Iran deal stupidest of all time, Trump says

October 21, 2016

Jeddah, Oct 21: Leading experts in Arab affairs, columnists and journalists feel that the race for the American presidential elections remains wide open and evenly poised.

trump2

They described the outcome of the three presidential debates as inconclusive and unclear.

For some, Hillary Clinton came out on top; for others Donald Trump, despite his brashness, managed to retain his appeal to his core base of voters.

For Faisal Al-Yafai, chief columnist at the Abu Dhabi-based The National newspaper, watching the three debates, gave one a sense of what he called the vibrancy and pageantry of American democracy.

“That has its pros and cons. The vibrancy is that you see so many people, tens of millions of people, watching three debates of 90-minute each. Which is fantastic. The downside is that it is really about the public performance of politics rather than real politics or real policies. Which is a shame.”

He said there was no doubt that Clinton had come across as more presidential.

“To her credit, she has managed to deal with Trump in a way that no Republican contender could. You have to give her enormous credit for that. None of the Republican contenders was able to land a blow on him, but Clinton managed to do that in the three debates,” he said.

However, he adds a word of caution.

“I don't think you can count Trump out yet because, I think, the debates were important to some parts of America but not to all parts. Those people who like Trump genuinely like Trump. They don't really care what comes across in the debate. To them, the debates are just part of what they consider the mainstream media and the establishment,” he said.

So who does Al-Yafai think will win? “It is still unknown who will win. Clinton is, in my opinion, very far ahead. But, as I said, the people who like Trump will vote for him regardless of what the media says or the establishment says. His supporters don't care about his nastiness. They care about their candidate. Not only will they not believe what was said during the debates, the negative commentary, etc., they will go out in substantial numbers to vote for him.”

Al-Yafai said whoever became the president of America, it matters to the Middle East because of America's influence in the region.

“Most Middle East watchers probably on balance prefer Clinton because she is a known quantity in the way that Trump is not. At the same time, the issues that most Middle Eastern countries have with the United States go far beyond one particular candidate, one particular party or one particular president. I think Clinton would be better at handling some of the difficulties that the region faces. We look to the Americans to be partners with us on the big challenges of the Middle East, such as Syria, Yemen and Iraq. With that in mind, we would prefer Clinton.”

But, he said, Clinton is only the best of what is on offer. “There has not been a presidential candidate that I have seen yet who understands the relationship that America needs with the Middle East and the relationship that Arabs deserve with America.”

His verdict: “You can't count Trump out yet.”

Very precise but despised

For Raghida Dergham, New York-based columnist and bureau chief for Al-Hayat pan-Arab publication, Clinton is very scripted, very organized and very precise which is what she should be if she is running for such an office.

“Trump thinks it is all right to simply change the rules for the debates. It is very embarrassing to witness such name-calling in a debate for such a high office. I have watched earlier debates from 20 and 30 years ago and I saw people discuss policies. These debates are more of a show than an opportunity to debate matters of importance,” she told Arab News.

She does not think that the debates have won any supporters for Clinton from among those who do not like her to begin with.

“People despise her for being part of the establishment. They do not trust her. There are strong feelings against her by many people. I don't think she came out of the debate in any way that will change the minds of those who are already sure of where they stand,” she said. “Clinton was, however, probably effective with those who are undecided and who are looking for something that will sway them one way or another.”

Through the debates, she showed that she has the temperament to lead rather than just to react and be amusing or different. “She projected that she could be in the White House and take on this big responsibility,” said Dergham. “Those who dislike her are going to say she did not do a good job in the past so why should we believe her now? Those who are opposed to Clinton are not only opposed to Clinton, they are opposed to the (Obama) administration.”

Dergham said she was very disturbed by Trump's “simple-mindedness” when it comes to Middle Eastern issues that are of concern to the world.

“The way he speaks about Russian President Vladimir Putin is frightening because he does not look at the actions of Russia in the region. He is only focused on saying from his point of view who won, who lost. He thinks the Russians have won, the (Obama) administration has lost. I mean both — Russia and the Obama administration — have contributed to the misery of what is going on in Syria. But it is really offensive that Trump looks at this as who won and who lost when so many people are dying and suffering and when there is so much human tragedy.”

As somebody from the region, Dergham has multiple concerns. “I am concerned about Trump's approach to all the people of the Middle East as well as to Muslims and to immigrants. I am disturbed by his dismissal of people en masse. I don't think he is going to reset Obama's administration's policies. Clinton will try to reset ties with the Gulf countries, probably because she knows it is time to reset the relationship. Trump will play outside the rules and not inside them. That would probably lead some to say it is time to do that because playing by the rules, we only got where we did not want to be in Syria and in Mosul both of which are a catastrophe.”

