Latest news with #SenateCommitteeonForeignRelations
Spectator
4 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
Why one US diplomat thinks Ireland has ‘fallen into a vat of Guinness'
US diplomat Mike Huckabee was dead right to question whether Ireland had 'fallen into a vat of Guinness.' Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, played into stereotypical tropes on the Irish and alcohol when he made that comment last week. But it is, he reckoned, the only possible explanation for Ireland's looming ban on Israeli settlement goods, despite ominous soundings from the US over the potentially ruinous consequences. This bill is so stupid it amounts to 'diplomatic intoxication', he concluded. To answer his question, Ireland is not drunk. More's the pity. It is preparing to commit economic suicide while cold stone sober, just to tighten the screws on Israel. Huckabee's remarks, which point to a deepening rift between Dublin and Washington, have certainly focused minds in the US. Twelve prominent US politicians and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have now warned Ireland of the economic and diplomatic fallout of the Israeli Settlements (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill (PIGS). This row is gaining traction on Capitol Hill and ensuring Ireland is making global headlines – for all the wrong reasons. International law expert Eugene Kontorovich explained in the Wall Street Journal how banning trade with Israeli settlements could force American companies operating in Ireland to violate US federal law on illegal Israeli boycotts. 'Dublin seeks to take the place of Damascus as the centre of Israeli boycotts. But Syria was an economic backwater. Ireland has a lot more to lose,' he said. When it was first introduced in 2018, what was then the 'Occupied Territories Bill,' quickly sparked a backlash. Former US Ambassador to Ireland, Dan Mulhall, said he was deluged with calls asking, 'What is Ireland at?' Riddled with legal problems from the start, it was left to wither on the vine. That was until October 2023, when pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli groups thought it the perfect time to resurrect it and ramp up the pressure. They were pushing against an open door with foreign affairs minister Simon Harris. Instead of sending them packing, he caved in and re-introduced the ban on trading with settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank under a new name. It isn't clear that this is what Irish voters actually want. The general nervousness about the blowback from Ireland's largest export market, the US, was reflected in a recent national opinion poll in Ireland: 48 per cent want the bill dropped altogether or paused until the economic consequences are fully examined, with a further 17 per cent undecided. Harris and Taoiseach Micheal Martin face a stark choice; drop the bill and be crucified by the hard left and hostile anti-Israeli NGOs. Or continue to push it and hope Ireland's economy doesn't sink if US multinationals quit, leaving 370,000 job losses in their wake. Martin must know all too well that the Irish economy is artificially propped up by billions in revenue from US tech giants. Last November, Martin said Ireland could lose €10 billion (£8.7 billion) in corporation tax if just three US multinationals were repatriated under a hostile Donald Trump administration. The context then was Trump's tariffs, but it underlined the scale of Ireland's dependency on US multinationals. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council reported that foreign-owned multinationals – the majority US-owned – contributed 84 per cent of the total corporation tax revenue in 2023. This swelled Ireland's coffers by €20 billion (£17.36 billion), roughly equating to the combined spending on hospitals and schools in that year. As one US senator put it: 'If Ireland wanted to end foreign direct investment into Ireland, it could not have chosen a better way to do it.' Former justice minister Alan Shatter labelled the bill a 'Father Ted' measure reminiscent of the comedy set on a craggy island off Ireland's west coast – something Ireland's Taoiseach took great umbrage at. The Taoiseach was asked directly if the government had sought legal opinion on the position of US multinationals if this bill is enacted. We are none the wiser. Irish business leaders are not so coy; they say the consequences for Ireland are real and significant. Ireland is not up against the might of Israel on this, but that of the US. And that is before we get to the added risk of infringing EU law by imposing a unilateral trade ban, as UK international law expert Natasha Hausdorff told the Dail pre legislative hearings in painstaking detail earlier this month. The glazed eyes of the assembled politicians and the blustering, emotive, responses made for depressing viewing. Whatever one thinks about the moral argument, this bill is a massive overreach that will not save a single life in Gaza. Yet the entire Irish political establishment is ideologically wedded to it. Junior foreign affairs minister Thomas Byrne let the cat out of the bag last week when asked by Ireland's national broadcaster, RTE, if he was concerned about the potential cost to Ireland. 'Of course,' he replied, but I am more concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.' Martin also offered some insight into the government's mindset by saying he wanted the bill passed while ensuring Ireland's economy did not suffer 'unduly.' Which presupposes there will be some suffering, it's just a question of degree. Should the worst happen, and tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of Irish workers lose their jobs if US multinationals shut up shop, well, they can take comfort knowing Ireland 'did the right thing' as they make their way to the dole queue. Unless, as Ambassador Huckabee suggests, Ireland 'sobers up' before it is too late.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In Trump Immigration Cases, It's One Thing in Public, Another in Court
