South Korea Naval Unit to Expand Operations to Strait of Hormuz

A South Korean anti-piracy unit has temporarily expanded its mission to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil route at the center of soaring tensions between Iran and the United States.

South Korea’s Defense Ministry announced the expansion Tuesday, saying it was meant to help ensure the safe passage of South Korean vessels and nationals through the waterway. 

South Korea has conducted anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden since 2009 and is expanding to the strait that connects the Gulf of Oman and Persian Gulf. Tensions in waters around the Arabian Peninsula have soared since President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal and a U.S. airstrike earlier this month killed Iran’s top general.

Iran was accused of sabotaging oil tankers in the Persian Gulf last year, allegations it denied. It seized a British-flagged oil tanker after an Iranian oil tanker was seized by authorities in Gibraltar over suspected sanctions violations. Both ships were released weeks later. 

The United States last week warned of threats to commercial vessels in and around the Persian Gulf following the latest tensions.

The South Korean ministry’s statement said the unit will work independently but cooperate with a U.S.-led coalition if necessary. It said two South Korean soldiers will be liaison officers at the International Maritime Security Construct headquarters. 

Observers say the decision suggested South Korea considered both its relations with Iran and chief ally United States, which has asked it for a contribution to help guard oil tankers.

The South Korean naval unit refers to a 4,400-ton-class destroyer with 300 troops and a helicopter, according to the navy. 

According to the statement, the Strait of Hormuz is a shipping lane for more than 70 percent of South Korean oil imports and South Korean vessels sail through the area about 900 times annually. It said about 25,000 South Korean nationals live in the Middle East.
 

Court: Thai Opposition Party Not Guilty of Opposing Monarchy

Thailand’s Constitutional Court on Tuesday found key figures of the opposition Future Forward Party not guilty of opposing the country’s monarchy, an allegation that could have seen the high-profile party banned in one of several ongoing cases against it.

The ruling was a relief for the opposition, which has said the anti-monarchy charges were politically motivated to suppress dissent against Thailand’s government headed by a former military junta leader.

The court rejected the claims the party sought to overthrow the monarchy, based on social media posts and academic publications by key members since before the party was founded.

The dismissed complaint also alleged the party was linked to the Illuminati, a secret society that conspiracy theorists believe seeks world domination.

“The accused have not acted in their rights and liberties to overthrow the constitutional monarchy,” said Taweekiat Meenakanit, one of the nine judges.

But Taweekiat noted that the party should revise wording in its manifesto, which states that it abides by “democratic principle per the Constitution”, to say “democratic system with the king as head of state”.

King Maha Vajiralongkorn, 67, is a constitutional monarch, but in traditional culture, the monarch is revered as the country’s protector and insulting the king is a criminal offense punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Seeking to abolish the monarchy is considered a grave offense.

Founded two years ago, Future Forward Party came third in last year’s general election, which the opposition says was manipulated to favour the pro-military Palang Pracharat Party.

Its leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, 41, has emerged as the most prominent opponent to the government that last year reinstalled former junta leader Prayuth Chan-ocha, 65, as prime minister five years after he staged a military coup.

At the party’s headquarters in Bangkok, supporters broke into cheers after the verdict was delivered.

“This should not have been a case in the first place. I would like to stress that neither Thanathorn, myself, nor the party, want to undermine the constitutional monarchy,” said Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, the party’s secretary-general.

But analysts said Future Forward could still be dissolved on one of the other legal cases it faces.

One case alleges that Future Forward violated electoral laws governing by accepting loans from party leader, auto-parts billionaire Thanathorn.

“The bottom line is Future Forward’s days are numbered,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political analyst at Chulalongkorn University.

“Because they stand against the military junta, stand for reforms and a new kind of Thailand that the conservative establishment won’t accept.”

Ukraine Asks OSCE to Expand Its Monitoring Mission

Ukraine has asked the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to expand its monitoring mission in the country, Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said Monday after a meeting with the organization’s chairman.

The OSCE’s special monitoring mission has been present in Ukraine since 2014, when fighting between Ukrainians and Russia-backed separatists broke out in the country’s eastern regions after Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

The mission’s civilian monitors observe the situation in Ukraine in general and in the war-torn regions in particular, with a special task of facilitating dialogue between the sides of the conflict. Its mandate expires on March 31.

FILE – Members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine walk as they arrive for monitoring ahead of a proposed withdrawal of troops, in Petrіvske, Donetsk region, Ukraine, Oct. 9, 2019.

Prystaiko said Kyiv asked the OSCE not only to extend the mission, but to “expand its possibilities and human resources” and support it financially.

OSCE chairman Edi Rama, in turn, called the separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine “the most pressing challenge to security and stability in Europe today.”

The move comes amid Ukraine’s efforts to end the war that has killed more than 14,000 people and ravaged the country’s industrial heartland. In December, leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany sat down for talks, hoping to revive a 2015 peace deal. The negotiations didn’t produce a breakthrough, but were hailed by both Russia and Ukraine as progress.

 

Virginia State Capital Braces for Gun Rights Rally

Virginia’s capital city is bracing for the expected arrival of thousands of gun-rights activists and other groups that have vowed to descend on Richmond to protest Democrats’ plans to pass gun-control legislation.

Gov. Ralph Northam declared a temporary state of emergency days ahead of Monday’s rally, banning all weapons including guns from the event on Capitol Square. Militia groups and white supremacists were among those expected to mix with gun-rights activists, raising fears the state could again see the type of violence that exploded in Charlottesville in 2017.

Virginia’s solicitor general told a judge Thursday that law enforcement had identified “credible evidence” armed out-of-state groups planned to  come to the state  with the possible intention of participating in a “violent insurrection.”

Toby Heytens also suggested during his arguments in a lawsuit by gun advocates that challenged the weapons ban that the crowd could number in the tens of thousands. The Supreme Court upheld the weapons ban.

The Virginia State Police, the Virginia Capitol Police and the Richmond Police are all coordinating the event and have plans for a huge police presence at Monday’s rally with both uniformed and plainclothes officers. Police plan to limit access to Capitol Square to only one entrance and have warned rallygoers they may have to wait hours to get past security screening.

Authorities will be looking to avoid a repeat of the violence that erupted in 2017 in Charlottesville during one of the largest gatherings of white supremacists and other far-right groups in a decade. Attendees brawled with counterprotesters, and an avowed white supremacist drove his car into a crowd, killing a woman and injuring dozens more.

A demonstrator stands on the sidewalk before a pro gun rally, Jan. 20, 2020, in Richmond, Va.

Law enforcement officials faced scathing criticism for what both the white supremacist groups and anti-racism protesters said was a passive response.

Monday’s rally  is being organized by an influential grassroots gun-rights group, the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The group holds a yearly rally at the Capitol, typically a low-key event with a few hundred gun enthusiasts listening to speeches from a handful of ambitious Republican lawmakers.

But this year, many more are expected to attend. Second Amendment groups have identified the state as a rallying point for the fight against what they see as a national erosion of gun rights.

The pushback against proposed new gun restrictions began immediately after Democrats won majorities in both the state Senate and House of Delegates in November. Much of the opposition has focused on a proposed assault weapons ban.

Virginia Democrats are also backing bills limiting handgun purchases to once a month, implementing universal background checks on gun purchases, allowing localities to ban guns in public buildings, parks and other areas, and a red flag bill that would allow authorities to temporarily take guns away from anyone deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others.

 

 

Ex-Police Chief on Trial for Role in Catalan Secession Bid

The former head of Catalonia’s regional police and three others are standing trial on charges of rebellion and sedition for their alleged roles in the illegal bid by the Catalan regional government to break away from Spain in 2017.
   
The trial starting Monday in the National Court could inflame secessionist sentiment again in Catalonia after several weeks of calm in the northeastern region. It also comes as new Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez promises to try to resolve the regional conflict with political talks rather than legal actions.
   
The state prosecution has asked for former Mossos police chief Jose Luis Trapero to be sentenced to 11 years on charges of rebellion for allegedly conniving with regional authorities in the failed secession push led by former Catalan regional President Carles Puigdemont and his deputy, Oriol Junqueras.
   
Puigdemont, now a European Parliament member, fled Spain to Belgium following the push. Spain is seeking his extradition. Junqueras and eight other Catalan politicians and activists received prison sentences last October for their roles.
   
Also charged with rebellion are former Catalan regional interior ministry official, Cesar Puig and former regional police director, Pere Soler. Senior regional police officer Teresa Laplana is charged with sedition.
   
The trial is expected to last two months and several of those in prison are expected to testify.

A Sunday Fight Over Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Key players in the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump and his defense argued sharply Sunday whether his efforts to get Ukraine to launch investigations to benefit him politically were impeachable offenses that warranted his removal from office.

Trump’s Senate trial formally opened last week and is set to hear opening arguments on Tuesday. But combatants in the political and legal fight over Trump’s fate waged verbal battles across the airwaves on Sunday morning news talk shows in the U.S. that offered a glimpse of the Senate drama the American public will witness in the days ahead.

Criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, one of the team of lawyers defending Trump, told CNN’s “State of the Union” show that he will tell the 100 members of the Senate, who are acting as jurors deciding Trump’s fate, that “even if the facts as presented are true, it would not rise to the level of impeachment” to convict Trump and oust him from office.

The lawmakers will be deciding whether Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the standard the U.S. Constitution set for removing a president from office. As the trial nears, the Republican-majority Senate remains highly unlikely to convict Trump, a Republican, since a two-thirds vote against Trump would be necessary to oust him from the White House.

FILE – Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and U.S. President Donald Trump face reporters during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Sept. 25, 2019.

Trump last July asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to launch an investigation of one of his top 2020 Democratic challengers, former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company, and a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine sought to undermine Trump’s 2016 campaign.  The phone call between the two leaders happened at the same time Trump was temporarily blocking release of $391 million in military aid Kyiv wanted to help fight pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Dershowitz argued that Trump’s actions did not amount to criminal conduct. He said that “if my argument prevails” and the Senate decides no impeachable offenses occurred, “There’s no need for witnesses” at Trump’s Senate trial and “the Senate should vote to acquit [Trump] or dismiss” the case against him.

