bbc--2019-07-25--Boris Johnsons Brexit policy unacceptable - EU negotiator

Boris Johnson's Brexit policy 'unacceptable' - EU negotiator

Top European officials have rebuffed the Brexit policy of Boris Johnson after his first speech to UK MPs.  The new prime minister said he was committed to "getting rid" of the Irish border backstop, which has long been a bone of contention in negotiations.  The EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said removing the backstop guarantee was unacceptable.  Mr Johnson also spoke on the phone with EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.  Mr Juncker reiterated the EU's position that the already-negotiated withdrawal agreement was the best one possible – though he said the commission would be available over the coming weeks if the UK wanted to hold talks.  Boris Johnson gave his first statement in the House of Commons since becoming prime minister, and set out his position on Brexit, which he has promised to complete by 31 October.  The backstop is a key piece of the deal negotiated by his predecessor's government, dictating what will happen to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.  It is a last resort that guarantees a frictionless border if no better solution is devised in time - by maintaining close ties between the UK and the EU until such a solution is found.  "No country that values its independence, and indeed its self-respect, could agree to a treaty which signed away our economic independence and self-government as this backstop does," Mr Johnson said.  Responding to questions from MPs, he said he was committed to "getting rid" of the backstop, describing it as "divisive" and "anti-democratic".  "[It] poses that appalling choice to the British government and the British people - to the United Kingdom - of losing control of our trade, losing control of our regulation or else surrendering the government of the United Kingdom," he added.  After the speech, Mr Barnier sent a note to European leaders, repeating the EU's position that getting rid of the backstop was "of course unacceptable", and labelling Mr Johnson's speech "rather combative".  But he added that despite disagreements over the backstop, the EU was prepared to "work constructively, within our own mandate", and was prepared to analyse "any UK idea on withdrawal issues that are compatible with the existing withdrawal agreement".  Concerning the possibility of a no deal, he said it would not be "the EU's choice" but "we have to be ready for a situation where he [Mr Johnson] gives priority to the planning for 'no deal', partly to heap pressure on the unity of the EU27."  "In any case, what remains essential on our side is to remain calm, stick to our principles and guidelines and show solidarity and unity of the 27."  He added that he would "remain available throughout the summer for talks with the UK".  Downing Street did not respond directly to Mr Barnier's comments, but the prime minister's official spokesman said the PM would be "energetic in the pursuit" of a deal.  But he added that Theresa May's withdrawal agreement had "been rejected three times" by MPs and was "clearly not acceptable to them".  However, at a news conference in County Donegal, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said, "without the backstop there is no withdrawal agreement, there's no transition phase, there's no implementation phase, and there will be no free trade agreement until all those matters are resolved".  Meanwhile, Mr Johnson is coming under pressure from one of his own MPs to introduce a law guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.  The prime minister said EU citizens would have "absolute certainty" of their right to live and remain in the country.  Alberto Costa - who resigned as a parliamentary aide over the issue - welcomed the statement, but said the promise should be "underpinned by law".


bbc--2019-10-14--Turkey-Syria offensive: Disastrous moment for US Mid-East policy

It has taken a week to reshape the map of the Syrian war, in the seven days since President Donald Trump used what he called his "great and unmatched wisdom" to order the withdrawal of US troops from northern Syria.  He set off a chain of events that betrayed America's ally, the Syrian Kurds, and opened a cornucopia of opportunities for Turkey, the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad, its backers, Russia and Iran, and the jihadist extremists of Islamic State (IS).  Eight years of war in Syria have shaped and changed the Middle East. This last week has been another turning point. Perhaps President Trump's wisdom helped him to foresee events. Or perhaps his habit of following his gut instincts is a serious mistake when it comes to the infinite complexities of the Middle East.  For years it has been clear that Syria's fate would be decided by foreigners, not Syrians. Repeated interventions have sustained and escalated the war. Writing about the contest for influence and power in Syria should start with the war's victims. Every turn of the military screw means disaster and often death for civilians. Video of their suffering should be compulsory viewing for the leaders who give the orders. Those images are not hard to find online and on television.  President Trump's decision to pull the US out of what he called an endless war gave Turkey the green light to send troops into Syria. Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared he wanted to go after the Kurds of the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) because they are allies of his country's own Kurdish rebels. His plan is to control both sides of the border with north-eastern Syria, and to set up an occupation zone around 20 miles (32km) deep. Into that zone he wants to move a million or more Syrian refugees.  When the US decided to equip and train Syrian Kurds, as well as some Arabs, to fight IS, they were aware of a potential problem, that their would-be Kurdish allies were regarded as terrorists by their Nato ally, Turkey. Washington turned a blind eye to a problem that could be kicked into the future. Now the future is here, and it has blown up.  A week ago, a small number of US troops were the tangible symbol of what seemed to be a security guarantee to the Syrian Kurds, who had become vital allies in the war against the extremist jihadists of Islamic State. The Kurds fought and died on the ground while the US, the UK and others provided air power and special forces troops. When the Caliphate, the self-styled entity of IS fell, the Kurds rounded up and jailed thousands of jihadist fighters.  But in not much more than the time it took President Trump to send some tweets, the Syrian Kurds were forced to recognise that they had been dumped, sparking consternation in the American military. • US to evacuate 1,000 troops as Turkey advances  US Defence Secretary Mark Esper denied that the Kurds had been abandoned. But with the Turks advancing, and the Americans leaving, that is not how it felt for the Syrian Kurds. Once again in their troubled history, Kurds had become the disposable allies of a foreign power. They turned to their old enemies in Damascus.  On Sunday the Kurds announced a deal with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, agreeing that its troops could advance into the zone that had not been controlled by Damascus since 2012, right up to the border with Turkey. That is a big victory for the regime. The troops moved quickly out of bases they maintained in the north-east. Assad loyalists dug out regime flags.  It was a disastrous day for American Middle East policy. The alliance with the Kurds, and the security guarantee safeguarding their self-governing slice of Syria, gave the Americans a stake in the war's endgame. It was also a way of pushing against the backers of the Assad regime: Russia and Iran. The departure of the Americans, and the advance of the Syrian army, are victories for them too.  New opportunities seem to be opening up for the jihadist extremists of Islamic State. On the messaging app Telegram, they have declared a new campaign of violence across Syria. They lost their territory, the "caliphate", but those who stayed out of jail - or a grave - have reconstituted themselves in sleeper cells to carry out guerrilla attacks.  Now with the Kurds reeling, they see a chance to free the thousands of fighters who are locked up in Kurdish jails. Some of them are notorious killers who would constitute a serious threat if they could get out to carry guns and bombs again, not just in Syria but further afield. Justifiably, western governments are getting nervous about a renewed IS threat.  European governments, rattled in the way that happens when the problems of the Middle East come knocking at their doors, are calling on Turkey to stop the offensive. Some Nato members can see a nightmare scenario unfolding, with Syria, backed by Russian power, potentially facing off against Turkey, a fellow Nato member. The Russians say they are in regular contact with Turkey. But in a fluid, violent theatre of war. the chances for misperception, mistakes and escalation are always present.  Perhaps what has happened in the last week simplifies the endgame of the Syrian war. Two major players, the Americans and the Kurds, look to be out of the picture. And President Assad, along with his allies from Russia and Iran, continue to solidify their victory in Syria's catastrophic war.