During his testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a swipe at Senator Chris Van Hollen, falsely accusing him of having had 'a margarita' with Kilmar Abrego Garcia—one of the Maryland Democrat's constituents, who was mistakenly sent to an El Salvador megaprison more than two months ago and who remains there despite the Supreme Court ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his release. 'That guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gangbanger … and the evidence is going to be clear,' Rubio said of Abrego Garcia, repeating claims that have never been proved in court. 'He can't make unsubstantiated comments like that!' Van Hollen shouted over the pounding gavel of the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 'Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States, because he hasn't done it under oath.' Van Hollen's frustration centered on the frequent gap between what the Trump administration says about its mass-deportation campaign in court, where it is required to tell the truth, and what officials say in public as they attempt to blunt criticism of their immigration crackdown. By playing up the alleged criminality of deportees at every opportunity, they deflect attention from the more mundane issue of whether the government is following the law. [Read: A loophole that would swallow the Constitution] When the administration's attorneys appear before the court, and top officials are required to provide sworn testimony, the administration is more restrained and tethered to facts. Department of Justice attorneys insist that the administration is following judicial orders in good faith. They recognize errors made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even if they attempt to diminish their significance. And they provide data and logistical details about ICE deportations that they do not otherwise release voluntarily. Outside of court, President Donald Trump and his top aides depict deportees as terrorists and gang leaders regardless of whether they've been convicted of a crime. They admit no mistakes. And if judges rule unfavorably, they denounce them as 'communists' and 'lunatics' and suggest that they won't respect their rulings. Trump and his top officials have dispensed with the usual conventions regarding public comment on pending cases. This has been a theme of Trump's litigation approach for years—from the Manhattan hush-money trial to the January 6 investigations—and the top officials running his current administration have taken his cue. The political fight matters more than the legal one, one senior official told me. 'Instead of using the old playbook of saying 'no comment' because there's pending litigation, you have top officials that are using the avenues they have to fight back and speak directly to the American people about what this administration is trying to do,' said the official, who agreed to discuss the approach candidly on the condition that I would not publish their name. The official said the strategy is designed to challenge judges who are 'thwarting the duly elected president from implementing his policies.' Although issuing public statements about ongoing litigation 'is unusual,' the person said, 'that's exactly what everyone who is a supporter of the president is looking for from his senior team.' The White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended that strategy. 'We are confident in the legality of our actions and do not apologize for acting to protect the American people,' she told me in a statement. But the approach has at times left Department of Justice lawyers stuck between what Trump officials say publicly and their professional and legal obligations to make truthful statements in court. When a senior ICE official said in sworn testimony in March that Abrego Garcia had been deported to El Salvador because of an 'administrative error,' the Justice Department attorney who initially represented the Trump administration, Erez Reuveni, relayed that characterization to the court. When asked why the administration hadn't taken steps to correct the error and bring Abrego Garcia back, Reuveni said his client—the Trump administration—hadn't provided him with answers. The top Trump aide Stephen Miller soon began insisting publicly that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, an error—the opposite of what the government admitted in court. Vice President J. D. Vance claimed that Abrego Garcia is a 'convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here,' even though he has no criminal convictions in the United States or El Salvador. Attorney General Pam Bondi cast the error as missing 'an extra step in paperwork' and said that Abrego Garcia should not be returned. Reuveni was fired. Bondi said he had failed to 'zealously advocate' for the government. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,' she told reporters. Trump and his top aides have made statements outside court that have undermined the legal positions staked out by government attorneys—at times with more candor than his lawyers. The president acknowledged during an interview last month with ABC News, for instance, that he could bring Abrego Garcia back by placing a phone call to the Salvadoran president. [Read: How the Trump administration flipped on Kilmar Abrego Garcia] Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me Trump and his top aides 'really are saying whatever they want to say in public, and then after the fact, trying to figure out what that means for their litigation, instead of the other way around, which is where they figure out what they want to do in their litigation and then they mold their public statements to that.' U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who presides over the Abrego Garcia case, said during a recent hearing that Trump's claim was clearly at odds with his attorneys' contention that they could not compel a foreign government to release Abrego Garcia. Xinis also noted social-media statements by Department of Homeland Security officials saying Abrego Garcia will never be allowed to return to the United States. The judge said it sounded like an 'admission of your client that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return.' Jonathan Guynn, the government's attorney, said Trump's statement needed to be read with 'the appropriate nuance' and it was not 'inconsistent with our good-faith compliance.' 'What world are we living in?' Xinis said in frustration as Guynn ducked her questions. 'What sort of legal world are we living in?' Similarly, Trump officials have depicted Venezuelans sent to the prison in El Salvador as invaders and terrorists to justify the administration's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. But the majority have no criminal convictions in the United States, and at least 50 of the roughly 240 sent to El Salvador entered the United States legally and did not violate U.S. immigration law, according to a new analysis by the Cato Institute. When U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg asked about a statement by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—who said the megaprison in El Salvador was one of the tools it planned to use to scare migrants into leaving the United States—he questioned whether it was an admission that the U.S. government has control over the fate of the deportees it sends there. Another Justice Department attorney similarly argued that the statement lacked sufficient 'nuance.' 'Is that another way of saying these statements just aren't true?' Boasberg said. When Boasberg asked if Trump was telling the truth when he said he could get Abrego Garcia released with a phone call, the administration's attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said the president's statement should not be treated as a fact, but as an expression of 'the president's belief about the influence that he has.' Jeff Joseph, the president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told me that Trump attorneys are twisting themselves into rhetorical knots because the administration officials conducting the deportation campaign are doing whatever they want, and coming up with a legal rationale later. The government attorneys have 'to sort of post hoc rationalize what they're doing,' Joseph said, 'but they're running afoul of the fact that it's actually against the law, and they just can't explain it.' 'They can't just come in and admit that they broke the law,' he added, 'so they have to come up with some sort of paltering way of addressing it.' The Abrego Garcia ruling and the Alien Enemies Act litigation have left legal scholars warning of a constitutional crisis. But a more tangible effect, attorneys told me, has been the erosion of the 'presumption of regularity'—the benefit of the doubt given to the government in court proceedings. It's based on the idea that federal officers and attorneys are operating in good faith, and not trying to achieve political goals through acts of subterfuge. As judges see the administration saying one thing in public and another in court, they have started to treat the government's claims with more skepticism and, sometimes, with outright suspicion of criminal contempt. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that the Trump administration has been losing the majority of its immigration-related motions and claims, regardless of whether the judges overseeing their cases were appointed by Democrats or Republicans. [Adam Serwer: 'A path of perfect lawlessness'] The White House is focused on political wins, and it has pushed back even harder at judicial oversight as the losses pile up. In a case challenging its attempts to send deportees to third countries if their own nations won't take them back, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled in March that the government had to give deportees time to challenge the government's attempts to send them to potentially dangerous places. Despite the order, Trump officials tried last week to deport a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations to South Sudan. Murphy ruled that the flight violated his previous order mandating due process—but the Department of Homeland Security still convened a press conference to recite the criminal records of the deportees, calling them 'uniquely barbaric monsters.' The White House made an emergency appeal of Murphy's ruling directly to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, bypassing the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Adam Cox, a constitutional law professor at NYU, told me that the Trump administration's approach marks 'a sweeping transformation of past practices.' But he said it has also affirmed the importance of the lower courts to function as a powerful fact-finding body at a time when other oversight mechanisms are weakened or under attack. The courts' ability to compel sworn testimony is crucial to helping the public sort through political rhetoric to understand what's actually true. 'A lot of the focus of public debate around courts and politics has been (understandably) focused on the Supreme Court and big legal rulings,' Cox wrote to me. 'But recent months have brought a nice reminder of just how important the well-developed fact-finding mechanisms of federal trial courts can be.' Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