FILE – House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 3, 2019.

Congressman Adam Schiff, the leader of seven House of Representative managers prosecuting the case against Trump, told ABC News’ “This Week” show, “The facts aren’t seriously contested, that the president withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to an ally at war with Russia, withheld a White House meeting that the president of Ukraine desperately sought to establish with his country and with his adversary the support of the United States in order to coerce Ukraine to helping him cheat in the next election.”

Schiff added, “They really can’t contest those facts. So the only thing really new about the president’s defense is that they’re now arguing that because they can’t contest the facts that the president cannot be impeached for abusing the power of his office.”

On Saturday, both the House lawmakers pushing for Trump’s conviction, and Trump’s defenders, filed legal arguments in the case.

The House managers said it was clear that the “evidence overwhelmingly establishes” that Trump is guilty of both charges in the two articles of impeachment he is facing.

FILE – President Donald Trump listens to a question during an event on prayer in public schools, in the Oval Office of the White House, Jan. 16, 2020, in Washington.

Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team called the impeachment effort against him “a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.”

His lawyers called the impeachment effort “a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months  away.”

But Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that heard weeks of testimony about Trump and his aides’ attempts to pressure Ukraine for the Biden investigations, said the White House legal stance is “surprising in that It doesn’t really offer much new beyond the failed arguments we heard in the House.”

“So the only thing really new about the president’s defense is that they’re now arguing that because they can’t contest the facts that the president cannot be impeached for abusing the power of his office,” Schiff said. “That’s the argument I suppose you have to make if the facts are so dead set against you. You have to rely on an argument that even if he abused his office in this horrendous way that it’s not impeachable. You had to go so far out of the mainstream to find someone to make that argument you had to leave the realm of constitutional law scholars and go to criminal defense lawyers.”

FILE – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., signs the resolution to transmit the two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate for trial on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 15, 2020.

The Senate has yet to decide whether it will hear witnesses in the impeachment trial, with new testimony opposed by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

Democrats want to subpoena former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others to testify about their knowledge of Trump’s Ukraine actions. Trump eventually released the Ukraine military aid in September after a 55-day delay without Zelenskiy launching the Biden investigations, which Republicans say is proof that Trump did not engage in a reciprocal quid pro quo deal — the military aid in exchange for the investigations to help him politically.

“We’ll be fighting for a fair trial,” Schiff said. “That is really the foundation on which this all rests. If the Senate decides, if Senator McConnell prevails and there are no witnesses, it will be the first impeachment trial in history that goes to conclusion without witnesses.”

He said, “We don’t know what witnesses will be allowed or even if we’ll be allowed witnesses. The threshold issue here is, will there be a fair trial? Will the senators allow the House to call witnesses, to introduce documents. That is the foundational issue on which everything else rests. There is one thing the public is overwhelmingly in support of and that is a fair trial.”

One of Trump’s staunchest Senate defenders, Sen. Lindsey Graham, on the “Fox News Sunday” show, called the impeachment effort “a partisan railroad job. It’s the first impeachment in history where there’s no allegation of a crime by the president.”

He said if Democrats demand to hear testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney and others, Trump will seek to invoke executive privilege against their testimony to protect the sanctity of private White House conversations.

“Clearly to me any president would ask for executive privilege regarding these witnesses,” Graham said, adding that if they were that important to the House case against Trump, Democrats should have sought their testimony during the House investigation.

Democrats did seek more testimony from White House aides, but Trump ordered them to not cooperate with the impeachment investigation; several aides complied with Trump’s edict while others did not. Democrats dropped their efforts to compel some testimony out of a fear that it would result in a lengthy legal battle that could have been tied up in U.S. for months.

Trump is spending the weekend at his Mar-a-Lago retreat along the Atlantic Ocean in Florida. Late Saturday, he resumed his almost daily attacks on the Democrats’ impeachment campaign against him, saying on Twitter, “What a disgrace this Impeachment Scam is for our great Country!” 

“Nancy Pelosi said, it’s not a question of proof, it’s a question of allegations! Oh really?” @JudgeJeanine@FoxNews What a disgrace this Impeachment Scam is for our great Country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 19, 2020

Trump’s Senate impeachment trial is only the third such event in the nearly 2 1/2 centuries of U.S. history. Two other presidents — Andrew Johnson in the mid-19th century and Bill Clinton two decades ago — were impeached by the House but acquitted in Senate trials and remained in office. A fourth U.S. president, Richard Nixon in the mid-1970s, faced almost certain impeachment in the Watergate political scandal, but resigned before the House acted.

Putin Denies He Wants to Remain in Power Indefinitely

Russia’s Vladimir Putin is denying that he’s planning to retain his grip on power when he relinquishes his country’s presidency in 2024.

The 67-year-old Putin dismissed accusations that sweeping constitutional changes he laid out in a speech Wednesday would allow him to retain his grip on a country he’s ruled for 20 years.

President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with a man after attending a wreath laying commemoration ceremony for the 77th anniversary since the Leningrad siege was lifted during World War II at the Piskaryovskoye Memorial Cemetery, Jan. 14, 2020.

Speaking Saturday while on a visit to his hometown of St. Petersburg, Putin said he understood peoples alarm but that he doesn’t want Russia to return to the Soviet-era practice of rulers dying in office without a succession plan.“

In my view, it would be very worrying to return to the situation of the mid-1980s when heads of state one by one remained in power until the end of their days, [and] left office without having secured necessary conditions for a transition of power,” Putin said.“

So, thank you very much, but I think it’s better not to return to the situation of the mid-1980s,” he added.

But many of his critics are skeptical of his assurances.

They worry Putin’s proposals, the first significant changes to the country’s constitution since it was adopted under Boris Yeltsin in 1993, are designed to ensure he keeps a grip on the levers of power after he leaves the Kremlin.

Putin’s term in office is set to end in 2024, and he cannot run again as the constitution prohibits anyone serving more than two consecutive terms.

FILE – Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses the State Council in Moscow, Jan. 15, 2020.

The proposed constitutional changes he unveiled Wednesday, at this stage still vague, could allow him to retain power as national leader either as prime minister, a maneuver he’s used before to circumvent term limits, chairman of the country’s parliament or as head of a revamped but still ill-defined state council, his critics say.

Political foes have dubbed the proposed shake-up a “constitutional coup,” which would see the presidency reduced in importance. Some former Kremlin advisers say none of the powerful factions within the Kremlin or the country’s oligarchs want Putin to go, for fear his departure would trigger internecine warfare within the governing class.

In a recent interview with VOA, before Putin’s announcement, one of his former advisers, Gleb Pavlovsky, said that to a certain degree he’s trapped within the system he created. Putin can’t quit for fear that everything will fall apart, Pavlovsky said.

While Putin’s proposal has prompted outrage from rights activists, liberals and his political foes, ordinary Russians, even those critical of Putin, seem resigned, with many saying they’d never expected he’d relinquish power in four years’ time.

“I feel indifferent,” Ekaterina, a 28-year-old financial adviser told VOA. “Most of my friends are just making jokes about it” because they feel impotent, she added.

In 2011-2012 tens of thousands of people took to the streets following Putin’s return to the presidency for his third term, Ekaterina and others of her age group say they doubt large-scale protests to Putin’s plan will happen now. In August a series of protests were mounted against rigged elections to Moscow’s city council, but they have fizzled.

FILE – Russian President Vladimir Putin, center right, and Kazakhstan’s former president Nursultan Nazarbayev, center left, attend the Victory Day military parade to mark 74 years since the end of World War II, in Red Square in Moscow, May 9, 2019.

Some opposition politicians say Putin’s proposals would see Russia gravitate to a Central Asian model of governance. They accuse Putin of wanting to prolong his state leadership by following the model of Kazakhstan, where Nursultan Nazarbayev, left the presidency last year but has maintained his iron grip on his Central Asian country as chairman of an all-powerful Security Council.

“It is a complete ideological switch on the part of the ruling class from a Western ideology to something else — an Eastern one or an Ancient Roman one,” said Alexander Baunov of the Carnegie Moscow Center, a think tank.

The Russian leader’s “reform” proposals include also abolishing the primacy of international law now enshrined in the country’s current constitution. That possible change is alarming Russia’s beleaguered civil society groups, which are already seeing a tightening of restrictions on their work.

“As a member of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Russia is bound by international standards on human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law — including democratic elections, protections from arbitrary imprisonment, and freedoms of the media, assembly, and association,” wrote opposition politician and journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza in the Washington Post Friday.

Those commitments have long been ignored, “but by establishing the primacy of domestic statutes, the Kremlin intends to free itself from its remaining formal commitments under international law, signaling yet another milestone in its growing isolation,” he said.

Davos Chief Welcomes views of Trump, Greta Thunberg at Forum

The head of the World Economic Forum says it’s “reassuring” that U.S. President Donald Trump and climate activist Greta Thunberg will both return to its annual meeting in Davos this year, noting that concerns about the environment will be a key topic.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab sees vast changes in business, society and culture over the 50 years since he created the yearly gathering in the Swiss Alps, which initially was a forum for business leaders but now is a key stop for policymakers and activists as well.

Following another year of extreme heat, out-of-control wildfires and melting ice sheets, environmental issues are considered to be the top five long-term risks confronting the global economy, WEF said last week, citing a survey of more than 750 decision-makers.

It said catastrophic trends like global warming, climate change and the extinction of animal species would top the agenda at the meeting that begins Tuesday.

The forum is shifting its focus of recent years from how technology is transforming lives to the environment and responsible business practices that promote jobs, fight climate change and work for social good along with profit-making.

The focus on environment could make for an uncomfortable subject for Trump, whose administration has called for expanded use of carbon-spewing coal, stripped away environmental protections and played down concerns among scientists about man-made climate change. Trump has also moved to take the U.S. out of the landmark 2015 Paris accord to fight climate change.

Schwab says Trump is welcome because of his role on the world stage while Thunberg will keep the focus on the environment. Both will speak Tuesday on the opening day.

