sirte and al-Jafra, which Turkey wants to invade in order to control eastern Libya s Oil Crescent region. Sisi s speech was not a declaration of war on Turkey, nor would it mean controlling Libya. Rather, it was an attempt to establish new red lines that are based on the support of regional and international parties for both sides of the conflict in Libya without direct intervention. Turkey changed the rules of the game when it brought terrorist militias from Syria to Libya, when it sought to establish military bases in Libya (despite all North African countries struggle for independence and an end to foreign bases), and finally, when it began speaking about occupying areas in eastern Libya that are rich in oil and natural gas. If Egypt is successful in stopping Turkish penetration into Libya without significant losses or getting involved in an all-out war, the result will be a message of deterrence for Ethiopia, especially since many major countries, such as Russia and France, want to limit Erdogan s influence in Libya. Even America wants to limit his presence and influence. And Italy — which Turkey tried to draw to its cause — will not deal with Turkey if doing so comes at the expense of its relationship with the European Union. Some of these countries will support any Egyptian military intervention in Libya — which should in any case be limited. The same countries, however, will not welcome any Egyptian military action, even if limited, against Ethiopia. Other countries, meanwhile, will not oppose Egyptian incursion into Ethiopia. Egypt s role is to make these countries understand the correctness of its choices and its efficiency, whether via the effectiveness of its limited military intervention in Libya or via its intensive diplomatic and political moves to push Ethiopia to review its position on the severe damage the GERD poses to Egypt s existential water interests, and to understand the use of force in the event that all political solutions fail.
Unfortunately, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) has become a constant headache for Africa. Instead of being a tool of cooperation and integration among Nile Basin countries, it became the biggest crisis facing the African continent in the 21st century. Ethiopia is insisting on deception and procrastination. It is no surprise the latest round of negotiations, sponsored by Sudan and held last week, has failed. Making negotiations fail is an Ethiopian skill par excellence, where it announces the opposite of what it does and reveals the opposite of what it conceals. It entered all the rounds of negotiations with the aim of wasting time and procrastinating in an attempt to impose a fait accompli situation on downstream countries Egypt and Sudan. Because Egypt was aware of this, it made a reservation before the beginning of the latest round of negotiations. But it answered the invitation of Sudan and didn t want to close doors in the face of goodwill and sincere efforts of sister Sudan. Headed by Sudanese irrigation minister Yasser Abbas, the negotiations, which lasted for more than a week, were an attempt to reach consensus regarding the points of contention in the technical and legal fields. However, Ethiopia stood still, kept dodging and didn t offer solutions except exert efforts to impose a fait accompli on downstream countries. At the same time, it did its utmost to blow the Egyptian-Sudanese consensus. It was a malicious approach adopted by Ethiopia since the beginning of the crisis and it started practising it with Omar Al-Bashir. It employs this approach until this very moment; sowing division between the Egyptian and the Sudanese sides, in spite of the Sudanese government s clear standpoint in refusing both the unilateral Ethiopian moves and refusing to join a bilateral agreement concerning the first fill of the GERD. The Egyptian Irrigation Ministry s statement was clear in refuting the Ethiopian standpoint which led to the failure of the latest round of negotiations in Sudan. According to the statement, Ethiopia refused to discuss the legal aspects for the three countries to conclude a binding agreement based ont inernational law. Ethiopia wanted these aspects to be guiding rules which it can amend solely. It also sought to gain the absolute right to establish projects up the Blue Nile. It also refused that the agreement include a binding legal mechanism for dispute resolution or that effective steps be taken to face drought. At the end of the talks, the Ethiopian side refused that points of contention be referred to the three countries prime ministers as a last chance for accord. This led to ending the negotiations without reaching a solution like the previous rounds held during the last nine years. This is the Ethiopian stance that has been repeated time and again throughout the last nine years. It