In Trump Immigration Cases, It's One Thing in Public, Another in Court
During his testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a swipe at Senator Chris Van Hollen, falsely accusing him of having had 'a margarita' with Kilmar Abrego Garcia—one of the Maryland Democrat's constituents, who was mistakenly sent to an El Salvador megaprison more than two months ago and who remains there despite the Supreme Court ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his release. 'That guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gangbanger … and the evidence is going to be clear,' Rubio said of Abrego Garcia, repeating claims that have never been proved in court. 'He can't make unsubstantiated comments like that!' Van Hollen shouted over the pounding gavel of the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 'Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States, because he hasn't done it under oath.' Van Hollen's frustration centered on the frequent gap between what the Trump administration says about its mass-deportation campaign in court, where it is required to tell the truth, and what officials say in public as they attempt to blunt criticism of their immigration crackdown. By playing up the alleged criminality of deportees at every opportunity, they deflect attention from the more mundane issue of whether the government is following the law. When the administration's attorneys appear before the court, and top officials are required to provide sworn testimony, the administration is more restrained and tethered to facts. Department of Justice attorneys insist that the administration is following judicial orders in good faith. They recognize errors made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even if they attempt to diminish their significance. And they provide data and logistical details about ICE deportations that they do not otherwise release voluntarily. Outside of court, President Donald Trump and his top aides depict deportees as terrorists and gang leaders regardless of whether they've been convicted of a crime. They admit no mistakes. And if judges rule unfavorably, they denounce them as ' communists ' and 'lunatics' and suggest that they won't respect their rulings. Trump and his top officials have dispensed with the usual conventions regarding public comment on pending cases. This has been a theme of Trump's litigation approach for years—from the Manhattan hush-money trial to the January 6 investigations—and the top officials running his current administration have taken his cue. The political fight matters more than the legal one, one senior official told me. 'Instead of using the old playbook of saying 'no comment' because there's pending litigation, you have top officials that are using the avenues they have to fight back and speak directly to the American people about what this administration is trying to do,' said the official, who agreed to discuss the approach candidly on the condition that I would not publish their name. The official said the strategy is designed to challenge judges who are 'thwarting the duly elected president from implementing his policies.' Although issuing public statements about ongoing litigation 'is unusual,' the person said, 'that's exactly what everyone who is a supporter of the president is looking for from his senior team.' The White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended that strategy. 'We are confident in the legality of our actions and do not apologize for acting to protect the American people,' she told me in a statement. But the approach has at times left Department of Justice lawyers stuck between what Trump officials say publicly and their professional and legal obligations to make truthful statements in court. When a senior ICE official said in sworn testimony in March that Abrego Garcia had been deported to El Salvador because of an ' administrative error, ' the Justice Department attorney who initially represented the Trump administration, Erez Reuveni, relayed that characterization to the court. When asked why the administration hadn't taken steps to correct the error and bring Abrego Garcia back, Reuveni said his client—the Trump administration—hadn't provided him with answers. The top Trump aide Stephen Miller soon began insisting publicly that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, an error —the opposite of what the government admitted in court. Vice President J. D. Vance claimed that Abrego Garcia is a ' convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here,' even though he has no criminal convictions in the United States or El Salvador. Attorney General Pam Bondi cast the error as missing ' an extra step in paperwork ' and said that Abrego Garcia should not be returned. Reuveni was fired. Bondi said he had failed to 'zealously advocate' for the government. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,' she told reporters. Trump and his top aides have made statements outside court that have undermined the legal positions staked out by government attorneys—at times with more candor than his lawyers. The president acknowledged during an interview last month with ABC News, for instance, that he could bring Abrego Garcia back by placing a phone call to the Salvadoran president. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me Trump and his top aides 'really are saying whatever they want to say in public, and then after the fact, trying to figure out what that means for their litigation, instead of the other way around, which is where they figure out what they want to do in their litigation and then they mold their public statements to that.' U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who presides over the Abrego Garcia case, said during a recent hearing that Trump's claim was clearly at odds with his attorneys' contention that they could not compel a foreign government to release Abrego Garcia. Xinis also noted social-media statements by Department of Homeland Security officials saying Abrego Garcia will never be allowed to return to the United States. The judge said it sounded like an 'admission of your client that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return.' Jonathan Guynn, the government's attorney, said Trump's statement needed to be read with 'the appropriate nuance' and it was not 'inconsistent with our good-faith compliance.' 'What world are we living in?' Xinis said in frustration as Guynn ducked her questions. 'What sort of legal world are we living in?' Similarly, Trump officials have depicted Venezuelans sent to the prison in El Salvador as invaders and terrorists to justify the administration's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. But the majority have no criminal convictions in the United States, and at least 50 of the roughly 240 sent to El Salvador entered the United States legally and did not violate U.S. immigration law, according to a new analysis by the Cato Institute. When U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg asked about a statement by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—who said the megaprison in El Salvador was one of the tools it planned to use to scare migrants into leaving the United States—he questioned whether it was an admission that the U.S. government has control over the fate of the deportees it sends there. Another Justice Department attorney similarly argued that the statement lacked sufficient 'nuance.' 'Is that another way of saying these statements just aren't true?' Boasberg said. When Boasberg asked if Trump was telling the truth when he said he could get Abrego Garcia released with a phone call, the administration's attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said the president's statement should not be treated as a fact, but as an expression of 'the president's belief about the influence that he has.' Jeff Joseph, the president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told me that Trump attorneys are twisting themselves into rhetorical knots because the administration officials conducting the deportation campaign are doing whatever they want, and coming up with a legal rationale later. The government attorneys have 'to sort of post hoc rationalize what they're doing,' Joseph said, 'but they're running afoul of the fact that it's actually against the law, and they just can't explain it.' 'They can't just come in and admit that they broke the law,' he added, 'so they have to come up with some sort of paltering way of addressing it.' The Abrego Garcia ruling and the Alien Enemies Act litigation have left legal scholars warning of a constitutional crisis. But a more tangible effect, attorneys told me, has been the erosion of the 'presumption of regularity'—the benefit of the doubt given to the government in court proceedings. It's based on the idea that federal officers and attorneys are operating in good faith, and not trying to achieve political goals through acts of subterfuge. As judges see the administration saying one thing in public and another in court, they have started to treat the government's claims with more skepticism and, sometimes, with outright suspicion of criminal contempt. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that the Trump administration has been losing the majority of its immigration-related motions and claims, regardless of whether the judges overseeing their cases were appointed by Democrats or Republicans. Adam Serwer: 'A path of perfect lawlessness' The White House is focused on political wins, and it has pushed back even harder at judicial oversight as the losses pile up. In a case challenging its attempts to send deportees to third countries if their own nations won't take them back, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled in March that the government had to give deportees time to challenge the government's attempts to send them to potentially dangerous places. Despite the order, Trump officials tried last week to deport a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations to South Sudan. Murphy ruled that the flight violated his previous order mandating due process—but the Department of Homeland Security still convened a press conference to recite the criminal records of the deportees, calling them 'uniquely barbaric monsters.' The White House made an emergency appeal of Murphy's ruling directly to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, bypassing the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Adam Cox, a constitutional law professor at NYU, told me that the Trump administration's approach marks 'a sweeping transformation of past practices.' But he said it has also affirmed the importance of the lower courts to function as a powerful fact-finding body at a time when other oversight mechanisms are weakened or under attack. The courts' ability to compel sworn testimony is crucial to helping the public sort through political rhetoric to understand what's actually true. 'A lot of the focus of public debate around courts and politics has been (understandably) focused on the Supreme Court and big legal rulings,' Cox wrote to me. 'But recent months have brought a nice reminder of just how important the well-developed fact-finding mechanisms of federal trial courts can be.'