“I think both voices are necessary,” Schwab said Sunday in an interview with The Associated Press. “The environment will play a particularly important role during this meeting.”

Schwab pointed to the forum’s 160 “lighthouse” projects on inclusion and equality; economic development; technology governance; regional development; corporate leadership and ecology, including a project to plant a trillion trees.

“So if Greta comes this year, she will see that we have made substantial progress,” he said, alluding to her debut at the forum last year.

Time magazine chose Thunberg as its “Person of the Year” for 2019.

Schwab claimed the forum has helped air concerns about the environment since the 1970s, but said public awareness about climate issues has now exploded.

“Now we have recognized the urgency, because we know the window to act [on climate change] is closing,” he said, adding he hoped to inject “this sense of urgency into the meeting.”

He said many companies are increasingly seeing the benefits of “ESG” — environmental, social and governance — concerns in their business models.

 “Companies recognize … doing good … it’s a precondition for some long-term survival,” Schwab said.

On Friday, Schwab and the chairmen of Bank of America and Dutch nutrition company Royal DSM sent a joint open letter to corporate leaders on hand this year to set “a target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner” if their companies haven’t done so already.

The forum chief said nearly all European Union leaders will be on hand this year, including  German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  He said the EU has a chance to lay out its vision for the future and turn the corner after three years of haggling over Britain’s departure from the bloc, which comes at the end of this month.

He also brushed aside critics who have faulted the forum as an overly exclusive vacation for the world’s out-of-touch elites.

“If I am particularly proud of something during the last 50 years, it is of having created many years ago the community of young leaders,” Schwab said, citing 10,000 young “Global Shapers” in over 400 cities who he said are engaged in issues on the ground. “We try — and I think quite successfully — to integrate the bottom-up, young generation very much.”

The Davos gathering has battled a reputation of being a haunt for the rich, powerful and famous over its five decades. Over the years, the forum has hosted celebrities like Hollywood stars Shirley Maclaine and George Clooney, Nobel Peace Prize laureates Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, and former South African presidents F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, and business gurus like Davos regular Bill Gates.  

Libya Oil Exports Blocked, Raising Stakes for Berlin Peace Summit 

Forces loyal to Libyan military strongman Khalifa Haftar blocked oil exports from the war-ravaged country’s main ports Saturday, raising the stakes on the eve of an international summit aimed at bringing peace to the North African nation. 

The move to cripple the country’s main income source was a protest against Turkey’s decision to send troops to shore up Haftar’s rival, the head of Tripoli’s U.N.-recognized government, Fayez al-Sarraj. 

It came ahead of Sunday’s conference in Berlin that will see the United Nations try to extract a pledge from world leaders to stop meddling in the Libyan conflict — be it through supplying troops, weapons or financing. 

“All foreign interference can provide some aspirin effect in the short term, but Libya needs all foreign interference to stop,” U.N. Libya envoy Ghassan Salame told AFP in an interview. 

Call for ‘protection’

But Sarraj issued a call for international “protection troops” if Haftar keeps up his offensive. 

“Such a protection force must operate under the auspices of the United Nations. Experts will have to advise who should participate, such as the EU or the African Union or the Arab League,” he told the Die Welt newspaper on Sunday. 

The presidents of Russia, Turkey and France as well as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are to join the Sunday talks, held under the auspices of the U.N. 

Haftar and Sarraj are also expected, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas confirmed Saturday, ahead of the first gathering of such scale on the conflict since 2018. 

After months of combat, which has killed more than 2,000 people, a cease-fire took effect on January 12, backed by both Ankara and Moscow, which is accused of supporting Haftar. 

Drastic cut in crude production

But Saturday’s blockade raised fears over the conflict. 

The disruption to oil exports is expected to more than halve the country’s daily crude production, to 500,000 barrels from 1.3 million barrels, translating to losses of $55 million a day, Libya’s National Oil Company warned. 

“Our line at the U.N. is clear. Don’t play with petrol because it’s the livelihood of the Libyans,” warned Salame just hours before the blockade. 

Countdown to Death: Trump Details Soleimani’s End 

Cameras “miles in the sky,” a countdown and then “boom”: US President Donald Trump has recounted the final moments of Iran’s powerful military leader, Qassem Soleimani, in an American drone strike. 

Trump delivered the account Friday night to Republican Party donors at his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, for a fundraising dinner, U.S. media said. 

CNN on Saturday broadcast an audio recording in which the president gave new details about the January 3 strike at the airport in Baghdad. It killed the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander and members of Iraq’s Hashed al-Shaabi, a paramilitary force with close ties to Iran. 

“He was supposed to be invincible,” Trump said. 

Democrats and other critics have questioned the timing of the strike, the month before Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, and the administration’s shifting reasons for launching it. 

In the audio released by CNN, Trump did not refer to an “imminent” attack that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said Soleimani was planning. Nor was there a reference to “four embassies,” which Trump later alleged were being targeted.

‘Saying bad things’ 

“He was saying bad things about our country. He was saying like, ‘We’re going to attack your country. We’re going to kill your people.’ I said, ‘Look, how much of this s*** do we have to listen to?’ ” Trump told his guests. 

He then described the scene, relaying the words of the military officers giving live updates to him in Washington. 

“They said, ‘Sir’ — and this is from, you know, cameras that are miles in the sky — ‘they are together, sir. Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds.’ No bulls***. ‘They have two minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They’re in the car. They’re in an armored vehicle, going. … Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir … 30 seconds, 10, nine, eight … .’ Then, all of sudden, boom. ‘They’re gone, sir.’ ” 

Trump acknowledged that the U.S. strike “shook up the world” but said Soleimani “deserved to be hit hard” because he was responsible for killing “thousands of Americans.”  

Iran vowed revenge for the U.S. strike, raising fears of war, and later launched missiles at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops. None were killed. 

House Outlines Impeachment Case; Trump Team Has Fiery Answer

President Donald Trump’s legal team issued a fiery response ahead of opening arguments in his impeachment trial Saturday while House Democrats laid out their case in forceful fashion, saying the president had “abandoned his oath“ and betrayed the public trust. 

The dueling statements previewed arguments both sides intend to make once Trump’s impeachment trial begins in earnest on Tuesday. Both sides are seeking to make their case for a Republican-led Senate and for an American public bracing for a presidential election in 10 months. 

The House’s 111-page brief pulls together the private and public testimony of a dozen witnesses — ambassadors and national security officials at high levels of government — who raised concerns about the president’s actions with Ukraine. Stripped of legalese and structured in plain English, the document underscored the extent to which the impeachment proceedings are a political rather than conventional legal process. The Trump team similarly offered a taste of the rhetoric expected to be deployed by the president’s defenders in the Senate. 

Senate’s responsibility

In their brief, the House managers overseeing the prosecution wrote that it is clear that the “evidence overwhelmingly establishes“ that Trump is guilty of both charges. “The only remaining question is whether the members of the Senate will accept and carry out the responsibility placed on them by the Framers of our Constitution and their constitutional Oaths,“ the brief states. 

The Trump team, meanwhile, called the Senate’s formal summons to two articles of impeachment passed by the House last month “a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.” 

“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away,“ the filing states. 

Trump’s legal team, led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, is challenging the impeachment on both procedural and constitutional grounds, claiming Trump has been mistreated by House Democrats and that he did nothing wrong. 

Trump’s attorneys argue that the articles of impeachment are unconstitutional in and of themselves and invalid because they don’t allege a crime. Trump was impeached by the House on one count each of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Under the Constitution impeachment is a political, not a criminal process, and the president can be removed from office if found guilty of whatever lawmakers consider “high crimes and misdemeanors.” 

Trump’s answer to the summons was the first salvo in what will be several rounds of arguments before the trial formally begins on Tuesday. Trump will file a more detailed legal brief on Monday, and the House will be able to respond to the Trump filing on Tuesday. 

FILE – Attorney Kenneth Starr speaks during arguments before the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, California, March 5, 2009.

Two added to defense team

Trump on Friday named Ken Starr, the prosecutor whose investigation two decades ago led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and former Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz to his defense team. 

The additions bring experience in the politics of impeachment as well as constitutional law to Trump’s legal team. Both Starr and Dershowitz have been fixtures on Fox News Channel, Trump’s preferred television network. 

Dershowitz said he would deliver constitutional arguments defending Trump from allegations that he abused his power. Trump is also accused of obstructing Congress as it sought to investigate pressure he applied on Ukraine’s president to announce an investigation into Trump’s political rivals as the president withheld the security aid and a White House meeting as leverage. 

Trump says he did nothing wrong and argues that Democrats have been out to get him since before he took office. 

A legal brief from the White House laying out the contours of Trump’s defense is due by noon Monday, and White House attorneys and Trump’s outside legal team have been debating just how political the document should be. 

Some in the administration have echoed warnings from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, that the pleadings must be sensitive to the Senate’s more staid traditions and leave some of the sharper rhetoric exhibited during the House proceedings to Twitter and cable news. 

FILE – Alan Dershowitz arrives at the Manhattan Federal Court in New York, U.S., Sept. 24, 2019.

Dershowitz is a constitutional expert whose expansive views of presidential powers echo those of Trump. Starr is a veteran of Washington’s partisan battles after leading the investigation into Clinton’s affair with a White House intern. The House impeached Clinton, who then was acquitted at his Senate trial. Trump is expecting the same outcome from the Republican-led chamber. 

Still, the lead roles for Trump’s defense will be played by Cipollone and Sekulow, who also represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. 

Dershowitz sought to play down his role in the case in the hours after he was named to the team, saying he would be present for just about an hour to make the constitutional arguments. 

“I’m not a full-fledged member of the defense team,“ he told “The Dan Abrams Show“ on SiriusXM. 

Epstein association

White House lawyers succeeded in keeping Trump from adding House Republican lawmakers to the defense team, but they also advised him against tapping Dershowitz, according to two people who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions. They’re concerned about the professor’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who killed himself in a New York City jail cell last summer while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. 