pretends to be searching for a solution and announces its desire to reach consensus and a new round of negotiations begins extending for years on end and stops at the same point where it started. The Washington negotiations, called upon by the US and sponsored by President Donald Trump with the participation of the World Bank revived hopes for eaching a final agreement. Marathon negotiations were held in which Ethiopian delegation participated and ended with a semi-final agreement. There were some points of contention for which the delegations of the three countries agreed on accepting the mediation of the USA and the World Bank. Indeed, a legal phrasing of these points of contention was reached from the participating international parties. The Ethiopian delegation made an excuse to have a break for consultation but it didn t show up during the last round of negotiations. Egypt signed the agreement solely. This was an extremely intelligent move by the Egyptian delegation. The Egyptian signature meant agreement has been reached by international partners and there was international acceptance of this agreement. Hence, Egypt was keen on signing to confirm to the entire world its desire for peace and at the same time expose the dodging and deceitful Ethiopian stance before the world. Despite Egypt s insistence on keeping the Washington card, it entered the latest round of negotiations with good will, under the sponsorship of Sudan, to explore all available means to reach an equitable and balanced agreement regarding the GERD that ensures Ethiopia s developmental objectives and at the same time secures the interests of downstream countries. However, Ethiopia shows every time its bad intentions and that it doesn t want peace or good for the peoples of the Nile Valley. Instead of being a source of cooperation, the GERD became a source of concern and tension in the African continent. Perhaps the only benefit gained from the latest round of negotiations was showing the unified Egyptian and Sudanese stand, where Sudan reiterated its refusal to a unilateral filling of the GERD as announced by its irrigation minister Yasser Abbas who pointed out the hazards of the Ethiopian unilateral stands, with regards to the Sudanese Roseires Dam, and the dangers awaiting it in case of operating the GERD unilaterally. The Sudanese government stands are positive in their entirety, and accordingly the Egyptian irrigation minister Mohamed Abdel-Ati commended them and all the serious Sudanese efforts in this respect. The Egyptian diplomacy cleverly and wisely exposed the Ethiopian tricks before the world and revealed the aggressive Ethiopian intentions aiming at harming the Egyptian people and its water resources while Ethiopia isn t in need of more water resources. Ethiopia announced that it wants the GERD in order to generate electricity and Egypt doesn t oppose this principle since the beginning of the crisis but in the negotiations it showed the opposite and wanted to employ the dam as a gate for creating problems and disputes, pushing the region to the edge of the abyss and driving the whole African continent into a circle of conflicts and wars. This tense situation, which Ethiopia has created in the region, drove the US National Security Agency (NSA) to tell Addis Ababa that it is time to reach a deal over the disputed GERD before starting to fill the dam s reservoir. In a tweet on its official account, the NSA said that “257 million people in East Africa are relying on Ethiopia to show strong leadership, which means striking a fair deal.” The NSA s move should be the beginning of a rapid international movement against Ethiopia, especially in the UN Security Council in order to play its expected role in keeping peace and stability in Africa and finding a solution to the permanent and continuous Ethiopian headache for Africa that started nine years ago. It is also important that the African Union defuse the Ethiopian crisis before becoming exacerbated, especially that the African Union (AU) headquarters is in Ethiopia. The AU should adopt a clear and effective standpoint towards the Ethiopian bad intentions and its attempt to harm the interests of downstream countries, even if it requires freezing Ethiopia s AU membership and relocating the headquarters of the union. Ethiopia has become a state that creates disputes and instability and isn t keen on peace and security in the continent. I believe that there is no need for more negotiations and the Washington card is decisive in this respect. It all relies on the political will of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian leadership s desire to embrace the path of peace and stability for the peoples of the three countries or else insist on moving in the opposite direction and setting off a crisis that has no justification in reality.