The Hindu
24-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Developer-turned-diplomat
In November 2024, while appointing Steven C. Witkoff as Special Envoy to the Middle East [West Asia], U.S. President Donald Trump said that 'Steve will be an unrelenting voice for peace.' Since then, Mr. Witkoff, 68, in the words of an American analyst, has morphed from Trump's 'Middle East Envoy' into the 'Envoy of Everything'. In less than six months, he managed to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas (which has since lapsed), another ceasefire with the Houthis, got Russia to release a jailed American school teacher in a prisoner swap, persuaded Hamas to release an Israeli-American hostage, had Russia and Ukraine agree to resume truce talks, and got Iran back to the negotiating table over its nuclear programme, notwithstanding the fact that it was Mr. Trump who had scrapped a perfectly functional nuclear deal. That's an impressive run of achievements for any diplomat, let alone somebody with no formal diplomatic training and no background in international relations. What explains his success? Admittedly, he works for a hands-on President who likes to do all diplomacy by himself. But that still doesn't account for his effectiveness, which might be rooted in how he bagged this gig in the first place. At one level, it helps to be the President's long-time golf partner. It helps even more if you are a businessman from the same industry as the President (real estate), and both subscribe to its distinctive set of values — pragmatism, realism, and a belief that cracking deals and making money trumps all else, including ideology and abstract questions of right and wrong. At another, Mr. Witkoff has trod the well-worn path of billionaire tycoons who begin by funnelling millions of dollars into a Presidential campaign, leverage their contributions to gain the candidate's confidence and influence within the party, and after their chosen horse wins the race, manoeuvre themselves into a position within or outside the administration from where they orchestrate a sweet convergence of interests between state policy and private business. They may do so with or without a formal role in the administration. Elon Musk is a prime example, and so is Witkoff. However, unlike Musk and other megadonors of Mr. Trump, Mr. Witkoff is one of the few men outside the Trump clan who enjoys his absolute trust. It is this dynamic — he can pick up the phone and call the President any time — that sets Mr. Witkoff apart from other notional contenders for the role of one of the U.S.'s top diplomats, be they distinguished career diplomats or politicians with years of experience with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. Witkoff's interlocutors — Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas — value the fact that they are negotiating with someone who actually speaks for the U.S. President and not another functionary from the State Department. Such a high level of trust is not bought with financial contributions alone. It is earned over time. Mr. Witkoff's relationship with Mr. Trump goes back to the 1980s, when he was working for a law firm that handled Mr. Trump's real estate transactions. The story goes that Mr. Trump walked into a deli one day without his wallet, and Mr. Witkoff bought him a sandwich, launching a friendship that has served both of them rather well. Mr. Witkoff is on record saying that when he first met Mr. Trump, he wanted 'to be like him.' He acted on that impulse, transitioning from legal work to the real estate business, buying and selling property in some of the hottest markets, including Manhattan. Mr. Witkoff has stood by Mr. Trump at critical times when many of his avowed supporters deserted him, such as after the January 2021 riot at the Capitol. He has testified on Trump's behalf in a civil fraud trial. Within the Republican Party, he has been Mr. Trump's prime trouble-shooter. Acting as Mr. Trump's emissary, he flew out to meet fellow Republicans who were not exactly fans of Mr. Trump. Mr. Witkoff negotiated with them — the likes of Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Nikki Haley, one-time rival in the presidential