A Fox News host said on the air that Starr would be parting ways with the network as a result of his role on the legal team. 

Other members of Trump’s legal defense include Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general; Jane Raskin, who was part of the president’s legal team during Mueller’s investigation; Robert Ray, who was part of the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons; and Eric D. Herschmann of the Kasowitz Benson Torres legal firm, which has represented Trump in numerous cases over the last 15 years. 

Giuliani, a former New York-based federal prosecutor as well as the city’s former mayor, told The Associated Press the president had assembled a “top-notch” defense team and he was not disappointed at being excluded from it. 

Giuliani, who many in the White House blame for leading Trump down the path to impeachment by fueling Ukraine conspiracies, had previously expressed interest in being on the legal team. But he said Friday that his focus would be on being a potential witness. 

Trump was impeached by the House in December. Senators were sworn in as jurors Thursday by Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial. 

Starr, besides his 1990s role as independent counsel, was a U.S. solicitor general and federal circuit court judge. 

Removed at Baylor

More recently, he was removed as president of Baylor University and then resigned as chancellor of the school in the wake of a review critical of the university’s handling of sexual assault allegations against football players. Starr said his resignation was the result of the university’s board of regents seeking to place the school under new leadership following the scandal, not because he was accused of hiding or failing to act on information. 

Dershowitz’s reputation has been damaged in recent years by his association with Epstein. One of Epstein’s alleged victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has accused Dershowitz of participating in her abuse. Dershowitz has denied it and has been battling in court for years with Giuffre and her lawyers. He recently wrote a book, Guilt by Accusation, rejecting her allegations. 

Giuffre and Dershowitz are also suing each other for defamation. 

Social Enterprise Project Connects African Asylum Seekers, Israelis in the Kitchen

It looks like any other cooking class in yuppie Tel Aviv. Sleek kitchen utensils, baskets of fresh vegetables, participants sipping wine and beer. The first hint that this is a little different is the beer Asmara from Eritrea.

Yael Ravid, co-director of Kitchen Talks, explains how her cooking events make a special connection between Israelis and the Africans seeking refuge in their country.

“As we cook together shoulder to shoulder, we literally break bread, not as a metaphor but as a real happening together. I’m hoping they will enjoy the holiday feast we’re preparing for the Eritrean Christmas and they will get a chance to know Asmayit, our Eritrean cook, and to ask her questions about her life, her home kitchen, how she grew up, how she came here,” she says.

Chef Asmayit Merhatsion is a 30-year-old asylum seeker from Eritrea. As she chops and stirs, she tells her story, starting with her imprisonment in Eritrea.

“When I was in college I was arranging for women or girls to pray. They catched [caught] us and asked who organized? I organized. They are thinking our meeting is political but it’s not political, it’s religious. That’s why I was in prison,” she explains.

After two short stints in prison, she escaped to Sudan, then to Libya, hoping to make it to Europe. But after Europe closed its doors, she decided on Israel, paying smugglers to get her across the Sinai desert.

That was almost nine years ago. Today she is married and has a young daughter. She works for the AIDS task force. And she is a chef with Kitchen Talks to share her love for Eritrean food and culture.

“It’s a vegetarian dish, five types of food we do and the traditional bread we have here I make it at home. This one is not bread it’s injera, it’s made of teff flour growing in Eritrea or Ethiopia…it’s non gluten, its healthy, that’s why we are not fat,” she says.

Participants paid about $50 for the collaborative cooking event and were enthusiastic when they tasted the results. Many said it was their first time meeting with an asylum seeker and eating their exotic food.

“You can form an opinion based on things that you don’t know or things that you fear. Then once, like even seeing here people interacting, and then once you know somebody, like get to know them and speak with them, and all of a sudden you’re like, they’re people just like me and deserve rights just like I do’,” says Adi Cydulkin, a cooking class participant.

“They are here, they exist here, we can’t ignore it, we should help especially the young children to become good citizens here in Israel,” says Eli Levy.

Participants agreed that they will take home, not only empathy for African asylum seekers like chef Asmayit, but also some of her tasty recipes they learned tonight.

Thousands of Women to Gather for Fourth Annual Women’s March

Thousands of women are planning to march in cities across the United States Saturday for the fourth annual Women’s March to advocate for a host of issues, including gender equality and women’s human rights.

Rallies are planned in dozens of cities, including Washington, where the first Women’s March in 2017 drew hundreds of thousands of people the day after President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

The march has included a political message since it began three years ago when many protesters wore the knitted pink hats that have become a symbol of women’s anti-Trump sentiments.

Politics continued to be a strong theme at the Women’s March in all subsequent years, including in 2018 when the organizers moved the march to Nevada, a battleground state for the midterm elections that year, as well as in 2019 when the march returned to Washington and heralded the record 102 women who had been recently elected to the House of Representatives.

Several of the Democratic candidates for president in 2020 are planning to attend Women’s March events across the country this year. Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, will attend the Women’s March in Reno, Nevada, while former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is planning to be at a rally in South Carolina. Senator Michael Bennet and businessman Andrew Yang will attend Women’s March events in New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively.

Since its first march, the Women’s March has faced controversy, including its leaders facing accusations of anti-Semitism. The organizers have repeatedly denied the claims. Three of the four original co-chairs of the organization have left the group, and the organization has appointed a new board that includes three Jewish women.

Current co-president of the Women’s March, Isa Noyola, noted in a statement ahead of this year’s march that it will be the last march before the 2020 election.“

In 2020, we have a chance to finish what we started three years ago and remove Trump from office,” she said.

Amid Kenya Power Struggle, IMF Says Investment Program in Crisis

Hundreds of mismanaged infrastructure projects have stalled in Kenya and it will cost around $10 billion to revive them, the IMF said in a report whose findings point to a growing power struggle at the heart of government.

Amid mounting public anger over ballooning state debt and a series of graft scandals, President Uhuru Kenyatta on Tuesday confirmed acting finance minister Ukur Yatani in the post after its previous incumbent, Henry Rotich, was charged with financial misconduct — an accusation he denies.

The government has acknowledged that some past investment projects did not pass muster, and Yatani told a budget preparation meeting on Wednesday that available resources would be “dedicated only to projects and programs that will ensure higher economic and social returns.”

FILE – Kenya’s Finance Minister Henry Rotich, right, arrives at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi, July 23, 2019.

Yatani, an ally of Kenyatta while Rotich was closer to Deputy President William Ruto, has won support from voters since provisionally taking over at the ministry in July.

The International Monetary Fund report, published on Wednesday, lays bare the scale of the task Yatani now faces. It said an estimated 500 projects — around half of the total v had ground to a halt due to “non-payment to contractors, insufficient allocation of funds to projects, and litigation cases in court.”

The state would need to raise around 1 trillion shillings ($10 billion) to complete them, the report said.

Kenya has ramped up public investment projects since 2010. But that increase “occurred without enough screening for project viability and readiness before they entered the budget,” the IMF said.

“There has been a subsequent squeeze on ongoing projects in the absence of fiscal space, which is now accruing large costs to the government.”

The fund named no specific projects, but construction of roads, markets and stadiums has stalled all over the country. Unpaid bills from the infrastructure department to suppliers and contractors totaled 78 billion shillings as of June, the IMF said.

Yatani said the government was reconstituting its planning and project monitoring unit to “ensure timely completion of projects and realization of value for money.”

His confirmation as finance minister was part of a government reshuffle that adds to signs of a rift between Kenyatta, who must step down when his second five-year term finishes in 2022, and Ruto, who considers himself the heir apparent but has begun to fall out of favor.

Deadline? What Deadline? North Korea, US Try New ‘Strategic Patience’

In April, just weeks after his summit with U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed in Hanoi, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un decided to ramp up the pressure on Washington.  

“We will wait for a bold decision from the U.S. with patience till the end of this year,” Kim said in a speech to North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly.

Just three weeks later, Kim launched his first missiles in nearly a year and a half and would conduct 12 more rounds of launches in 2019, underscoring the urgency of his year-end deadline.

At one point in early December, North Korean state media published near-daily warnings of Kim’s deadline, including one threat from a Foreign Affairs Ministry official regarding a potentially sinister “Christmas gift” for the U.S.

The top U.S. Air Force general in the Pacific region said he expected North Korea’s gift to be a long-range missile launch. The U.S. increased surveillance flights around the Korean peninsula, apparently on alert for weapons tests.

The Christmas gift never came, though.  

Maybe, some analysts said, North Korea was waiting for Kim’s annual New Year’s speech to unveil a major, provocative announcement.  

That didn’t really happen either. Kim’s New Year’s comments were relatively restrained, striking a more pessimistic than provocative tone.  

All of this raises questions. Why did North Korea steadily raise tensions for much of 2019, only to let them apparently fizzle out once the deadline passed, and what does that say about how North Korea will act in 2020?

North Korean ‘strategic patience’

The short answer is that nobody knows.  

One big clue is Kim’s New Year’s remarks, which came at the end of an important meeting of ruling party politicians in Pyongyang.  

Kim warned the world would soon witness a “new strategic weapon” and said he no longer feels bound by his moratorium on long-range missile and nuclear tests, which he unilaterally declared in April 2018, just as his diplomacy with Trump was beginning.

FILE – A man watches a TV screen showing a file image of North Korea’s missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Jan. 1, 2020.

Kim did not formally abandon nuclear talks, though. Instead, he said their progress depends on the U.S. — progress that won’t likely come anytime soon, he added. North Korea, he said, should be prepared for a “long-term” standoff with Washington.

That could be North Korea’s version of “strategic patience,” according to North Korea analyst Koo Kab-woo. That is a reference to former U.S. President Barack Obama’s attempt to apply carefully calibrated economic and military pressure until Pyongyang was ready to make concessions at the negotiating table.

For North Korea, strategic patience includes emphasizing “self-reliance, an increase in its nuclear deterrent, and stronger diplomacy that could bring about the denuclearization [of North Korea] if the U.S. lifts its confrontational policies,” said Koo, a scholar at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, at a recent conference.