President Donald Trump couldn t wait. His presidency is nosediving, with bad news erupting all around him. His answer was Tulsa, a campaign rally in blood-red Oklahoma, the state he won by a crushing 36 points in 2016. But Tulsa did not deliver. The event that was supposed to trumpet his return to greatness -- and the country s return to normalcy -- instead brought embarrassing scenes of empty bleachers, a dismantled stage and a familiar speech unsuccessfully trying to reignite public fears. After raising expectations with claims that a million people had requested tickets for his first campaign rally in more than three months, the vacant seats were the biggest story of the night. It was a bad omen for November, and Trump undoubtedly saw it with his own eyes as he scanned a sea of blue seats devoid of supporters on the top level of the arena that he and his campaign had said would be bursting beyond capacity; so full, they expected, that the campaign planned for a second outdoor speech to bring an additional 40,000 people unable to find a seat indoors. Instead, the outdoor speech was cancelled, the stage dismantled. The campaign absurdly tried to explain by claiming that protesters blocked the entrances. But every reporter there confirmed that was not true. Maybe Tulsans weren t dying to see Trump during a pandemic, although many thousands did come, possibly risking their lives to follow a president who showed he doesn t value the health of his supporters enough to follow the advice of health experts. They had urged him to postpone the rally. Oklahoma has seen rising numbers of coronavirus diagnoses in the runup to the meeting, and an indoor gathering of thousands -- most of them without face masks -- may be the best possible way to spread the contagion. The speech covered mostly familiar terrain, old promises, boring attacks and outrageous statements. The theatrical incitement and divisiveness genuinely energized the crowds when Trump first took to the hustings four years ago. Now it s mostly more of the same. We re used to him now. We ve heard it all before. Still, as with so much that is happening in the world today, we have to remind ourselves how abnormal it all is, to hear a president of the United States threaten violence against Americans and traffic in prejudice. Speaking of recent anti-racism protests, he warned, "our people are not nearly as violent. But if they ever were, it would be a terrible, terrible day for the other side." It s unclear who exactly "the other side" is. The speech was filled with the usual racist innuendo. He called Covid-19 the racist term "Kung-flu," dog whistled, "they want to demolish our heritage," and spoke of the brutality of gangs, claiming that if Vice President Joe Biden and the Democrats are elected, "our country will be destroyed." Does anyone really believe that? The crowds cheered when Trump attacked CNN or China, but it appeared to me that his effort to make them hate Biden didn t elicit quite so much excitement. The speech was typically self-centered, with a bizarre more than ten-minute long riff on his ultra-slow descent from the West Point ramp, and absolutely no words of compassion for the nearly 120,000 people in this country who have died during the pandemic. Instead, Trump repeated the lie that coronavirus numbers are climbing because there s more testing, shockingly revealing that, "I said to my people, slow the testing down, please." Experts say testing saves lives. Slowing the testing leads to more deaths. The White House predictably claimed he was joking. If this was the great comeback, the relaunch of Trump s campaign for re-election, it was a flop, and Trump most likely knows it. Don t be surprised if heads roll in the campaign. Instead of a showcase for the great enthusiasm Trump is supposed to engender in his supporters, it left quite a different impression. Not only did we not see the massive crowds we were promised, we saw something else, something deeply disturbing. We saw a president willing to risk the lives of his supporters in order to garner political support. Six Trump staffers organizing the event had tested positive. Every image of the crowd of tightly-packed Oklahomans holding Trump 2020 signs made one wonder how many among them was breathing in the coronavirus. How many will contract Covid-19; how many will take it home to their relatives, to their neighbors, friends and co-workers? How many will die because of this Trump rally? Instead of a triumphant relaunch, we saw a president threaten anti-racism protesters, and that started even before the rally. Instead of a president confident in his achievements, we saw a man in the midst of a string of defeats. We saw a man unable to recognize the depths of the crisis faced by his country. Trump is in freefall, presiding over the worst public health crisis in a century, the highest unemployment rate since World War II, the biggest sustained protests in decades. He is losing in the Supreme Court; his poll numbers are nosediving. And in the 24 hours before this rally, his administration launched a shambolic effort to push out a prosecutor who is investigating criminal cases targeting people close to Trump. It was a spectacularly incompetent effort, and one that succeeded in making us wonder why Trump wanted to get rid of the prosecutor; one more wound on a presidency that is bleeding its way to the finish line. If Tulsa was supposed to salve Trump s wounds and send him on his way to victory, it accomplished nothing of the sort. You cannot count Trump out, but he is certainly down.