bbc--2019-11-19--US policy shift reduces chances of Mid-East peace deal

The US policy shift on Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank makes no difference from a legal point of view.  The Trump administration can declare that the settlements are "not per se inconsistent with international law", as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did on Monday.  But Americans do not make international law: that is up to bodies such as the United Nations and treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bars an occupying power from transferring parts of its civilian population to occupied territory.  The US decision does, however, make a difference from a political point of view, giving a boost to Israel's position that the West Bank is "disputed" rather than "occupied". And it decreases even further the chances of a negotiated peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.  Settlements are Jewish communities built on territory occupied by Israel during the 1967 Middle East war. Negotiations within the framework of the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords aimed to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. But Oslo did not forbid the building of settlements and every Israeli government since 1993 has continued doing so.  Previous US administrations opposed settlement construction as an obstacle to peace, and tried to limit it to varying degrees. But planning and building have accelerated under the Trump administration, according to the Israeli anti-settlement monitoring group Peace Now.  The policy shift has been strongly supported by the US envoy to Israel, David Friedman, who raised funds for settlements before becoming an ambassador. • Can the Jewish settlement issue be resolved? • Are there alternatives to a two-state solution?  The possibility is that this change could green-light steps towards annexation of Palestinian territory. That is the demand of Israel's national religious right, a core constituency of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which sees the West Bank as part of a historic Jewish homeland.  Mr Netanyahu has made election promises to annex parts of the West Bank, and described a pending peace plan drafted by the Trump administration as a road map for extending "Jewish sovereignty".  That proposal has yet to be rolled out. Mr Pompeo said removing the peace process from arguments about who was right or wrong under international law would create political space for the administration's "vision", although he did not provide any details.  Whether or not that is the case, it creates problems for the rest of the world, which has been operating under an internationally accepted framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace.  The international community has focused for more than two decades on working towards a two-state solution. The European Union and United Nations have been warning that Jewish settlements are eroding that possibility. Now that a main player has withdrawn opposition, the way forward is even less clear: there is no Plan B.  America's Arab allies also find it increasingly difficult to support President Trump's peace efforts, as they are reluctant to be associated with US decisions considered so pro-Israel.  And the decision on settlements is a problem for the American Jewish community, because it further deepens the partisan divide on Israel.  Republican lawmakers praised the policy shift, but some Democrats strongly denounced it, including presidential candidates.  Such clear differences no doubt influenced the cautious response from even the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, Aipac, which tweeted that it did not take a position on settlements.  Palestinians do not have many options.  They have has been boycotting President Trump's peace efforts since his 2017 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the eastern part of which Palestinians want to be the capital of a future state.  The Palestinian leadership is divided between the Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah movement in the West Bank, and the Islamist Hamas movement in Gaza. That schism has prevented the development of an effective strategy to confront the Trump administration as it has changed US policy on Israel and the Palestinian territories.  The people are weary of protests. Palestinian militants have described the US shift as the funeral of the Oslo peace process, and called for resisting the occupation.  But many Palestinians seem to have adopted a war of position. They say that simply staying on the land is a form of non-violent resistance.


bbc--2019-12-30--Kim Jong-un calls for 'positive and offensive' security policy

North Korea's leader has called for "positive and offensive measures" to ensure the country's "sovereignty and security", state media said.  Kim Jong-un was speaking at a multi-day gathering of party leaders in Pyongyang - unusual for this time of the year.  The comments come amid concerns that the North could end negotiations on denuclearisation with the US, and restart major weapons testing.  The US has said it would be "extraordinarily disappointed" by that.  While the phrase "positive and offensive measures" is vague, it seems to imply further bolstering of North Korea's weapons programme - tactical or strategic, or both - says Minyoung Lee from specialist site NK News.  "State media's coverage of the plenum [meeting] tomorrow, or Kim Jong-un's New Year's speech, will likely lend further insight into Kim's next course of action," she added.  Pyongyang threatened earlier this year to take a "new way", if Washington failed to offer concessions in the nuclear talks by the end of the year.  Why was this meeting unusual?  According to North Korean state media KCNA, Mr Kim opened the party meeting on Saturday and presided over the session on Sunday. Reports also indicated the meeting would continue on Monday.  The plenary party meeting is one of the communist state's highest decision-making bodies, though it is thought largely to rubber-stamp policies put forward by Mr Kim, who holds absolute power.  It comes days ahead of the much-anticipated New Year's Day address, where Mr Kim has previously made big announcements related to denuclearisation.  At the party meeting Mr Kim emphasised "the need to take positive and offensive measures" to "fully ensure the sovereignty and security of the country, as required by the present situation".  Mr Kim did not elaborate on what "offensive measures" could mean.  Where is the US on negotiations?  On Sunday - before Mr Kim's remarks were publicised - the White House national security adviser Robert O'Brien said the US had "many tools in its tool kit" to respond to any North Korean tests.  "We'll reserve judgment but the United States will take action as we do in these situations," he told ABC.  "If Kim Jong-un takes that approach we'll be extraordinarily disappointed and we'll demonstrate that disappointment."  UN Security Council members are set to meet on Monday to discuss a proposal by Russia and China to lift some sanctions on North Korea to try to break the deadlock.  Washington has previously refused to soften its own sanctions against Pyongyang.  Two weeks ago, the US special representative for North Korea urged Mr Kim to restart negotiations.  "We are here, let's get this done," said Stephen Biegun.  How did we get here?  Mr Kim and Donald Trump held face-to-face talks in Singapore in June 2018, and in Vietnam in February this year, aimed at denuclearisation.  The two leaders also held an "impromptu" meeting at the demilitarised zone (DMZ) that separates North and South Korea in June.  But relations between the US and North Korea have deteriorated in recent months.  North Korea has again started testing short-range missiles - though the long-range missiles are more controversial - and hostile language has also resumed. • US tells North Korea: 'Let's get this done'  Pyongyang had set Washington an end-of-year deadline to offer sanctions relief, and had also suggested Mr Trump was a "dotard".  That came after Mr Trump again referred to Mr Kim as "rocket man".