While that strategy may include more weapons tests, as hinted at in Kim’s speech, North Korea may be reluctant to cross any “red line” that would prompt a major reaction by Washington, Koo said.  

An intercontinental ballistic missile or nuclear test could also upset China and Russia when both countries are pressuring the U.S. to relax sanctions on North Korea, analysts have said.  

As a result, North Korea may not fully provoke or fully engage the U.S. in the near future — a policy of intentional ambiguity, Koo said.

Bigger moves coming?

Not everyone agrees with the strategic patience analogy, though.

“Strategic patience implies that North Korea has expectations from U.S.-DPRK diplomacy,” said Rachel Minyoung Lee, an analyst for the North Korea-focused NK News online publication, using the abbreviation for North Korea’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  

According to Lee, Kim’s New Year’s comments signaled he has “little to no hope” for a diplomatic breakthrough.

“My feeling is that he is buying time for himself, not because he is hopeful of concessions from the U.S., but because he is not ready to showcase the ‘new strategic weapon’ yet,” she said.  

There’s still a possibility that North Korea may act more forcefully this year, Lee said.

“It could be that Kim feels it’s not the right time to provoke. It could be the China factor, it could be that Kim is waiting for the right moment in the U.S. presidential election, or it could be that he wants to see some progress on the problems on the economic front,” she said.  

Status quo

If North Korea is reluctant to upset the status quo for now, though, that may be just fine for Trump, who is entering a more intense phase of his reelection campaign and has been focused on other foreign policy issues, such as Iran.

FILE – U.S. President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019.

“As long as North Korea doesn’t launch long-range missiles and doesn’t test nuclear devices, I think Trump can claim that everything is alright,” said Artyom Lukin, an international relations scholar at Far Eastern Federal University in Vladivostok, Russia.

Trump’s reelection campaign has portrayed the North Korea talks as a major foreign policy win, and Trump remains publicly optimistic about their eventual success, even as North Korea stormed away from talks and conducted a near-record number of weapons tests in 2019.  

However, there does appear to be a limit for Trump. Last month, he signaled he would be disappointed if Kim resumed ICBM or nuclear tests. “He knows I have an election coming up. I don’t think he wants to interfere with that, but we’ll have to see,” Trump said.

Trump may be employing his own version of strategic patience, according to Lukin, describing the approach as: “We are ready to talk when you are ready, but we can wait.”

Who will move first?

If both the U.S. and North Korea are showing signs of “strategic patience,” the big question is: Who can afford to wait longer?  

In Lukin’s view, the situation is much more urgent for North Korea.

“Any radical move they make is only going to make their position worse. If they start testing long-range missiles, it will carry all sorts of risks for them. If they start real denuclearization, it’s also a very risky thing,” Lukin said.

“The only thing that’s left for Kim Jong Un is to wait, wait, and wait. But you could wait a long time — you could wait forever and nothing could happen, actually,” he added.  

Signs of frustration

One sign of North Korean frustration came last week, when senior North Korean Foreign Affairs Ministry official Kim Kye Gwan accused the U.S. of taking advantage of the relationship between Trump and Kim.

Though the Trump-Kim relationship remains “not bad,” it is also not enough to ensure the talks progress, he said. 

“Although Chairman Kim Jong Un has … good personal feelings about President Trump, they are, in the true sense of the word, ‘personal,'” the diplomat said.  

Nuclear talks can only resume, Kim said, once the U.S. agrees to totally accept all of North Korea’s demands. 

“But we know well that the U.S. is neither ready nor able to do so,” he added.
 

Germany: Ugly Anti-Semitic Remnant at Center of Court Battle

High on the wall of a German church where Martin Luther once preached, an ugly remnant of centuries of anti-Semitism is now at the center of a court battle.
    
The so-called “Judensau,” or “Jew pig,” sculpture on the Town Church in Wittenberg dates back to around 1300. It is perhaps the best-known of more than 20 such relics from the Middle Ages, in various forms and varying states of repair, that still adorn churches across Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
    
Located about 4 meters (13 feet) above the ground on a corner of the church, it depicts people identifiable by their headwear as Jews suckling on the teats of a sow, while a rabbi lifts the animal’s tail. In 1570, after the Protestant Reformation, an inscription referring to an anti-Jewish tract by Luther was added.
    
Judaism considers pigs impure, and no one disputes that the sculpture is deliberately offensive. But there is strong disagreement about what consequences that should have and what to do with the relief.
    
A court in the eastern city of Naumburg will consider on Tuesday a Jewish man’s bid to make the parish take it down.
    
It’s the second round in the legal dispute, which comes at a time of mounting concern about anti-Semitism in modern Germany. In May, a court ruled against plaintiff Michael Duellmann, who wants the relief put in the nearby Luther House museum.
    
Judges in Dessau rejected arguments that he has a right to have the sculpture removed because it formally constitutes slander and the parish is legally responsible for that. Duellmann appealed.
    
The relief “is a terrible falsification of Judaism, a defamation of and insult to the Jewish people,” Duellmann says, arguing that it has “a terrible effect up to this day.”
    
Duellmann, a former student of Protestant theology who converted to Judaism in the 1970s, became involved in the issue in 2017, the year Germany marked the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. He says he joined vigils in Wittenberg against the sculpture and was asked if he would be prepared to sue when it became clear that the church wasn’t prepared to take it down.

‘Culture of remembrance’
    
Luther is said to have nailed his 95 theses to the door of another church in Wittenberg in defiance of Roman Catholic authorities in 1517, starting the German Reformation. He also is known for anti-Jewish invective, from which Germany’s Lutheran church has distanced itself.
    
Luther preached at the Town Church, now a regular stop for tourists visiting Wittenberg.
 
When the church was renovated in the early 1980s, the parish decided to leave the sandstone sculpture in place, and it was also restored. In 1988, a memorial was built on the ground underneath it, referring to the persecution of Jews and the killing of 6 million in the Nazi Holocaust.
    
In addition, a cedar tree was planted nearby to signify peace, and a sign gives information on the sculpture in German and English.
    
Pastor Johannes Block says the church is “in the same boat” as the plaintiff and also considers the sculpture unacceptably insulting. The parish, he says, “also is not happy about this difficult inheritance.”
    
However, he argues that the sculpture “no longer speaks for itself as a solitary piece,” but is embedded in a “culture of remembrance” thanks to the memorial. “We don’t want to hide or abolish history, but take the path of reconciliation with and through history,” he says.
   
 “The majority of the Town Church parish doesn’t want this to become a museum piece, but to warn and ask people to remember history on the building, with the original,” Block says.
    
Duellmann isn’t impressed. “The ‘Jew pig’ is not weakened” by the memorial, he says. “It continues to have a terrible anti-Semitic effect in the church and in society.”

World Heritage site

There are mixed opinions in the church, too. Last year, the regional Lutheran bishop, Friedrich Kramer, said he favors taking down the sculpture from the church wall and exhibiting it in public at the site with an explanation. He doesn’t favor putting it in a museum. He praised the 1988 memorial but said it has weaknesses, including a failure to address Luther’s anti-Semitism.
    
If judges do order the sculpture removed, that may not be the end of the story. Block says the church would ask authorities to assess whether it is possible to remove it from a building that is under a preservation order, and more talks with the court would probably follow.
    
The church is a UNESCO World Heritage site, a status that it gained in 1996.
    
Plaintiff Duellmann has little sympathy with the church’s preservation order dilemma. He contends that authorities deliberately failed to mention the offending sculpture at the time of the application in order not to endanger it.
    
Whatever the outcome, Block says he regrets that the case went to court.
   
 ‘We are not advocates and initiators” of the sculpture, he says. “We are heirs and are trying to deal very conscientiously with this inheritance.”

Trump Administration Offers New Guidance for Prayer in Public Schools

The Trump administration is set to release Thursday updated guidance on prayer in public schools that officials are touting as President Donald Trump’s commitment to religious freedom.

Trump has made religious freedom a signature issue in his domestic and foreign policy, declaring a Religious Freedom Day and directing the State Department to host an annual Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, among other actions.   

The updated U.S. Education Department’s guidance on prayer in public elementary and secondary schools is drawing cheers from Trump’s most vocal supporters among Evangelical Christians.

What does the law say about school prayer?

While school-sponsored prayer in U.S. public schools is prohibited, individual and group prayers on school grounds are not. American schools once used to start their day with a prayer or a reading from the Bible. That tradition came to a halt in 1962 when the Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayers violated the Constitution’s  prohibition on establishing an official religion. Subsequent court rulings have recognized prayer in school as constitutionally protected.  

What does the U.S. Education Department guidance say?

The guidance, last updated in 2003, requires local educational agencies to certify on an annual basis that they have no policy that prevents constitutionally protected prayer in elementary and secondary public schools. The education department can cut off funding to schools that don’t comply with the policy. The department provides tens of billions of dollars to public elementary and secondary schools. More broadly, the guidance keeps school districts apprised of the law and the extent to which school prayer is constitutionally and legally protected.

What is allowed?

Students are free to pray alone or in groups while not in class or engaged in other school activities. They can read the Bible or other scriptures, such as the Koran. They may be excused from class to attend a prayer. Teachers may similarly take part in religious activities as long as they make clear they’re not doing so “in their official capacities,” according to the guidance.

What is not allowed?

While religion can be taught in public schools, schools are not allowed to sponsor religious activities such as prayers. Teachers, administrators and school employees are forbidden from “encouraging or discouraging prayer and from actively participating in religious activities with students,” according to the guidance.  For example, teachers may not lead their classes in prayer. Nor can school administrators include prayer in school-sponsored events.

What is being updated?

The Education Department hasn’t disclosed details of the updated guidance. However, White House Domestic Policy Council Director Joe Grogan told reporters Thursday morning the guidance “will remind school districts of the rights of students, parents and teachers, and will empower students in others to confidently know and exercise their rights.”

In addition to the education department updating its school prayer guidance, nine federal agencies are releasing proposed rules that will remove “discriminatory regulatory burdens” that the Obama administration placed on religious organizations that receive federal funding, Grogan said.