To anyone following developments in Libya it is obvious that Turkey has gone on the rampage, unrestrained by the US, influential powers in NATO, the EU and needless to say, the UN. After acquiring a foothold in western Libya, Turkey now seeks to press eastwards to conquer the rest of the country. Although it claims to back the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA), the reverse is the case. The GNA is Ankara’s puppet in its current game of playing NATO policeman against Russia in the Eastern Mediterranean. The aggressiveness with which Ankara is performing this role has jeopardised peace-making efforts in Libya and raised tensions as never before in the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa. The pro-government press in Turkey has recently revealed Ankara’s plans to establish two military bases in Libya. One is the Watiya Airbase to the southwest of Tripoli and the other is a naval base in Misrata. The facade towards this end is a military cooperation pact with the GNA which has been fighting the Libyan National Army (LNA) under the command of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. Behind that facade resides Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambition to grab as large a share as possible of Libyan oil and gas and to assert Turkish military and political hegemony over Libya. Other North African countries are acute to the dangers of the Turkish expansionist project which seeks to promote the Islamist project as its instrument and to advance the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother organisation of all extremist Islamist groups, as its partner in sowing chaos and destruction in the region. The Turkish occupation of Libya also strengthens Ankara’s hand in its various disputes with Europe. More immediately, it bolsters its position in growing tensions with Greece over oil and gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean, and over the Greek islands that Ankara has set its sights on. The spurious Turkish-GNA maritime border agreement has furnished Ankara with another facade in order to deploy warships in the area, whether to protect Turkey’s illegal drilling activities and or to advance its other acquisitive ends. Turkish entrenchment in Libya has reached such a level that it will take concerted international efforts to halt the revival of the Turkish occupation. France has expressed its alarm at the Turkish danger on numerous occasions. Last week, a spokesperson for the French presidency harshly censured Ankara for its “even more aggressive and insistent stance... with seven Turkish ships deployed off the Libyan coast and violations of the arms embargo”. He added: “The Turks are behaving in an unacceptable manner and are exploiting NATO. France cannot just stand by.” Unfortunately, NATO appears to prefer appeasement when it comes to dealing with Turkish belligerence. NATO’s condonation (if not behind the scenes approval) of Turkey’s Libya campaign will prove the most disastrous mistake it has committed since the NATO bombardment of Libya nine years ago, which opened the doors to the hell of civil war, the proliferation of militias and the influx of terrorists. Hopefully, influential powers can take some constructive action before it is too late. The US and Russia, above all, should agree on a formula to promote a political solution to the Libyan conflict before it spirals out of control. The international community can also take advantage of the Egyptian peace initiative that Ankara sought to undermine. The Turkish regime will continue to obstruct attempts to promote a return to the political process, which runs counter to its current campaign of conquest. Whatever justifications the Turkish media advances for Ankara’s military intervention, they are nothing more than smokescreens for the true nature and ends of the Turkish designs. Unfortunately, Turkish propaganda finds willing buyers in some major international media outlets which claim to support the “legitimate” government in Tripoli. Curiously, these same media never mention the Libyan House of Representatives, which rests its legitimacy on the fact that it is the only popularly elected body in the country, and they conveniently ignore the fact that, under the UN-backed Libyan National Agreement, any sovereign agreements that the GNA concludes with foreign powers require the House of Representatives’ ratification. The international community and major powers need to draw some clear and strong red lines to put a stop to Turkish aggression before it precipitates military clashes in the Eastern Mediterranean where Ankara is deliberately cultivating war.
We are still in the midst of a historic public health crisis that requires access to health care. The number of coronavirus infections and deaths continues to grow every day. Many frontline workers still don t have the personal protective equipment they need as they courageously risk their lives to serve others and keep our country running.Families across the country have lost their incomes -- and health insurance -- and don t know how they ll pay bills or put food on the table. More than 40 million workers in the US have filed for unemployment. Now more than ever, people need reliable health care that they can afford. But the Trump administration wants to tear down the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that provided access to health care for millions of people across the country. The ACA is a literal lifesaver: 20 million more Americans now have health insurance; 135 million people with pre-existing conditions now have protections; 17 million people now have coverage under expanded Medicaid; 12 million seniors now pay lower prescription drug costs; and 2.3 million young people can stay on their parents health insurance.But if Republicans and the Trump administration have their way, millions of people will have the rug pulled out from under them in the middle of a deadly global health crisis. Republicans have been fighting the ACA from the moment it became law. Mitch McConnell -- in his own words -- sought to make former President Barack Obama a one-term president and knew that destroying the ACA could help him do it. Republicans in Congress weren t concerned about ripping coverage away from the millions of people who finally had lifesaving treatment and protections. They only wanted to score political points and hurt former President Obama s legacy. Republicans voted dozens of times to repeal the entire ACA ("root and branch" as McConnell described it), but failed every single time. When President Donald Trump took office, he continued the party s crusade to destroy the ACA and undermine the American health care system. His administration allowed insurance companies to sell nearly worthless "junk" plans to unsuspecting consumers unaware that they may not cover prescription drugs, maternity care, or mental health.And during the "repeal and replace" fight during my first year in the Senate, Republicans sought to gut the law and rip health insurance away from millions of people, and increase costs on millions more. But the American people organized, marched, and made their voices heard. Like every preceding Republican attempt to dismantle the law, President Trump s failed. But the fight continues. Trump s Justice Department is working to overturn the ACA, refusing to fulfill its traditional responsibility to defend federal laws in court. We simply cannot let them win. The ACA is benefitting millions of Americans, and its destruction would have a devastating impact on low-income communities, people with preexisting conditions, seniors, and people of color -- especially during a pandemic. People of color are more likely to have pre-existing conditions that put them at a higher risk of hospitalization or death from Covid-19. Black people are 40% more likely to have high blood pressure than their white counterparts; Latinas have a one in two risk of developing diabetes, and American Indian/Alaska Natives have a higher rate of diabetes than white people. These are not faceless columns on a spreadsheet. These are real people with families, friends, and community. There is no denying -- if this administration prevails lives will be put at serious risk.This pandemic has underscored the need for every American to have health coverage when they need it -- and they need it now. As lawyers and stakeholders continue to file amicus briefs in the latest case to overturn the ACA, we must continue to expose this repeal attempt for what it really is: heartless and dangerous. The American people must once again raise their voices once and tell Donald Trump: stop playing politics with our health care.
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile has been a controversial project that troubled waters between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan. The project draws the attention of the world to potential unrest in the relations between Ethiopia, on one hand, a key player in the Horn of Africa, and Egypt, on the other hand, a strategic country in the central pivot of the three continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe and one that maintains balance, peace and security in the Arab Region and the Middle East. Ethiopia s Violation of International Law The GERD project unilaterally launched in April of 2011 by Ethiopia on the Blue Nile, the largest tributary of the Nile (the world s longest river) was seen by Egyptians as a project that took advantage of Egypt s political vacuum immediately after the forced resignation of its president at that time. The launching of the Dam construction without consultation with Egypt was seen as a violation of the principles of international law, the 1993 agreement signed between Ethiopia and Egypt, and the 1902 agreement signed between Ethiopia and the United Kingdom, which necessitates consultation with downstream countries on Ethiopian structures that may affect the flows of Nile headwaters through the Blue Nile, Lake Tana, and the Sobat River flowing downstream to Sudan and Egypt. Ethiopia seems to see the Nile river headwaters originating within its territories as a matter of absolute sovereignty and that agreements signed between Ethiopia and Egypt or the United Kingdom (on behalf of Egypt and/or Sudan) as non-binding to Ethiopia.
Breaking news: Republicans might finally be willing to break with President Donald Trump. Following the president s performance with Covid-19 as well as his response to the Black Lives Matters protests there have been a number of stories speculating about whether the GOP will finally come undone. The drama is greatly exaggerated. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters that she is "struggling" to figure out how to vote in November ... When Colin Powell announced that he would support Joe Biden and former president George W. Bush revealed he would not support Trump, the New York Times reporters a "growing number" of Republicans were debating how far to go. The speculation about internal handwringing and possible "turning points" within the GOP never ends. It s the drama that never happens, but one the press loves to keep following. It needs to stop. The notion that there is a major fissure between the Republicans and President Trump simply masks the character of the modern party. Republicans nominated and elected Donald Trump to be President four years ago. They have stood by him, and done so even in the toughest of times. Nothing, even his "fine people" remarks after a 2017 white supremacist march in Charlottesville or his recent hardline response to mass marches over George Floyd s death at the hands of Minneapolis police, shakes this. When we look at President Trump we see the modern party before our very eyes. Stories about internal division mask this basic reality and suggest that there are greater options outside the Democratic Party than actually exist. When Trump decries those who want to bring down Confederate monuments and treats the job of governance as if it is a third rate reality show, he represents the party. When he invokes former president