bbcuk--2019-11-18--Boris Johnson announces new business policy at CBI conference

Boris Johnson said that planned cuts to corporation tax next April are to be put on hold.  The prime minister told the CBI conference the move could cost the Treasury £6bn and the cash would be better spent on the "nation's priority".


bipartisanreport--2019-01-02--Republican Official Defects From Trump With Defiant Policy Announcement

What if all the Republicans who have been tight-lipped about Donald Trump said what they were thinking publicly? That is not likely to happen, because they are afraid that the president will Twitter-bomb them. Fortunately, some of those who are retiring speak their mind about the strange world of Trump.  Representative Ryan Costello (R-PA) pounded POTUS for his tweets about closing the southern border between the U.S. and Mexico, if he does not get five billion dollars from Congress to build his medieval wall. The representative called out the commander-in-chief’s action for what it truly was “an angry eighth-grader’s tweet.”  ‘This struck me as like an angry eighth-grader’s tweet. I don’t really know how to make sense of it because I don’t think he can do this even if he wanted to. It probably violates (the North American Free Trade Agreement — NAFTA). I don’t think he’ll have much if any support in Congress. Nor do I think logistically he’d be able to implement it. And when you start throwing out vacuous threats like this, people stop taking you seriously in terms of how you go about negotiating.’  Trump has the pattern of blaming everyone else and not taking responsibility for his own actions — unless they turn out positively. He blamed his “enemies” the Democrats and the parents for the deaths of their two small children in the president’s refugee camps. Now, he has blamed the Democrats for his own shutdown.  Just weeks ago, the president sat with incoming Speaker of the House Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and talked about shutting down the government. Trump said that he would take on the “mantel,” according to NPR:  Costello said the “ball’s in the president’s court:”  Thus far, the House has already passed legislation for the Trump wall, but it died in the Senate. The reason was that the Senate passed a clean bill without the wall funding attached. The House Republican leaders did not put the president’s wall to a vote.  Pelosi and the new Democratic majority will take the House on January 3, 2019. However, Trump has vowed to refuse to sign any spending measure unless it includes enough money for his wall. Perhaps, the president just wanted to have a fight.  Trump shut down the government without consideration for the people who do their government jobs but still live paycheck to paycheck. That was about 800,000 people. Some of those people have to work without pay as long as the government was shut down, while others do not work and do not get paid.  The president somehow believes that a wall would keep out people who want to come into this country. Does he not realize they can go under, over, and around it? Does he not realize that people can arrive by plane or boat? The largest number of people just overstay their visas.  Rather than build the Great Trump Wall circa 500 A.D., maybe he could spend the five billion dollars on a wall of technological scanning. He could spend that money on a new tracking system for visas. He could even spend it on caring for those children he should be protecting instead of locking them up.


bipartisanreport--2019-01-31--JUST IN McConnell Turns On Trump To Strip Him Of Foreign Policy Powers

JUST IN: McConnell Turns On Trump To Strip Him Of Foreign Policy Powers

The GOP is willing to stand behind the president who invaded their party on many inadvisable issues: wasteful spending on the southern border, trillions of dollars in added U.S. deficit spending to give tax breaks to the rich, and support for ending sanctions against their Russian donors, to name just a few.  Foreign policy, however, seems to be a bridge too far. The GOP-led Senate is preparing to take the power to dictate foreign policy and military operations away from the president, a jaw-dropping rebuke by the party of the current president. MSN reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said:  Trump’s Twitter attack on his more experienced intelligence operatives on Wednesday shocked the GOP. While these agencies’ leaders have tried to inform Trump that pulling troops from Syria is premature and Kim Jong Un will not be reigned in and his country denuclearized, Trump is ignoring them and insisting he knows better than they do.  The GOP is ready to respond with quick action in this area.  Trump hires military generals as a point of pride to administration, but he refuses to listen to them or any of the other experts in a position to keep him briefed. Instead, he continues to insist that he alone knows what should happen and, despite the projected harms to the American people, pushes policies designed to meet his campaign promises. He was told during the campaigns and continues to be told now that those policies are not in the best interest of the country.  McConnell may be willing to shill to Trump in areas he previously admonished other presidents for, such as unnecessary spending, but Trump’s recent attacks on intelligence officials in a headlong race to recklessly pull troops from Syria or ease the vigilance on Kim Jong Un’s dictatorial regime in order brag about how well his negotiations with North Korea have gone have pushed even Trump’s worst shills over the edge.


bipartisanreport--2019-03-22--France Responds Unkindly To New Trump Policy On Israel

Donald Trump has always been desperate to hold on to his evangelical Christian base, which is no easy feat considering his womanizing, lying, greed-laden past. One of the easiest ways for him to continue to appease that base is through Israeli policy, and his latest idea around this has allied and non-allied countries to the United States utterly appalled.  Trump has made public statements recently saying that the world needs to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over Golen Heights, an Israeli-occupied territory currently under the sovereignty of Syria. Israel’s occupation there is not legal and global recognition of the territory as Israel’s would be a redrawing of international boundary lines.  In a statement reported by Reuters, the French ministry said:  Trump’s ties to Israel were made clear when he moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a move that denied Palestinians the right to also claim their own stake in their holy land. The idea of recognizing Israel as the sovereign ruler of Golen Heights is causing even more controversy.  Redrawing boundary lines is something the United States can and should not do in other countries. Despite Trump’s beliefs that he is king and dictator because some very misguided people cast their vote for the wild card in the 2016 election, a U.S. president cannot violate international law and grant ownership of other countries to his friends.