Cycling is Their Activism: How Some Young Girls in Pakistan Are Fighting for Public Space

For almost two years, a group of dedicated young women in a conservative neighborhood of Pakistan has been working to beat the odds and change the culture around them. The women are doing it by cycling. VOA’s Ayesha Tanzeem reports from Pakistan’s largest city Karachi

Buttigieg Decision on Police Chief Shadows Presidential Run

Karen DePaepe had been waiting all day for a call back from Pete Buttigieg.

It was March 2012, and the 30-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, had just decided to replace the city’s first African-American police chief over complaints that he illegally wiretapped police officers’ phone calls.

DePaepe, who oversaw the department’s phone system, had called the mayor to try to talk him out of removing the popular chief. She wanted to tell him the situation was not that simple. It was DePaepe who discovered a mistakenly recorded phone line, and, she says, heard white police officers making racist comments. She said in an interview with The Associated Press that she reported what she heard to the chief, and the recording continued.

Buttigieg — who’s now competing for the Democratic nomination for president — never called her back. When DePaepe’s phone finally rang, she says, it was the young mayor’s chief of staff, who told her she, too, had to go. Federal prosecutors, he told her, had suggested that she and the chief could be indicted if they weren’t removed.

DePaepe hung up, crying and in disbelief. She called one of the prosecutors, who she says told her she was not in trouble and should not quit.

“Who do I believe? I’m being told two different stories,” DePaepe recalled thinking, adding, “Someone is lying to me.”

Buttigieg’s demotion of Chief Darryl Boykins and firing of DePaepe has shadowed his presidential campaign, giving rise to complaints he has a blind spot on race and raising questions about whether he can attract the support of African-Americans who are crucial to earning the Democratic nomination. It’s also reinforcing skepticism that the 37-year-old former mayor has the wisdom or experience to handle the demands of the Oval Office.

Black Lives Matter activists have been protesting at his campaign events in recent days, spurred in part by his handling of the case.

Buttigieg has defended his actions, saying he was responding to a “thinly veiled” message from federal prosecutors. In his telling, he saved two people from criminal charges and took the political heat for getting rid of a well-liked chief.

But interviews with more than 20 people with direct or indirect knowledge of the events, along with a review of documents and contemporaneous news reports, paint a more complicated picture that is not as flattering to Buttigieg. While some said they believed the young mayor was trying to do the right thing, others told the AP that his lack of experience led him to take actions that weren’t well thought out, and that his explanations don’t ring true. His subsequent failure to include African-American people in positions of power further damaged his standing in the community.

“It left a really, really bad taste in my mouth,” said Pastor Wendy Fultz, who is black and a leader of the local chapter of the activist group Faith In Indiana.

Recorded calls, alleged racism

The story begins before Buttigieg was elected.

The South Bend Police Department had a long-standing practice of recording certain telephone lines, including front desk lines, 911 calls and the phone lines of most division chiefs. In 2010, some of those phone lines were switched, and a detective’s line began being mistakenly recorded, according to a federal investigation.

DePaepe said she learned of the mix-up in February 2011. She was troubleshooting a problem when she says she heard what she describes as racist comments by officers and discussion about something she considered possibly illegal.

She reported it to the chief weeks later. He was shocked, she recalled, but didn’t immediately tell her to do anything, and the recording continued.

Just before Christmas, the chief asked her to make tapes of what she heard.

Boykins, who did not respond to messages seeking comment, listened to at least one tape and made copies of some of them. He confronted an officer about his “loyalty,” then told him he would take the tapes to the mayor, according to a November 2012 FBI report on the case obtained by the AP through a Freedom of Information request.

A 2015 investigation by a special prosecutor in Indiana found Boykins’ motivation for continuing the recordings was to gather evidence of disloyalty, rather than to expose racism. However, the prosecutor declined to bring charges.

Shortly after Buttigieg was sworn in, multiple officers complained to the U.S. attorney’s office in northern Indiana, alleging that their phone calls were being illegally recorded and that Boykins had threatened to use the information to fire or demote them, according to FBI records obtained by the AP. The FBI launched an investigation of possible violations of the federal Wiretap Act.

The tapes have never been released, despite repeated calls from the community. Buttigieg says he hasn’t heard them, and DePaepe won’t discuss details of what she heard, citing a settlement  that bars her from doing so.

The South Bend Common Council — the community’s city council — sued to release the tapes, and the lawsuit is pending. The next hearing is Jan. 22. At the heart of the lawsuit is whether the calls were recorded legally.

Boykins and DePaepe, who is white, denied wrongdoing, and no one was charged.

A lawyer for several officers who sued the city says the tapes were made illegally and were an invasion of privacy. He says his clients made no racist comments, and some had their jobs threatened by the chief.

But Buttigieg, within months of becoming mayor, was faced with the dual challenge of a federal investigation into the police department and officers accused of racism.

The meeting

Buttigieg was sworn in on Jan. 1, 2012.

In his memoir, he writes that he believed there were problems with the management of the police department and that cleaning it up would be a major task. Still, he reappointed the chief, who had the support of both the Fraternal Order of Police and the NAACP, and was known for his work with youth and in city neighborhoods.

“He is liked and respected for very good reasons. And I have a lot of respect for him,” Buttigieg told the AP last month.

But the decision to keep him on, Buttigieg wrote in his memoir, became his “first serious mistake as mayor.”

Weeks after Buttigieg took office, three officers complained to his chief of staff, Mike Schmuhl, that Boykins was recording and listening to their phone conversations, according to a 2013 deposition  of Schmuhl obtained by the AP through a public records request and first reported by the website The Young Turks. Schmuhl relayed the information to Buttigieg.

A few days later, then-U.S. Attorney David Capp called Schmuhl to say his office was looking into it, Schmuhl said in his sworn testimony. Soon after, Schmuhl told Buttigieg about the investigation, campaign spokesman Sean Savett said.

But what Schmuhl told him didn’t seem to make an impression.
 
“I remember there were rumors going around about the internal politics inside the police department, and it might have had something to do with people recording each other, but not a way that I really understood and pieced together until that meeting with the prosecutors,” Buttigieg told the AP.

 On March 23, 2012, at Capp’s request, South Bend officials met with federal law enforcement.
 
Buttigieg sent Schmuhl, a high school friend who is now managing his presidential campaign, along with acting city attorney Aladean DeRose and Rich Hill, an outside lawyer Buttigieg hired for advice.

Capp brought then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Donald Schmid, two other federal prosecutors and an FBI agent.

What happened at that meeting is hotly contested. It’s also the key to much of the acrimony that arose in the days and weeks afterward, and it has raised questions about Buttigieg’s management style and his forthrightness.

Three days after that meeting, according to a lawsuit Boykins later filed alleging racial discrimination and defamation, Schmuhl met with the police chief to pressure him to resign, which he did three days later.

The response was explosive: Angry members of the Common Council joined the next day with community leaders for a meeting attended by more than 100 people to demand Boykins’ reinstatement. The mayor refused.

Local news reported over the following days that DePaepe had found recordings of officers making racist comments. More than a week later, on April 10, she, too, was fired.

Buttigieg’s memoir glosses over that timeline, omitting the fact that he fired DePaepe well after racism allegations were reported.

The mayor initially refrained from publicly justifying his decisions, but as rumors swirled across South Bend, he began to explain. He told the South Bend Tribune that “charges were not filed because we acted to satisfy federal authorities.”

“It was still the right thing to do to prevent them from getting into deeper trouble, even if they were going to hate me for it,” he told the newspaper.

He repeated that explanation in his memoir, published in 2019, and went on to question the U.S. attorney’s motives.

“Why should a U.S. attorney shoulder the responsibility of taking down a beloved African-American police chief, if he can get the mayor to do it for him by removing him from his position?” he wrote.

In an interview with the AP, Hill, one of the city’s lawyers in the meeting, backed up Buttigieg’s account.

He said federal officials explicitly told them the city needed to take “personnel action.”

“The U.S. attorney said, you have problems with two people and … if you address the issues with those two people satisfactorily, then there would not be prosecution,” Hill said.

Leaving the meeting, Hill said they all had the same understanding.

“There was no difference in interpretation. There was no discussion about what we heard,” Hill said. “We were all three equally clear of what the message was that we needed to deliver to the mayor.”

Schmuhl, through the Buttigieg campaign, declined interview requests but agreed to answer written questions. He said that it was clear the city needed to act to ensure the police department complied with the law and that “the people whose actions prompted a federal investigation into the police department could not remain in their positions.” In his 2013 deposition, Schmuhl said authorities gave them 60 days to address those issues.

But he also said in the deposition that during the 30-minute meeting, the U.S. attorney never overtly said anyone had to be fired.

‘It’s just what happened’
 
Several people involved in the case have cast doubt on Buttigieg’s story.

“I don’t feel he’s being accurate at all,” DePaepe told the AP. “When I listen to him speak, and somebody asks him a question, he sort of talks in circles.”

DePaepe said she spoke three times with Schmid, the prosecutor who handled the investigation and who attended the March meeting. She said she asked him whether she was in trouble and needed a lawyer.

“He said, ‘No, you’re a witness to a complaint,'” she told the AP.

After Schmuhl told her she and Boykins could be indicted, she said she called Schmid and he told her she should not quit her job.

Boykins’ lawyer, Tom Dixon, told the AP that three of the federal prosecutors who were in the March 23 meeting assured him that, as a matter of policy, the office does not involve itself in personnel decisions of local government.

Dixon recalled they told him: “We just want to reiterate that we never get involved, regardless of what you hear on the news.”

On May 31, 2012, Capp wrote in a letter to the city that during the March meeting, “We advised that our primary concern was that [South Bend Police Department] practices comply with federal law.”

After reviewing the situation in South Bend, he concluded, “It is our opinion that no federal prosecution is warranted.”

Buttigieg has pointed to the letter as proof that he made the right decision, but others have said the letter shows investigators were not planning to charge Boykins or DePaepe to begin with.