Richard Nixon and conservative Democrats George Wallace and Frank Rizzo while screaming about "law and order" as a response to civil rights protests, or tweets out "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," he speaks for the GOP. The story of the Trump presidency has been a story about how comfortably he sits within his party. Throughout his term, polls have shown remarkably solid support for the President within the Republican electorate, regardless of his actions. By and large, congressional Republicans have stood by him at every turn, protecting him from investigations and continuing to vote the party line on most issues. Of course, some such as Maine Sen. Susan Collins hem and haw, but that s the sum total of their profiles in courage. The saga of Sen. Mitt Romney captures where the party has gone. After launching the #nevertrump "movement" in 2016, Romney ended up going along with the President in the early years. Recently, he has received kudos for standing up to Trump that, while being well deserved, actually reveals how low the bar has moved. When Senator Romney was the only Republican to vote for conviction during the President s impeachment trial for using foreign policy to help his re-election bid, it said more about what the rest of his party now considered to be acceptable than it did about Romney. When it was a headline to see Romney march with civil rights protesters against police brutality, the moment showed how far the GOP has distanced itself from this basic call for social justice. The most realistic assessments of the President have come from George Conway, a genuine conservative married to the President s adviser, Kellyanne Conway, knows Trump well. Conway has started the Lincoln Project, launching blistering ads about the President and the entire party. He has consistently blasted former colleagues who suggest that they can distance themselves from the person in the Oval Office. These are platitudes meant to disguise the choice voters actually face in November, between a party that has gone all in with Trumpism and another that has not. Every American is free to decide which choice they prefer for the next four years, but nobody should be under the illusion that a different option is on the table.
On Saturday, President Trump delivered a commencement speech at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York, honoring the graduating cadets for their service while touting the "colossal rebuilding" of the armed forces under his presidency. "To the 1,107 who today become the newest officers in the most exceptional Army ever to take the field of battle, I am here to offer America s salute. Thank you for answering your nation s call," he said. What wasn t immediately apparent from his speech -- which Trump delivered with the help of a teleprompter -- was the growing disconnect between the President and the US military. Not since President John F. Kennedy ignored his top military officers advice to invade Cuba and deploy nuclear weapons against the Soviets during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis has there been such a split between an American president and the Pentagon. Consider that Trump s top military adviser General Mark Milley publicly said it was a "mistake" for him to have appeared in an infamous photo op with the President after a walk from the Rose Garden at the White House. The photo op, which culminated in Trump holding up a bible outside St. John s Church, was made possible by first violently dispersing peaceful protesters outside the White House two weeks ago. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued the apology in a video commencement address to the National Defense University on Thursday and said, "I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics." Trump s Defense Secretary Mark Esper also tried to distance himself from that photo op. The former US Army officer publicly broke with the President and said he did not support Trump s calls to invoke the Insurrection Act and use active duty troops to quell the protests that had broken out after George Floyd s killing. CNN reported that Esper s statement went over "poorly at the White House, where his standing was already viewed to be tenuous." Around the same time, Esper s predecessor, retired General Jim Mattis, broke his long silence and launched a personal attack on the President he served for two years. He said, "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership." To top it off, four former chairmen of the joint chiefs, going back to the administration of President George H. W. Bush, all took the extraordinary step of publicly breaking with the President to condemn the use of violence against peaceful protestors. For good measure one of those former chairmen, retired General Colin Powell, told CNN s Jake Tapper that Trump lies "all the time." Many other retired four-star generals and admirals have spoken out against Trump. There is a widespread perception that Trump is quite popular within the US military. But many active duty personnel have soured on him, and Trump s chairman of the joint chiefs and his defense secretary have publicly distanced themselves from the President -- as have some of the nation s most revered retired generals and admirals. President Trump has long thrilled to the power of the US military, which he celebrated in Saturday s West Point speech. But he is now in the unusual position of being the Commander in Chief of a military that is turning away from him. This article was updated to clarify the scope of the President s photo op, which began at the White House and culminated outside St. John s Church.
We live in times of surprises that either we create or face. The intervention of thought, religion and philosophy raised the value of man and improved his behavior. Media indeed plays an important role in that account that it became one of main tools to refine the human personality and raise it to the maximum levels of sophistication and urbanization. Thus, media has to play an important role not only for news br