bipartisanreport--2019-04-06--Federal Judge Deals Trumps Refugee Policy A Major Setback

Federal Judge Deals Trump’s Refugee Policy A Major Setback

The Trump administration has now yet again faced a block to their immigration agenda in court. This week, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must provide bond hearings to detained asylum seekers within seven days of their requests for judicial review. If the hearings aren’t provided, Pechman’s ruling demands the asylum seekers be released.  Although DHS has denied the allegations of inappropriate detention, there have been widespread accounts of the agency detaining asylum seekers for weeks and months on end, sometimes without granting access to judicial review. Just recently at Louisiana’s River Correctional Facility — a private prison DHS has contracted to house asylum seekers — some two dozen immigrants went on a prolonged hunger strike over allegedly being unable to convince judicial authorities to grant them bond.  At the time, the New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice’s Rachel Taber offered:  Pechman’s ruling is meant to address that problem, at least in part. Besides mandating bond hearings be granted in the first place, her ruling includes a demand for DHS to bear the burden of proof that certain asylum seekers pose some danger that warrants them remaining in detention.  She denounced the “no-win scenario” that the government has placed asylum seekers in, wherein they must choose to either “accept their indeterminate detention and receive bond hearings at the Government’s pleasure with a reversed and inequitable burden of proof” or “allow themselves to be deported back to a homeland where they have already been found to have a credible fear of injury or death.”  The issue could be primed for a fight in higher-level courts. Just on Friday, the very same day that Pechman delivered her ruling, President Donald Trump asserted during a tour of the border that asylum seekers should be told “Sorry, we’re full.” In recent days, he’s revived his assertion that the U.S. asylum system should go so far in the direction opposite Pechman’s ruling that immigration judges are thrown out altogether. He raised the complaint last year, but again recently while sitting next to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg asserted that to fix the American immigration system we must “get rid of judges.”  The judicial system doesn’t seem to agree with his platform. Repeatedly, his administration’s plans for asylum seekers have been overturned in court. They’ve been rebuffed when trying to deny asylum to immigrants who cross outside designated ports of entry, and their attempt has been overruled to erase gang and domestic violence from the drivers of the “credible fear” that’s mandatory for an asylum claim.  Still, Trump is keeping at it. Although he’s walked back his threat to completely close the southern U.S. border this week, he’s continuing to press for dramatic steps against immigrants including the construction of a southern border wall that’s really ended up being little more than glorified fence repair begun under the Obama administration. Now, the Trump team is also trying to have at least some asylum seekers wait in Mexico for their claims to be processed.


bipartisanreport--2019-04-06--Trump Bulldozed By House Democrats Over Unconstitutional Policy

Donald Trump created a crisis at the border with his threats to shut down the border and end any chance for desperate immigrants to flee to safety and then circumvented Congress by declaring a national emergency to fix his mess and appease his voters. As a result, he faces several lawsuits by groups like the ACLU and 20 separate state governments.  Now, another group has weighed in with their own lawsuit. House Democrats filed suit against Trump over violations of appropriations laws, saying that Trump is attempting to use taxpayer dollars without the consent of Congress, who is constitutionally granted authority over spending. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a statement, according to Vox:  ‘The President’s action clearly violates the Appropriations Clause by stealing from appropriated funds, an action that was not authorized by constitutional or statutory authority,. Congress, as Article I — the first branch, co-equal to the other branches — must reassert its exclusive responsibilities reserved by the text of the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances.’  In order to have their lawsuit granted, Democrats must prove that harm has been done as a result of Trump’s actions. In a twist of irony, Republicans may have provided them with the legal precedent they need as proof in the GOP fight to block the Affordable Care Act.  ‘At the time, Republicans argued that officials had attempted to use federal funds that had not been approved by Congress to pay insurers under the Affordable Care Act. In that case, a federal judge ruled that Republicans had the grounds to sue the White House because its efforts infringed on Congress’s authority over appropriations. Because Trump is now trying to reauthorize funds that were originally appropriated for other purposes, legal experts say Democrats can, once again, use this same argument and emphasize that he’s circumventing Congress by doing so.’  The declaration of a national emergency from a president of the United States is rarely questioned, leaving the ACA fight the one legal precedent from which Democrats can draw. However, a national emergency that does little more than fulfill campaign promises is certainly unprecedented.  ‘House Democrats could also contest the status of the national emergency by arguing that it’s not actually an emergency at all, though experts have said that the law has typically granted the president wide latitude to determine what an emergency is.’  Featured image via Flickr by Gage Skidmore under a Creative Commons license


bipartisanreport--2019-04-09--Federal Judge Puts An End To Major Trump Immigration Policy

On Monday, in a move that’s sure to make Trump and all of his MAGA-hat-wearing followers even crazier, a Federal judge in San Francisco blocked “an experimental Trump administration policy that requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases make their way through the U.S. immigration court system.”  ‘U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco enjoined the Migrant Protection Protocols(MPP) policy days after outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pledged to expand the program. The policy began in January at the San Ysidro port of entry in California but has been extended to the Calexico, Calif., entry and to the entry in El Paso, and Seeborg wrote that the approach would have been further extended if the court had not stepped in. ‘Several hundred migrants have been returned to Mexico under the program after seeking asylum at the border.’  ‘The ruling — a preliminary injunction at least temporarily stopping the program — paralyzes one of the Trump administration’s last remaining tools to stem the flow of Central American families trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, an influx that has hit decade-long highs and has infuriated the president. Trump took out some of that frustration on the Department of Homeland Security in recent days: Nielsen resigned days after the White House rescinded the nomination of one of her top deputies, Ronald Vitiello, to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement.’  Seeborg said in his 27-page ruling that “the legal question before him was not whether the MPP is a wise, intelligent, or humane policy, or whether it is the best approach for addressing the circumstances the executive branch contends constitute a crisis,” but that the program may violate  the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act. These laws are in place to ensure that immigrants, as the judge puts it, “are not returned to unduly dangerous circumstances.”  The Justice Department has not yet commented on this ruling, or whether or not they will appeal it.


bipartisanreport--2019-04-10--Congress Announces Law To Immediately Stop Racist Trump Policy