The U.S. attorney’s office and current and former federal officials who attended the March 23 meeting either did not comment or did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Former federal law enforcement officials who reviewed details of the case at the request of the AP agreed it would be unlikely for a U.S. attorney to suggest they would not pursue criminal charges in a public corruption case if a mayor fired or demoted staff.

Brian Kelly, who specialized in public corruption as a federal prosecutor, said Buttigieg inherited a “fiasco involving inappropriate taping” but said any personnel decisions he made were his own.

 “It’s not surprising that a local mayor would try to deflect blame to the U.S. attorney’s office for a decision that was unpopular,” he said. “But ultimately, the U.S. attorney’s office would have nothing to do with the hiring and firing of people.”

Buttigieg, in an interview with the AP, stood by his story. “It’s just what happened.”

Boykins, he insisted, had to go because he “failed to tell me that he was under federal investigation.” DePaepe had to go, he said, “because her actions led to a federal felony investigation into the police department.”

But even that is disputed. Boykins’ lawyer said investigators told Boykins he was not under investigation.

Buttigieg said he should have insisted on getting something from prosecutors in writing “so that years later, there wouldn’t be a need to defend my account of what I believe happened, but that we would have a document that we could point to that was clear.”

But Buttigieg also acted without having the city do its own investigation.

DePaepe says she was never given the chance to explain what happened. Boykins told her and others who spoke with the AP he wasn’t either.

Janice Hall, then the city’s head of human resources, told the AP that she was not consulted.

“I would have wanted to hear the facts” from DePaepe, Hall said. “There was so much secretiveness involved in the whole process.”

That failure had an important side effect. Buttigieg wrote in his memoir that he didn’t know about the purportedly racist comments until after he removed Boykins, allegations he called “explosive, and serious” if true. But his book leaves out DePaepe and fails to address why he went ahead with her firing with no internal investigation, even after local media reported on the comments on the recordings.

Buttigieg said he didn’t think they were in a position to second-guess the FBI, and even if they did their own investigation, “the main investigative resource we would have had would be the police department, which obviously would not be able to conduct this one.”

Tom Price, a top aide to Buttigieg’s predecessor, said, “It seemed like a quick reaction that wasn’t well thought through.”

No black leaders

Buttigieg’s response raised questions about his age and ability to manage, questions that are echoed in his presidential run. It also damaged his relationship with the African-American community in South Bend, a rift that has led to doubts about whether he can attract the support of black voters nationwide.

Former Councilman Oliver Davis, a vocal critic of Buttigieg who has endorsed Joe Biden, said people understood he would pick his own chief, but the way he went about it brought disrepute on one of South Bend’s most respected African American leaders.

“The issue is not that he removed and demoted the chief. You can change people around all you want to. But you disgraced him. You disgraced him for your own political good,” Davis said.

Boykins was at that time the only African-American in a senior position in city government.

The previous mayor had three black men in top-level positions: Boykins, the fire chief and a senior mayoral adviser.

When Buttigieg took over, the adviser left. The fire chief, Howard Buchanon, retired because Buttigieg chose another chief. That appointee was a white man.

Buchanon told the AP that after the Boykins situation blew up, Buttigieg asked to meet to discuss it.

“I said, ‘You led us to believe that a lot of minorities were going to be in your administration,'” Buchanon recalled telling him. “But Mayor Pete, I don’t see that.” 

He recalled asking the mayor where black and Hispanic leaders were in his administration: Buttigieg’s head dropped — a tacit acknowledgement that there were none.

Pastor J.B. Williams, a leader in Faith In Indiana, told the AP: “We did not see a plan to have minorities involved in decision-making processes. That, to me, was a big mistake.”

Asked about the criticism, Buttigieg highlighted his 2013 appointment of an African American woman as the city’s top lawyer — an appointment made more than a year after Boykins’ demotion.

Among the steps Buttigieg took to address allegations of racism in the department, his campaign said, were requiring all officers to take civil rights and implicit bias training, and installing a majority-minority civilian police board.

South Bend’s population is 53% non-Hispanic white, and more than one-quarter black. But more than three-quarters of the people Buttigieg chose as top advisers or department heads during his eight years in office — including two police chiefs — were white, according to an AP analysis of information provided by the campaign.

Buttigieg’s defenders say he knew there would be implications within the black community if he removed Boykins, but he had to do “the right thing.”

“There was never a good choice,” said Mark Neal, Buttigieg’s first city controller. “Like any good leader, you live with the consequences of that.”

His critics are unmoved.

Buchanon said if Buttigieg’s record in South Bend is any indication of how he’d run the White House, “I don’t see any black person in leadership for him.”

 “He had the opportunity to change some things,” Buchanon said. “And he didn’t.”

Around South Bend, opinions about Buttigieg’s tenure and abilities are as varied as the people who hold them.

Many people say he entered the mayor’s office with good intentions but not enough experience — less than three years as a consultant at McKinsey, a position he recently described as mostly doing research and analysis. He was also an intelligence analyst in the Navy Reserve and in his memoir referred to himself as “a more junior employee … rather than the boss.”

Hall, the former HR director, said Buttigieg got poor advice from people he depended on, including Schmuhl, who now runs his campaign.

“They had not had a lot of experience,” Hall said.

Davis and others noted Buttigieg got rid of veteran leadership, instead going with what Davis called a “millennial crowd” that had “no muscle memory” for how things worked.

Price, who supported Buttigieg in the past, said his experience running a city of just 100,000 doesn’t make him ready for the White House. “I think he’s massively underqualified to be president,” Price said. “I think he would be a dreadful mistake for our country, and for the Democratic Party.”

Buttigieg told the AP he has learned from the Boykins affair, which he calls a “no-win” situation. Sometimes, he said, you can’t find a perfect answer — only an approach that’s going to involve “the least harm.”

When you’re young and encounter a problem, Buttigieg said, people who disagree will say you did it because you were young.

“If you were older, they would still disagree,” Buttigieg said. “They just wouldn’t say it had to do with being young.”

Intellectual Property Theft a Growing Threat

The new U.S.-China trade agreement includes provisions that are aimed at curbing forced technology transfers, in which companies hand over technical know-how to foreign partners. For many high-tech businesses, the intellectual property behind their products represents the bulk of their companies’ value.  To learn more about the risks of IP theft, Elizabeth Lee recently visited the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where companies talked about the risks to their technology secrets.

Book by Pope Emeritus on Celibacy Gets Shrug in France

The former pope Benedict XVI reportedly wants his name removed from a controversial book that appears to undermine his successor, Pope Francis, on issues of priestly celibacy. The book hit stores Wednesday in France, the first country to publish it. But despite the furor the book has stirred in the press, many French readers appear underwhelmed.

The book, “Des Profondeurs de Nos Coeurs,” meaning “From the Depths of Our Hearts,”  defends priestly celibacy at a time when Pope Francis is considering whether to lift restrictions on married priests in remote areas. Cardinal Robert Sarah, who co-authored the book, rejects accusations he manipulated Benedict regarding the content.  

The furor, which appears to lay bare spiritual divisions between the two popes, has made news headlines, but hasn’t stirred up much public interest.  

Parisian Brigitte Gallay says she has heard about the book, but notes Protestant ministers are married with children. She sees nothing wrong about a church that’s closer to the lives of ordinary people — even though some Catholics might be shocked at the thought of married priests.  

The Catholic Church has taken a hit in France, not just because of declining attendance, but also because of a major pedophilia scandal — the theme of a recent movie. A trial opened this month against a priest at the heart of the scandal, which has helped fuel debate about the dangers of priestly celibacy.  

At Paris bookstore Gibert Joseph, social worker Alexander Monnot adds the book to a pile of others he’s planning to buy. Monnot says he supports celibacy for priests.  

“The fact is, at the very beginning of the Church, there was Jesus and 12 apostles,” Monnot said. “And even some were married. They all left their families to preach. Jesus was not married. And priests should be an incarnation, a continuation of Jesus.”

Monnot says he is looking forward to reading the book’s arguments in favor of celibacy, but that’s not the only reason he’s buying it. He predicts the French publisher will recall this edition, which has Benedict’s name as co-author, meaning the copy he’s buying may one day be a collector’s item.
 

Will US-China ‘Phase 1’ Trade Deal Reset Other Stalled Talks?

The United States and China agreed to a ‘Phase 1’ trade deal on Wednesday that includes the protection of intellectual property rights and agricultural policy.

Both countries say they plan to continue working on issues.  “

The parties intend to continue implementation and improvement of existing mechanisms for bilateral communication on agricultural policy,” according to the text of the agreement.

Substantial U.S.-China talks outside of trade have been in limbo for months.   

While there was no particular mention of resuming regular talks under the so-called Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED), the world’s two leading economies agreed on the “regular interaction through meetings and other communications” on the protection of intellectual property rights and other pragmatic cooperation.  

CED is one of four mechanisms initiated under U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to deal with China-related issues. The others are Diplomatic and Security Dialogue (DSD), the Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity Dialogue, and the Social and Cultural Issues Dialogue.  

The annual Diplomatic and Security Dialogue (DSD) was last held in Washington more than a year ago in November.

FILE – U.S. and Chinese officials are seen meeting during the second bilateral Diplomatic and Security Dialogue, at the State Department in Washington, Nov. 9, 2018.

Citing Washington’s call for a “results-oriented” relationship with Beijing, U.S. officials are reportedly not anxious to resume the DSD, which is perceived as highly symbolic.

On Jan. 3, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to Chinese Politburo member Yang Jiechi by phone after the U.S.- targeted killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.   Yang raised the resumption of DSD with Pompeo, according to a diplomatic source.

“We are not going to comment on the details of our diplomatic conversations or engagements,” a State Department spokesperson told VOA.

One of the top issues on the U.S. agenda is persuading China to halt the purchase of oil from Iran, which Washington says has fueled Tehran’s nuclear and missile ambitions. Trump has also called on China and other signatories of the so-called JCPOA Iran nuclear deal to “walk away from the 2015 deal.”

