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 30,2020

Washington, May 30: The United States will end its relationship with the World Health Organization over the body’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday, accusing the U.N. agency of becoming a puppet of China.

The move to quit the Geneva-based body, which the United States formally joined in 1948, comes amid growing tensions between Washington and Beijing over the coronavirus outbreak. The virus first emerged in China’s Wuhan city late last year.

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said Chinese officials “ignored their reporting obligations” to the WHO about the virus - that has killed hundreds of thousands of people globally - and pressured the agency to “mislead the world.”

“China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying which is approximately $450 million a year,” he said.

Trump’s decision follows a pledge last week by Chinese President Xi Jinping to give $2 billion to the WHO over the next two years to help combat the coronavirus. The amount almost matches the WHO’s entire annual program budget for last year.

Trump last month halted funding for the 194-member organization, then in a May 18 letter gave the WHO 30 days to commit to reforms.

“Because they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms, we will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs,” Trump said on Friday.

It was not immediately clear when his decision would come into effect. A 1948 joint resolution of Congress on U.S. membership of the WHO said the country “reserves its right to withdraw from the organization on a one-year notice.”

The World Health Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s announcement. It has previously denied Trump’s assertions that it promoted Chinese “disinformation” about the virus.

“It’s important to remember that the WHO is a platform for cooperation among countries,” said Donna McKay, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights. “Walking away from this critical institution in the midst of an historic pandemic will hurt people both in the United States and around the world.”

‘ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL’

The United States currently owes the WHO more than $200 million in assessed contributions, according to the WHO website. Washington also gives several hundred million dollars annually in voluntary funding tied to specific WHO programs such as polio eradication, HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis.

Amesh A. Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said that in practice Trump’s decision was unlikely to change the operations of the WHO.

“From a symbolic or moral standpoint it’s the wrong type of action to be taking in the middle of a pandemic and seems to deflect responsibility for what we in the U.S. failed to do and blame the WHO,” said Adalja.

When Trump halted funding to the WHO last month, two Western diplomats said the U.S. suspension was more harmful politically to the WHO than to the agency’s current programs, which are funded for now.

The WHO is an independent international body that works with the United Nations. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said last month that the WHO is “absolutely critical to the world’s efforts to win the war against COVID-19.”

When asked about Trump’s decision, a U.N. spokesman said: “We have consistently called for all states to support WHO.”

Trump has long scorned multilateralism as he focuses on an “America First” agenda. Since taking office, he has quit the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. cultural agency, a global accord to tackle climate change and the Iran nuclear deal. He has also cut funding for the U.N. population fund and the U.N. agency that aids Palestinian refugees.

“The WHO is the world’s early warning system for infectious diseases,” said U.S. Representative Nita Lowey, a Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Appropriations. “Now, during a global pandemic that has cost over 100,000 American lives, is not the time to put the country further at risk.”

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
June 19,2020

London, Jun 19: Malala Yousafzai, the youngest Nobel Peace Prize winner who once took a bullet for campaigning for girls' education in Pakistan, was over the moon on Friday after completing her degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Britain's prestigious Oxford University.

Malala, 22, who attended Oxford's Lady Margaret Hall college, took to Twitter to share two pictures that show her celebrating the milestone with her family.

"Hard to express my joy and gratitude right now as I completed my Philosophy, Politics and Economics degree at Oxford," she said in the tweet, accompanied by two pictures - one showing her sitting with her family in front of a cake that says: 'Happy Graduation Malala', and the other in which she is covered with cake smiling for the camera.

In the tweet, the famed human rights activist also revealed her plans for the immediate future - Netflix, reading and sleeping.

"I don't know what's ahead. For now, it will be Netflix, reading and sleep," she wrote.

Malala was shot in the head by the Taliban militants in December 2012 for campaigning for female education in the Swat Valley in northeastern Pakistan.

Severely wounded, she was airlifted from one military hospital in Pakistan to another and later flown to the UK for treatment.

After the attack, the Taliban released a statement saying that they would target Malala again if she survived.

At the age of 17, Malala became the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for her education advocacy in 2014 when she shared the coveted honour with India's social activist Kailash Satyarthi.

Unable to return to Pakistan after her recovery, she moved to Britain, setting up the Malala Fund and supporting local education advocacy groups with a focus on Pakistan, Nigeria, Jordan, Syria and Kenya.

The Taliban, who are against girls' education, have destroyed many schools in Pakistan.

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
January 30,2020

Jan 30: The death toll rose to 170 in the new virus outbreak in China on Thursday as foreign evacuees from the worst-hit region begin returning home under close observation and world health officials expressed “great concern” that the disease is starting to spread between people outside of China.

Thursday’s figures cover the previous 24 hours and represent an increase of 38 deaths and 1,737 cases for a total of 7,711. Of the new deaths, 37 were in the epicenter of the outbreak in Hubei province and one in the southwestern province of Sichuan.

The news comes as the 195 Americans evacuated from Wuhan, the Hubei province city of 11 million where the outbreak originated, are undergoing three days of testing and monitoring at a Southern California military base to make sure they do not show signs of the virus.

A group of 210 Japanese evacuees from Wuhan landed Thursday at Tokyo’s Haneda airport on a second government chartered flight, according to the foreign ministry. Reports said nine of those aboard the flight showed signs of cough and fever. Three of the 206 Japanese who returned on Wednesday tested positive for the new coronavirus, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said during a parliamentary session. Two of them showed no symptoms of the disease.

France, New Zealand, Australia and other countries are also pulling out their citizens or making plans to do so.

The World Health Organization emergencies chief said the few cases of human-to-human spread of the virus outside China — in Japan, Germany, Canada and Vietnam — were of “great concern” and were part of the reason the U.N. health agency’s director-general was reconvening a committee of experts on Thursday to assess whether the outbreak should be declared a global emergency.

The new virus has now infected more people in China than were sickened there during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak.

Dr. Michael Ryan spoke at a news conference in Geneva on Wednesday after returning from a trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping and other senior government leaders. He said China was taking “extraordinary measures in the face of an extraordinary challenge” posed by the outbreak.

To date, about 99% of the cases are in China. Ryan estimated the death rate of the new virus at 2%, but said the figure was very preliminary. With fluctuating numbers of cases and deaths, scientists are only able to produce a rough estimate of the fatality rate and it’s likely many milder cases of the virus are being missed.

In comparison, the SARS virus killed about 10% of people who caught it. The new virus is from the coronavirus family, which includes those that can cause the common cold as well as more serious illnesses such as SARS and MERS.

Scientists say there are many questions to be answered about the new virus, including just how easily it spreads and how severe it is.

In a report published Wednesday, Chinese researchers suggested that person-to-person spread among close contacts occurred as early as mid-December.

“Considerable efforts” will be needed to control the spread if this ratio holds up elsewhere, researchers wrote in the report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More than half of the cases in which symptoms began before Jan. 1 were tied to a seafood market, but only 8% of cases after that have been, researchers found. They reported the average incubation period was five days.

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.