race Ron DeSantis — and eventually lined them up in Mr. Trump's corner. Mr. Trump and Mr. Witkoff believe that the negotiation skills and mindset that helped them crack complicated property deals are not only transferable to conflict resolution but are superior to the staid toolkit of traditional diplomacy. That partly explains Mr. Witkoff jetting off for one-on-one meetings — with aides or even translators — with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he has met at least four times. It also explains the U.S.'s departure from protocol in talking directly with Hamas — something it has never done before. Ever the pragmatic deal-maker, finding Benjamin Netanyahu to be an obstacle, Mr. Witkoff simply bypassed him, which is how he got the American-Israeli prisoner freed when others had tried and failed. Mr. Witkoff's desire to be the West Asia Envoy also needs to be seen in the context of his links to sovereign wealth funds from Gulf countries, including the Qatar Investment Authority, which bailed him out of a real estate deal gone wrong. The penchant for approaching geopolitical problems through the real estate lens found grotesque expression in Mr. Trump's idea, backed by Mr. Witkoff, that Gaza should be depopulated and redeveloped as a Mediterranean Riviera. It cannot be denied, however, that a conventional diplomat would have never approved the public airing of such an idea. As someone who both understands and shares Mr. Trump's vision, Mr. Witkoff's USP is his ability to market that vision to foreign interlocutors, but sans the Trumpian brashness, which could be fatally jarring in diplomatic realms populated by large yet fragile egos.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US Senate to vote on new Russia sanctions unless peace efforts progress soon, Senator Graham says
The U.S. Senate is ready to vote on a bill on sanctions against Russia if peace talks over the war in Ukraine do not progress soon, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said on May 20, as Voice of America journalist Tetiana Vorozhko reported. The U.S.-mediated negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have stalled, as Moscow continues to refuse a ceasefire and pushes its claims to four partially occupied Ukrainian oblasts — Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk — and Crimea. "If the next few days are like the last few months, then you can just count on us moving, because I think it's our job to try to help the world end this war," Graham said during the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearings. "The Chinese are watching. This is a dress rehearsal for Taiwan. How this ends, I think, will greatly determine what happens with the future of Taiwan. And I want this war to end in a way that makes Xi (Jinping) think, 'Well, that didn't work out too well for (Vladimir) Putin,'" the senator said. Graham stressed that the war in Ukraine must end in a way that prevents a new one from starting. "Afghanistan was a disaster. If we do not get this right in Ukraine, and the world perceives that Putin got away with it, that will be even worse. That will be worse than Afghanistan," he added. The bill, introduced to the Senate in early April, would impose new penalties on Russia and slap 500% tariffs on imports from countries that buy Russian oil, petroleum products, natural gas, or uranium. The bill, proposed by Graham and Senator Richard Blumenthal, was supported by 72 senators, a majority in the Senate, according to Graham. Ukraine's European allies are tightening sanctions against Russia as Moscow refuses to cease fire. Despite Russia's refusal, no new U.S. sanctions have been imposed so far, with U.S. President Donald Trump saying that new sanctions "could also make it much worse" after he held a phone call with Putin. Several media outlets reported on European leaders' frustrations with the lack of U.S. sanctions against Russia, with a senior European official telling the New York Times (NYT) that Trump "never seemed invested in joining sanctions on Russia." Read also: 'Trump doesn't know how to deal with gangsters' — US lets Ukraine down, once again We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