Watch related video by VOA’s Patsy Widakuswara:

Embed

While senior administration officials say they have repeatedly emphasized to Beijing “the threat posed to regional stability by Iran’s nuclear and missile programs,” some experts are skeptical that China, a traditional ally of Iran, will cooperate with the U.S. against Tehran.

Jon Alterman, CSIS’s director of the Middle East, said he is doubtful China could use its influence over Iran to help ease tensions in the Middle East.  “

I wouldn’t expect China is able to play a useful role in de-escalating this conflict,” Alterman said. “China might wish to be included in a larger grouping of countries as it was in the JCPOA process, but even so, I’d expect its role to be quite passive.”  

Others say China welcomes a distracted U.S., which would provide Beijing with breathing space to continue to build its comprehensive national power. “

The Chinese Communist Party would welcome developments in the Middle East that siphon U.S. resources and attention away from U.S. efforts to deter Chinese aggression,” said Bradley Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

 

Democratic Debates: Comments by Each Candidate

The seventh Democratic presidential candidate debates took place Tuesday in Des Moines, Iowa. The candidates were peppered with questions on a range of issues, including U.S. military action in Iran, health care and foreign policy.

Here are some comments from each of the seven  candidates:

Former Vice President Joe Biden, called his 2002 vote to authorize the use of U.S. military force in Iraq a “mistake” but pivoted to his overall record. “I said 13 years ago it was a mistake to give the president the authority to go to war. … It was a mistake.” However, “I acknowledged that. I think my record overall on everything I’ve ever done, I’m prepared to compare it to anybody on this stage,” he said.

Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said if elected, he would seek a three-year expiration date on legislation authorizing the use of U.S. military overseas. “When I am president, anytime, which I hope will never happen, but anytime I am compelled to use force and seek that authorization, we will have a three-year sunset, so that the American people are included, not only in the decision about whether to send troops, but whether to continue.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar, responding to a question on foreign policy, said she would leave some U.S. combat troops in Iraq, saying, “I would leave some troops there, but not in the level that Donald Trump is taking us right now.” She added that, if elected, she would keep a small number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, performing counterterrorism and training duties.  

Senator Bernie Sanders, in answering a question about making affordable child care a priority if elected president, said, “Hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Tax breaks for billionaires and then tell moms and dads, we cannot have high-quality affordable child care. That is wrong.”

Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager and environmentalist, speaking about U.S. corporations’ affect on the health care system, said, “We’re spending way too much because corporations own the system. And we’re not negotiating against those corporations. And we’ve given tax cuts to the richest Americans and the biggest corporations for decades. That’s all this is. We have corporations who are having their way with the American people and people are suffering.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, in discussing whether Sanders made a comment about the electability of a woman as president, said, “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women: Amy (Klobuchar) and me. And the only person who has beaten an incumbent Republican any time in the past 30 years is me.”

Democratic Presidential Contenders Clash Over Foreign Policy in Iowa Debate

Democratic presidential contenders clashed over a number of issues in their latest debate Tuesday, held less than three weeks before voters in Iowa head to the polls to kick off the 2020 primary season. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has more on the debate held in Des Moines, Iowa, and sponsored by CNN and The Des Moines Register newspaper.

4th Day of Iran Protests Sees Students Rally at Four Tehran Universities

Iranian students have staged noisy rallies at four Tehran universities in a fourth day of protests against Iran’s Islamist rulers after they admitted to mistakenly shooting down a passenger jet full of Iranians.

Video clips obtained by VOA appeared to show dozens of students chanting anti-government slogans in Tuesday protests at Tehran University, Amirkabir University of Technology, Shahid Beheshti University and Tehran University of Art. VOA could not independently verify the authenticity of the clips.

There were no immediate reports of Iranian police action against any of the student demonstrations, which appeared to be peaceful.

Iranians in Tehran and other cities have been holding daily anti-government protests since officials admitted on Saturday that their forces shot down a Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737 shortly after it took off from Tehran on a flight to Kyiv on January 8. For three days, Iranian leaders insisted that mechanical problems likely caused the crash that killed all 176 people on board, until acknowledging that Iranian military personnel downed the plane after misidentifying it as an enemy threat.

The dead included 82 Iranians and 57 Canadians, many of them Iranian students with dual citizenship who were flying to Kyiv en route to Canada to resume university studies after the winter break.

The pre-dawn crash happened hours after Iran fired missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq and was bracing for a U.S. counterstrike that never came. Iran’s missile attacks, which caused no casualties, were in retaliation for what the U.S. called a self-defensive strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3.

Western news agencies with journalists in Tehran said more than 200 anti-government protesters took part in Tuesday’s rally at Tehran University.

Embed

In one clip, students gathered in a large circle near the campus’ science faculty, chanting: “Resign, resign, incompetent officials,” and, “We cry out against so much injustice.”

Embed

In another clip, students assembled near the university’s medical school chanted, “Our state television is our disgrace.”

Iranian state TV network IRIB had broadcasted the government’s initial denials that Iran was responsible for the plane crash. Several presenters for the network have since resigned, in a reflection of public anger toward the erroneous denials.

Student supporters of the government also made their presence felt at Tehran University, holding a joint memorial for the victims of the plane crash and for Soleimani at the campus mosque. Images provided by Western news agencies showed some of the pro-government activists also burning American and British flags outside the mosque and chanting slogans vowing never to give in to Iran’s “enemies.”

A video that appeared to be from Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti University showed students denouncing government officials who said they were mourning the plane crash while insisting it was not their fault. “If you are grieving, why have you waited for three days?” the students asked.

Embed

At Tehran University of Art, students appeared to be chanting, “Death to the liar”, and, “Our hands are bare, so put away your truncheons.”

Iranian judiciary spokesman Gholhossein Esmaili said authorities had detained 30 protesters since the anti-government demonstrations began late Saturday. Widely-circulated online video of Sunday’s protests in Tehran appeared to show people suffering the effects of tear gas fired by police.

Esmaili said authorities were treating the protesters with leniency.

Embed

Other video apparently filmed after nightfall Tuesday showed students at Amirkabir University denouncing Iranian security forces as “shameless”.

Earlier Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed to punish those responsible for the “unforgivable” downing of the Ukrainian plane. In a televised speech, he also called for a special court to be set up to handle prosecutions.

Esmaili, the judiciary spokesman, said some of those suspected of having a role in the plane shoot-down had been arrested, but did not say how many or identify them.

This article originated in VOA’s Persian Service. VOA’s Extremism Watch Desk contributed. 

Ethiopia PM Reacts to Trump’s Head Scratching Nobel Prize Comments

Ethiopians and U.S. foreign policy observers are trying to unravel a comment made by President Donald Trump last week where he claimed to have “saved a country” and implied he should have been given the Nobel Peace Prize for the achievement.  

Trump made the comments during a rally in Toledo, Ohio, and appeared to be referencing Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed whose Nobel Peace Prize was announced in October. “I made a deal, I saved a country, and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country. I said, ‘what? Did I have something do with it?’”

Abiy received the prize for his efforts to end nearly 20 years of hostility between Eritrea and Ethiopia relating to disputes over their shared border.

Observers believe Trump was referring to White House efforts to mediate discussions between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan over water usage from the Nile River. Ethiopia is building a massive hydroelectric power project known as the Grand Renaissance Dam, but countries downstream on the Blue Nile are concerned it will deplete their principal water source.

The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee wasted no time jumping on what they believed to be a gaffe by Trump. “Trump is confused. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring peace to the Horn of Africa, not stalled negotiations about a new dam on the Nile,” the committee said on its Twitter account on Jan. 10.  

The committee, which is chaired by a Democratic lawmaker, also pointed out that the negotiations have not been successful. The three countries continue to be deadlocked and have been unable to reach an agreement as they approach a Jan. 15 deadline to resolve the issue.  

“If they gave the Nobel for deals that didn’t happen, the Pres. would have a shelf full of them,” the Foreign Affairs Committee Twitter account stated.

Trump is confused.
PM @AbiyAhmedAli was awarded the @NobelPrize for his efforts to bring peace to the Horn of Africa, not stalled negotiations about a new dam on the Nile.

If they gave the Nobel for deals that didn’t happen, the Pres. would have a shelf full of them. #Ethiopiahttps://t.co/WhJ6nLvb6Z

— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) January 10, 2020

 

Trump has not elaborated on the comments since then. When asked about the meaning, the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia referred reporters to comments made in October by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo congratulating Abiy on the award, the Washington Post reported.

For his part, Abiy did not appear bothered by the statement. “To be honest, I don’t have any clue about the criteria [of] how the Nobel committee selects an individual for the prize. So, the issue of President Trump must go to the Nobel Prize Committee,” Abiy said on Jan. 12 during a press conference in South Africa.  

Abiy added that he is more concerned with progress toward peace in the region than awards. “I am not working for the prize. I am working that peace is a very critical thing for our region and if they recognize and if President Trump complained, it must go to Oslo, not to Ethiopia,” he said.  

VIDEO: After US President Donald Trump said that he believes he deserves the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize, Abiy Ahmed, the winner and Ethiopian Prime Minister replied: “If Donald Trump wants to complain, he should go to Oslo, not Ethiopia” pic.twitter.com/63IrjUKK9D

— AFP news agency (@AFP) January 12, 2020

Ambassador Herman Cohen, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs, said these types of confounding, off-the-cuff remarks have become a hallmark of Trump’s presidency. “He has this tendency to make comments without first looking in the background. That’s the way he operates,” Cohen told VOA’s Amharic service.  

But Cohen said the U.S. has the potential to play a leading role in relieving tensions among the Nile River countries. Representatives from Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia met at the White House on November 6. This week, the delegations are continuing to negotiate. They have meetings scheduled with Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and the President of the World Bank David Malpass.  “

Egypt has been in a very tense situation with Ethiopia. And what President Trump did was he called both countries and said ‘come to the United States and we’ll mediate your dispute.’ And this caused a drop in the tension between Ethiopia and Egypt,” Cohen said. “And for that, I think President Trump deserves a lot of credit. Now, maybe he’ll get the peace prize for that next year.”

VOA Horn of Africa’s Amharic service Solomon Abate contributed to this story.