It’s difficult these days to keep track of all the atrocities Donald Trump has committed as president. During his first days in office, he instituted a ban on travelers from majority-Muslim countries entering the United States, something he promised to do as a presidential candidate but now says was not the purpose of his ban.  After several revisions, Trump expanded the ban to include two non-Muslim majority countries and managed to whitewash it enough to get it through the Supreme Court. Democrats, however, are noting the dire consequences of the ban and fighting back in Congress with a bill to end Trump’s policy.  Newsweek explained the bill and its origins:  Republicans may be the party of the Religious Right, but in this case, the Democrats have the backing of the religious community. More than 400 faith-based advocacy groups have joined forces to support the repeal of the ban.  ‘Today, a diverse coalition of close to 400 civil rights, faith, national security and community organizations announced their support for the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act (“NO BAN Act”), a historic civil rights bill that would end the Muslim Ban and prevent faith-based discrimination in immigration. The organizations sent a joint letter to Congress endorsing the bill ahead of its bicameral introduction on Wednesday, April 10, 2019, by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA).  The members will host a press conference to announce the bill that will take place at the Senate Swamp on Wednesday, April 10 at 9:15 am featuring impacted individuals, faith leaders and members of Congress.’  The Church World Service and Shoulder to Shoulder, two activist groups who support religious freedom and faith, are reminding religious communities that the family separation policy and the travel ban were instituted to achieve the same goal: separating families from marginalized communities due to racism and fear.  ‘Together, the Muslim ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries, asylum ban that wrongfully and illegally blocks people who cross between ports of entry from applying for asylum, and refugee ban that seeks to dismantle the resettlement program deny vulnerable families their fundamental right to safety, condemn them to return to unfathomable danger, and prolong family separation. To restrict thousands of people based on discrimination forsakes our nation’s ideals of compassion, hospitality, and welcome.’  Featured image via Flickr by Gage Skidmore under a Creative Commons license


bipartisanreport--2019-05-19--Sanders Appears On Meet The Press Horrifies Trump With Oil Policy Announcement

Sanders Appears On ‘Meet The Press’ & Horrifies Trump With Oil Policy Announcement

Despite the general election remaining more than a year in the future at this point, the 2020 presidential race is heating up. Despite taking a hit in the polls following former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign announcement, Sen. Bernie Sanders remains a high-profile candidate in the Democratic presidential primary race and shared a portrait of his strategy this weekend on Meet the Press. In short, he’s targeting what he describes as the dangers of Donald Trump and those of the interests he and his side represent, like the fossil fuel industry.  ‘I think Democrats have got to do a couple things. Number one, it goes without saying that we have got to defeat Donald Trump, who in my view is the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country. He’s a pathological liar, he’s a sexist and a racist etc. etc. But that is not enough! If we’re talking, for example, about climate change, what the scientists tell us is that we have twelve years for irreparable damage is done to this planet. Beating Trump is not good enough — you’ve got to beat the fossil fuel industry.’  Sanders explained his position in response to Todd asking about Biden having shared beating Trump as a key pillar of his plan for taking on global warming, which Trump has consistently ignored. Confronted with a report from inside his own administration about the looming impacts of climate change, Trump insisted that he simply didn’t believe what scientists were saying about the situation and we would all be just fine — because he said so, or something. In this realm, like others, his maniacal egotism has dangerous implications — which has helped spark a crowded field of some two dozen Democratic presidential candidates.  Sanders has sought to establish himself as the true progressive frontrunner following Biden’s campaign launch, after which he shot up in the polls to garnering an average of 38.3 percent of the support as of this weekend. Sanders has consistently been in second place, ending up with an average of 18.8 percent of the support as of this weekend. The gap between the two candidates has shrunk by a few percent following the post-announcement Biden surge.  In recent days, Biden has come out with a strategy outlined by a quote from a Saturday afternoon speech, in which he said:  To say that many left-wing interests are, in fact, angry over the current runaway train car that is United States politics would be an understatement.  Besides Sanders repeatedly directly countering Biden’s assertions of being a leading voice of progressivism, fellow Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren has done the same. She has spoken out about Biden having supported legislation in favor of credit card companies back when he was in Congress which she was staunchly opposed to, and she’s in third place in most polling lately, with an average of 8.5 percent of the support this weekend.


breitbart--2019-03-30--Border Crisis Forces Massive Catch and Release Policy

Border Patrol officials in multiple sectors announced a policy this week to being releasing thousands of migrants on their own recognizance shortly after they are apprehended at the border. The move comes in response to the massive increase of illegal border crossings by migrant families from Central America.  “This demographic is challenging in that they cannot be immediately returned to their country of origin,” Del Rio Sector Border Patrol officials stated. “U.S. Border Patrol processing centers are not designed to house the current numbers of families and small children that we are encountering.”  During a press conference late this week, Yuma Sector Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Carl Landrum announced a similar policy for his Arizona sector. He blamed the dramatic surge in migrant families and minors that are overwhelming his sector’s agents and resources.  “Due to capacity issues at our stations and the ongoing humanitarian crisis nationwide, Border Patrol has begun identifying detainees for potential release in Yuma with a notice to appear for their immigration hearings,” Yuma Sector officials said in a written statement.  Landrum said his sector is on pace to apprehend 60,000 migrants this fiscal year. He explained that this is the highest level since 2007 when constructions crews built border barriers that greatly reduced illegal border crossings in the Yuma Sector, AZCentral reported. The deputy chief said his sector has the capacity to hold about 400 migrants at a time.  The migrants being released reportedly have family members living in the U.S. and have cleared medical screening and criminal background checks, officials reported.  The same policy has also been implemented in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in South Texas where the largest number of migrant families and minors cross on a daily basis. Earlier this week, agents in this sector apprehended nearly 1,700 migrants in a single day, Breitbart News reported.  Hidalgo County, Texas, Sheriff Eddie Guerra says human smugglers are exploiting the current laws and advertising with pamphlets in Central America. “In Central American countries they have pamphlets and flyers that tell them, ‘Just Come to America! You will be processed and released, given an opportunity!” the sheriff said in an interview with KGBT.  During a speech at the Texas-Mexico border near El Paso, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan said, “On Monday, we saw the highest total of apprehensions and encounters in over a decade, with 4,000 migrants either apprehended or encountered at Ports of Entry in a single day. That was Monday.”  “Yesterday, we broke the record again with 4,117,” the commissioner stated. “We are now on pace for over 100 thousand apprehensions and encounters with migrants in March, with 90 percent of those, 90 thousand people, crossing the border illegally between Ports of Entry. March will be the highest month since 2008. The arriving flows are made up primarily of Central American families and unaccompanied children.”  “We have lost the ability to know who or what is coming across the border,” Border Patrol Agent Hector Garza told Fox & Friends during an interview on Thursday morning. The agent spoke to Fox News in his capacity as Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council.  “We don’t know who or what is coming across because now our agents are having to process these people, transport them, feed them, care for them, and now we can’t even do our job of border security,” the veteran Border Patrol agent stated. “That’s unacceptable.”  “Out of those 100,000 that are going to be coming in during the month of March, 90 percent are being released into the community.”  In an interview with Conservative Review, National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd said, “We have never seen what we are dealing with today. It’s unprecedented and we’re in uncharted waters.