Don't count Trump out

So who won the debates? For Dergham, “Those who love Trump, love his brash approach; they love his facial expressions and they love that he called Clinton “a nasty woman.” They are the voters who are decided. With the undecided, I think, Clinton won the last debate.”

Her verdict: “The race is still open. It is always open until the last minute. You can never tell what surprises might come up. I think there could be a major event that might change things. It is always open until the votes are counted.”

Abeer Mishkhas, London-based Saudi journalist with Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, felt Wednesday night's debate improved Clinton's chances because “Trump couldn't get beyond his style of attacking and demeaning her. On the other hand, she was calm. She was in control. She was very statesmanly, or rather, states-womanly. She presented a very good argument for being president of the United States.”

She said whenever Trump talks about a foreign country, one gets the feeling that he is unaware of foreign policy issues and of how foreign policy is conducted.

“Trump takes a very simplistic view of how things are done. He talks about Putin and he says, ‘He likes me.' He doesn't know what he is talking about. Compare this to Clinton who served as secretary of state. She knows exactly what constitutes foreign policy. She has the experience and she seems clear about what she is going to do.”

Mishkhas does not like a couple of things about Clinton. “For instance, I don't agree with her passive stand on the Palestinian issue. As US secretary of state, she was always pro-Israel. She did not support the Palestinians during their most difficult times when they were basically being massacred.”

She thinks Clinton might be tempted to go to war with Iran to demonstrate American might and to show that America is a superpower.

“She is just the way she is. She would gladly go to war with Iran just to prove that she is as tough as anyone else,” said Mishkhas.

She feels Clinton did not do well in the previous two debates. “I don't know who instructed her to keep smiling. That did not give the correct impression of her. It seemed as if she was not ready. She took Trump lightly and talked about petty issues. She should have concentrated on policies and what exactly she wants to do. In Debate 3 on Wednesday night, however, she came out on top.”

Her verdict: “It is very hard to tell because when you listen to Trump supporters, they seem happy with what he is doing. They are the people who are not going to be influenced by TV debates anyway. It is very tricky. The race is still wide open.”

For Dr. Khaled Al-Shoqran, head of the Al-Rai Center for Strategic Studies in Amman, Clinton was the clear winner. “I think Clinton did better. She is fully aware of political and international issues. Trump is unacceptable because he knows very little about things outside the United States he said.

“Clinton has a good vision and she has good ideas for solving Middle Eastern problems. She is very vocal on Iraq, Syria and Yemen which is good,” he said. “She has a plan and she will be very successful as president of the United States. She did very well in all three debates.”

His verdict: “Clinton is far ahead.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 29,2020

Washington, May 29: Reiterating his offer to mediate on the border dispute between India and China, US President Donald Trump has said that he spoke with Narendra Modi about the "big conflict" and asserted that the Indian Prime Minister is not in a "good mood" over the latest flare-ups between the two countries.

Speaking with the reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday, Trump said a "big conflict" was going on between India and China.

"I like your prime minister a lot. He is a great gentleman," the president said.

"Have a big conflict …India and China. Two countries with 1.4 billion people (each). Two countries with very powerful militaries. India is not happy and probably China is not happy," he said when asked if he was worried about the border situation between India and China.

"I can tell you; I did speak to Prime Minister Modi. He is not in a good mood about what is going on with China," Trump said.

A day earlier, the president offered to mediate between India and China.

Trump on Wednesday said in a tweet that he was "ready, willing and able to mediate" between the two countries.

Responding to a question on his tweet, Trump reiterated his offer, saying if called for help, "I would do that (mediate). If they thought it would help" about "mediate or arbitrate, I would do that," he said.

India on Wednesday said it was engaged with China to peacefully resolve the border row, in a carefully crafted reaction to Trump's offer to arbitrate between the two Asian giants to settle their decades-old dispute.

"We are engaged with the Chinese side to peacefully resolve it," External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said, replying to a volley of questions at an online media briefing.

While the Chinese Foreign Ministry is yet to react to Trump's tweet which appears to have caught Beijing by surprise, an op-ed in the state-run Global Times said both countries did not need such a help from the US President.

"The latest dispute can be solved bilaterally by China and India. The two countries should keep alert on the US, which exploits every chance to create waves that jeopardise regional peace and order," it said.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on Wednesday that both China and India have proper mechanisms and communication channels to resolve the issues through dialogue and consultations.

Trump previously offered to mediate between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, a proposal which was rejected by New Delhi.

The situation in eastern Ladakh deteriorated after around 250 Chinese and Indian soldiers were engaged in a violent face-off on the evening of May 5 which spilled over to the next day before the two sides agreed to "disengage" following a meeting at the level of local commanders.