breitbart--2019-08-21--Fact Check Kamala Harris Suggests Anchor Baby Policy Enshrined in US Constitution

Fact Check: Kamala Harris Suggests Anchor Baby Policy Enshrined in U.S. Constitution

After President Trump said he is “very seriously” reviewing an executive order to end birthright citizenship, Harris hit back on Twitter, writing “This president should “seriously”consider reading the Constitution.”  Despite Harris’s claim, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic American citizenship, and many legal scholars dispute the idea.  Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified.  Breitbart News Senior Legal Editor Ken Klukowski has noted that Trump may have two routes by which an executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutionally upheld:  President Trump has at least two routes to victory through a legal fight. It must be noted for both that a legal challenge to an executive order issued in November 2018 would almost certainly not make it all the way to petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court until after the cutoff in mid-January 2020 for cases to be decided before the presidential election, so this issue will likely still be pending when Americans go to the polls in November 2020 to vote for president. [Emphasis added] The first route to victory is that the Supreme Court could hold that the specific provisions of the executive order are authorized under current statute. If so, President Trump wins outright. [Emphasis added] The second is that the Court could hold that one or more of those provisions require congressional action, but could signal that the Constitution permits such changes. If so, there would be a massive push to tweak current statute. The American people will have been debating this issue for two full years by that time, and would by 2021 be educated by the Supreme Court’s final decision as well. This could lay the groundwork, such that the same political momentum that would secure a second term for President Trump could also secure the votes to change the relevant provision of Congress’s Immigration and Nationality Act. [Emphasis added]  Swing voters, most recently, told Michigan focus-group pollsters that they are deeply concerned with the country’s birthright citizenship policy, as Breitbart News reported:  One swing voter hit back against the U.S. policy of providing birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, saying, “We shouldn’t give away our birthright like candy. Meaning that all they have to do is cross the border illegally, pop out a kid, and they’re a U.S. citizen. Two illegals do not a citizen make.” [Emphasis added]  Birthright citizenship rewards the children of illegal aliens, commonly known as “anchor babies,” with automatic U.S. citizenship, thus anchoring their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. Eventually, those anchor babies are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the process known as “chain migration,” making birthright citizenship not only a driver of more illegal immigration, but also legal immigration.  Ending birthright citizenship would carry the U.S. into the future on the issue, putting the nation more in line with similar Western countries. In the developed world, only Canada has a birthright citizenship policy as other nations have ended the policy or never had such a policy. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. with nearly 300,000 anchor babies born every year.  John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


breitbart--2019-10-02--Jeff Sessions Applauds Trump on Trade Immigration Foreign Policy

Jeff Sessions Applauds Trump on Trade, Immigration, Foreign Policy -- 'Republican Leadership Needs to Get Their Back Up'

Six miles and 1,312 days removed from where the former U.S. Senator gave GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump his first major endorsement of the 2016 presidential campaign, Sessions spoke to attendees at the Madison County, AL Republican Party’s Freedom Celebration gala. There he pledged his unwavering support for the current commander-in-chief and the policy positions that got Trump elected.  After acknowledging things could have gone better during his tenure as U.S. Attorney General and offering attendees a brief history of the rise of the GOP in Alabama, Sessions turned his focus on three critical areas of policy – trade and China, immigration and foreign policy.  There is no question about it – trade has been a significant issue for President Donald Trump, especially with regards to China.  As the United States and China are embroiled in a bitter trade dispute, Sessions explained why it was vital that the United States maintains its posture, which he argued was for the good of the American worker and for the sake of national security.  “Trade – I supported all kinds of trade deals over the years and hoped they would be the right thing,” Sessions said. “We had these intellectuals tell us, and they come from both sides of the aisle, trade deficits don’t matter. You’ve heard that argued, right? The Wall Street Journal and others. Trade deficits — $500 billion with China, so what? It doesn’t make any difference. If it is two cents cheaper at Walmart, we’ll just buy it there.”  “So what’s the problem? Products that are made in the United States are made by people, by workers,” he continued. “And when you import a product, you, in fact, lay off workers in the United States and hire workers in some other country to make these products. And it’s not a little matter. Yes, we believe in trade and comparative advantage. As I said, I supported all of that, but I’m telling you – when you’re dealing with a country like China that has the kind of surplus they have with us – a state-dominated economy that’s determined to advance their strategic national interest. We act like it is OK to have 5G in the United States, and Huawei gets to make – an entire computer network, internet network nationwide run by the Chinese? But they’re cheaper. Free market, right? There are limits to free markets. There is a question of national security that is real about this.”  Sessions said if China wanted to rise up and become a real international power, it had to start playing by the rules. According to the Alabama Republican, that included the end of the theft of intellectual property.  “The American people get that,” he said to a round of applause. “And I’m sure there are certain companies that have got investments in China. This is not helpful to them. I’m sure some of our farmers might suffer for a while. But if we’re going to be victors in a good trade policy, the world needs to be buying a whole lot more of our products because we’ve got the best farm products, the cheapest farm products and we can supply the highest quality. I think that we are in a good position. We’ve just got to stand. The American people are there. We have got to get our party helping the American people get this done.”  Long before Trump promised a border wall, Sessions served as the intellectual godfather of modern conservative immigration policy.  He credited the American public for having a favorable view on immigration, which he noted was backed up by numbers. However, he also noted there were reasonable expectations for immigrants seeking to come to the United States.  “The American people favor immigration,” he said. “They’re not against immigration. We admit 1.1 million people every year to become legal residents in the United States. They can be a citizen in about five years. No country in the world admits that many people.”  “The American people believe in the wall,” Sessions added. “They believe we should have a lawful system of immigration. And people should apply and wait their time, and we’ll admit people who want to be successful and prosper in the United States, flourish in our country – not be people who are going to sell dope, commit crimes or go on welfare. I mean, how simple is this?”  The former Alabama U.S. Senator criticized the suggestion that having a so-called “open borders” immigration policy was good for the economy and urged his fellow Republicans to lend their support to Trump on immigration.  “We’ve got people out there – many of them are basically open borders people,” he added. “Yes, you get a little GDP boost if you add a number of people to the United States. But per capita GDP goes down, which is what we should be concerned about – per capita GDP. I just think the American people are right about that, and it’s time for us to get on board.”  “The president said I’m going to end it,” he continued. “I agree with you, American people. We’re going to stop it if you elect me. He’s done everything he possibly can.  I was there trying to help him get this done. It’s going to get better.”  One of the other central components of Trump’s 2016 election campaign dealt with limiting foreign entanglements so that more focus could be put on a domestic agenda.  Sessions recognized the United States’ long-standing role in the world but argued for discretion when it comes to sending U.S. military assets abroad.  “The American people are proud of our world leadership when it comes to spreading democracy and trying to make the world a better place,” he said. “We do it selflessly to advance freedom and law and prosperity and democracy around the world. But the American people thought when they electing people in this representative democracy, as Henry Kissinger said, they thought they were electing wise statesmen, who with caution, realism, history would advance these goals wisely.”  “When our military is committed, we support them – and I always have,” he said. “Yet, there has been in the minds of a growing number of Americans, a majority pretty clear in mind, a concern that the positive results predicted for our military activities haven’t materialized. We have to be honest with ourselves. They think we have gotten into too many wars. Not only do these wars cost us treasure but the cost us the blood of patriots who we sent out there. They didn’t make the decision to go. We sent them out there. The president sent them out there.”  He advocated for criteria to be met in the cases of U.S. intervention around the globe.  “In the end, the question is has there been progress advancing the interest of the United States and have our efforts made life better in these countries?” Sessions added. “They were supposedly trying to help. Shouldn’t those be fundamental questions as we go forward?”  As an example, Sessions referred to former President Barack Obama’s opposition to the U.S. effort to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. As he explained, despite at least 500,000 dead and 5 million displaced, ISIS was able to gain a foothold and Assad remains in power.  Noting that this was central to Trump’s 2016 campaign, it required Trump standing up to the so-called establishment.  “I think President Trump sensed that correctly,” he said. “He said the American people are right. ‘I’m with you. I’ll stand up to the establishment,’ whoever they are – the global community, the Congress, the State Department, the military, ‘and we’re not going to be in so many wars. I’m going to pull this country back, and we’re going to put the national interest first.’”  Sessions said it was an evolution to those positions but reiterated his support for Trump given those positions were the views of the American people.  “I came to many of these ideas gradually over time,” he continued. “I began to wonder aren’t we drifting away on these issues and a lot of others from what the principles of our party basically are. Trump announced it. Mo [Brooks] reasserted it. That’s why I support him, and why I still do support him. These are essentially the views of the American people, and I think they are good views. They’re wise.”  He issued a call to action for the Republican Party and said if it were to follow suit, electoral success would come for the long haul.  “Who is running this country?” he said. “How did this happen? The Republican leadership needs to get their back up and understand this. It’s not business as usual. There is the opportunity for this party to achieve a historic governing majority in the Congress for quite a number of years – maybe a generation, maybe 10, maybe 20 years – a realigning election. The average voter does not like the Democratic agenda. But we have to show them sufficiently how much we need them and how much we care for them, and we’re willing to listen to them about the things they care about. Special interests don’t get to run this country – not for long.”  “The stakes are high,” Sessions added. “The left’s vision is being rejected. I think on issue after issue despite all their influence with the mainstream media, the academy, the socialist internationale – the anti-Brexit people. They operate in their own world.”


breitbart--2019-10-06--Nikki Haley Every American Should Be Proud of Trumps Foreign Policy Record

Nikki Haley: ‘Every American Should Be Proud’ of Trump’s Foreign Policy Record

Speaking to Fox News reporter Adam Shaw, Haley applauded the president for the eradication of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and his handling of complex national security threats around the globe.  If you look around the world, President Trump has a record every American should be proud of. In the Middle East, the ISIS caliphate has been destroyed, and we’ve stopped handing billions in cash to Iran that it used to fund terrorism. The North Korean regime is no longer testing long-range missiles. America is once again treating the Cuban dictatorship like the pariah it is, and Maduro’s days are numbered in Venezuela  “America is strong again, and it’s because of President Trump’s decisions,” she added.  The former Trump administration official issued her glowing praise of President Trump ahead of a New York City fundraiser this weekend in support of the president’s 2020 re-election campaign.  “Haley will be a “special guest” at the Trump Victory Committee’s Fall Retreat, along with Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., Donald Trump Jr., and Kimberly Guilfoyle,” Fox News reported.  “I’m happy to partner with the RNC supporting President Trump’s reelection, and I look forward to doing more for his campaign in the next year,” she told the news outlet.  Haley’s support for a second Trump term is nothing new. Upon announcing her resignation from post last October, she immediately squashed speculation that she would challenge her former boss for the White House.  “No, I am not running in 2020,” said Haley, flanked by the president in the Oval Office. “I look forward to supporting the president in the next election.”  Despite her support for President Trump, Haley hasn’t taken his side in battles with Democrats. In August, the former U.S. diplomat responded directly to the president’s early tweet regarding Rep. Elijah Cummings’ (D-MD) home burglary, tweeting that his comment was “so unnecessary.”  “Really bad news! The Baltimore house of Elijah Cummings was robbed. Too bad!” tweeted the president at the time.  This was far from the first time Haley had taken a shot at the president.  She was critical of then-candidate Trump during the 2016 presidential election, previously declaring that he represented “everything a governor doesn’t want in a president.”  “I want someone who is going to hold Republicans accountable, and I want someone who is going to make a difference, not just for our party but for every person they represent in the country,” Haley, then the governor of South Carolina, told reporters ahead of the South Carolina Republican primary in February 2016.  In 2016, Haley endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in his failed bid for the White House.  Despite her repeated attacks, President Trump nominated Haley for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., a role she fulfilled between January 2017 and December 2018. Since leaving the administration, she has joined Boeing’s board of directors and formed the “Stand for America” policy group.