Over 100 Indian and Chinese soldiers were injured in the violence.

The incident in Pangong Tso was followed by a similar incident in north Sikkim on May 9.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 28,2020

Washington, Mar 28: The world is in the face of a devastating impact due to the coronavirus pandemic and has clearly entered a recession, the International Monetary Fund said on Friday, but projected a recovery next year.

"We have reassessed the prospects for growth for 2020 and 2021. It is now clear that we have entered a recession as bad or worse than in 2009. We do project recovery in 2021," IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva told reporters at a news conference.

Georgieva was addressing the press after a meeting of governing body of the IMF, the International Monetary and Financial Committee. Representing 189 members, the body met virtually to discuss the unprecedented challenge posed to the world by COVID-19.

The key to recovery in 2021, she said, is only if the international community succeeds in containing the virus everywhere and prevent liquidity problems from becoming a solvency issue.

"The US is in recession, as is the rest of the advanced economies of the world. And in a big chunk of developed and emerging markets in developing economies. How severe? We are working now on our projections for 2020, Georgieva said in response to a question.

The new projections are expected in the next few weeks.

Stressing that while containment is the main reason for the economy to stand still and get into a recession, she said containment is very necessary to come out of this period and step in to recovery. "Until the virus is not contained, it would be very difficult to go to the lives we love."

"A key concern about a long-lasting impact of the sudden stop of the world economy is the risk of a wave of bankruptcies and layoffs that not only can undermine the recovery. But can erode the fabric of our societies," the IMF chief said.

To avoid this from happening, many countries have taken far-reaching measures to address the health crisis and to cushion its impact on the economy, both on the monetary and on the fiscal side, she said.

The IMF chief said 81 emergency financing requests, including 50 from lower-income countries, have been received. She said current estimate for the overall financial needs of emerging markets is 2.5 trillion dollars.

"We believe this is on the lower end. We do know that their own reserves and domestic resources will not be sufficient," she added.

The G-20, a day earlier, reported fiscal measures totalling some 5 trillion dollars or over 6 per cent of the global GDP.

Responding to another question, Georgieva said the IMF is projecting recession for 2020.

"We do expect it to be quite deep and we are very much urging countries to step up containment measures aggressively so we can shorten the duration of this period of time when the economy is in standstill," she said.

"And also to apply well-targeted measures, primarily focusing on the health system to absorb that enormous stress that comes from coronavirus. And on people, businesses and the financial system, I am very pleased to say that when we went through countries' responses, that sense of targeted fiscal measures is there and are also very impressive to see the size of these measures," she added.

"Countries are doing all they can on the fiscal and on the monetary front. We have heard from our members' very impressive decisions taken over the last days," the IMF chief said.

"We also want to caution that as we are responding now, we want to make the recession as possibly short and not too deep. We also want to think about what is going to follow the recovery and make sure that we are putting forward measures that can be supportive in this regard," she said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 28,2020

Washington, Feb 28: US intelligence agencies are monitoring the global spread of coronavirus and the ability of governments to respond, sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, warning that there were concerns about how India would cope with a widespread outbreak.

While there are only a few known cases in India, one source said the country's available countermeasures and the potential for the virus to spread given India's dense population was a focus of serious concern.

US intelligence agencies are also focusing on Iran, where the country's deputy health minister has fallen ill during a worsening outbreak.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday the United States was "deeply concerned" Tehran may have covered up details about the spread of coronavirus. A US government source said Iran's response was considered ineffective because the government only has minimal capabilities to respond to the outbreak.

Another source said US agencies were also concerned about the weak ability of governments in some developing countries to respond to an outbreak.

The US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee has received a briefing on the virus from the spy agencies. "The Committee has received a briefing from the IC (intelligence community) on coronavirus, and continues to receive updates on the outbreak on a daily basis," an official of the House Intelligence Committee told Reuters.

"Addressing the threat has both national security and economic dimensions, requiring a concerted government-wide effort and the IC is playing an important role in monitoring the spread of the outbreak, and the worldwide response," the official added.

A source familiar with the activities of the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Republican Senator Richard Burr and Democratic Senator Mark Warner, said the panel was receiving daily updates. The role of US intelligence agencies in responding to the coronavirus epidemic at this point principally involves monitoring the spread of the illness around the world and assessing the responses of governments.

They are working closely with health agencies, such as the US Center for Disease Control, in sharing information they collect and targeting further intelligence gathering.

One source said US agencies would use a wide range of intelligence tools, ranging from undercover informants to electronic eavesdropping tools, to track the virus' impact.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.