breitbart--2019-10-07--Colin Powell: 'Foreign Policy Is in Shambles' Under Trump

Sunday on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” former Secretary of State Colin Powell slammed the Republican Party and President Donald Trump.  After describing himself as a “moderate Republican,” Powell criticized the GOP and described U.S. foreign policy as being in “shambles” under Trump.  “The Republican Party has got to get a grip on itself,” Powell declared. “Right now, Republican leaders and members of the Congress, in both the Senate and in the House, are holding back because they’re terrified of what will happen to any one of them if they speak out. Will they lose a primary? I don’t know why that’s such a disaster, but will they lose a primary?”  “And so, they need to get a grip, and when they see things that are not right, they need to say something about it because our foreign policy is in shambles right now in my humble judgment,” he continued.


cnbc--2019-01-07--Elizabeth Warren already owns two huge policy issues that could shape the 2020 presidential race

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's nascent presidential campaign has so far drawn attention to the DNA test she took in hopes of proving her Native American bloodline, President Donald Trump's Twitter attacks against her, and whether or not she is "likable." Her potential impact on the policy issues that will shape the 2020 race has received far less attention.  As Warren stumped across Iowa last weekend, reporters asked her whether she'd take money from billionaires, how she planned to talk about her gender and whether her campaign was similar to Hillary Clinton's. But not about U.S. plans in Syria, immigration or the volatile stock market.  Still, while the Massachusetts Democrat has yet to release a formal platform, certain key issues are coming into focus as she steps further into the national spotlight. On at least two of them, Warren is already running the table against other potential Democratic 2020 candidates.  The first is corruption and the lack of transparency in government, and more specifically within the Trump administration. The second is changing the laws that govern U.S. businesses to make them more favorable to employees and consumers.  Both are subjects that Warren is uniquely positioned to tackle, given her experience as a Harvard law professor. And either of them could alter the tenor of the next presidential election, regardless of whether Warren wins the nomination or not.


cnbc--2019-02-09--Trumps disruptive foreign policy will be tested in four major ways this month

Trump's disruptive foreign policy will be tested in four major ways this month

February brings the most significant series of tests yet of whether President Trump can transform his disruptive U.S. foreign policy into concrete outcomes.  The four to watch most closely are:  Trump's trade team, led by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, will visit China early next week seeking progress toward a trade deal before a March 1 deadline, ending a 90-day truce agreed to by the two country's leaders at the G-20 in Buenos Aires.  That would not only head off the increase of tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods from 10 percent to 25 percent, but it would also show markets that the world's two leading economies can find mutually beneficial ways to settle trade differences. More important over time will be to see whether the two sides can as well navigate even more difficult disputes over future technologies and regional security issues.  On North Korea, Trump in his State of the Union address – otherwise light on foreign policy issues – said he would meet for his second summit with Kim Jong Un on February 27-28 in Vietnam. "If I had not been elected president of the United States, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea," Trump said in the speech.  The meeting will be a test of whether the "great chemistry" Trump says he has developed with Kim will help him achieve gains toward denuclearization, building upon the release of three American prisoners and the remains of 55 American soldiers. While his intelligence community, in a report to Congress last week, said North Korea is "unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capability," Trump aims to show he is correct that there is a "good chance" of a deal because Kim so badly wants to engineer an economic turnaround.  This week, on February 13-14, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will host in Warsaw, Poland, an international conference on peace and security in the Middle East, even as the U.S. pulls its troops out of Syria by April. Media reporting is skeptical about whether the meeting can produce more pressure on Iran, garner support for an emerging Trump administration Mideast peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians, or lay the groundwork for an alliance of Arab states to advance common interests.  What the conference, involving more than 40 countries, underscores is the continued U.S. ability to convene, even if many countries won't be sending ministerial level representatives. What I'll be watching:  Although Palestinians weren't invited, the Trump administration "peace team" will be there – senior advisor Jared Kushner and special envoy Jason Greenblatt. On Thursday morning, they will brief and field questions during a session hosted by Børge Brende, the former Norwegian foreign minister and now-World Economic Forum president.  February will likely also be a decisive month in Caracas. My CNBC column last week argued that Venezuela has become the first battleground in a new era of great power competition. As such, the outcome of this contest will be an indication of whether democracies or autocracies will be the dominant forces that will shape the future. The coming month will show whether the interim President Juan Guaido alongside the U.S. and its regional and European allies can leverage public dissatisfaction, international isolation and sanctions to create serious cracks in Maduro's regime.  Conversely, if Maduro weathers – with the support of Cuba, China and Russia – the most intense public, diplomatic and economic pressures ever to face his autocratic system, it would mark the most severe setback to U.S. global interests during the Trump administration.  There's also much more in play, stretching the bandwidth of a U.S. administration in which so many foreign policy jobs remain unfilled. For example, the United States on February 2 triggered a six-month withdrawal period from the INF Treaty on short and medium-range land-based ballistic and cruise missiles in Europe, and a NATO defense ministerial this week will discuss consequences and next steps.  There is also some disruptive Trump foreign policy thinking less likely to gain traction.  The largest U.S. delegation of all time, including over 40 members of Congress, is heading to Germany this Friday for the Munich Security Conference, a symbolic opposition to any steps Trump would take to weaken U.S. commitment to NATO or, at the very worst, withdraw from the alliance.  The House of Representatives has passed legislation that is engineered to "ring fence" Trump on NATO, and the Senate is preparing to do the same.  For his part, the president in his State of the Union altered his tone on NATO, speaking of how for years "the United States was being treated very unfairly by NATO," but that he now had "secured a $100 billion increase in defense spending from NATO allies."  What confounds Trump critics, as illustrated above, is his success at identifying real foreign policy problems and then taking them on with characteristic rhetorical gusto and tweets. A less bold American president wouldn't have made the progress he has achieved on a host of issues that seemed previously immovable. And his most ardent opponents won't be able to complain much if in February he shows progress in addressing China's unfair trade practices, toward denuclearizing North Korea, in rallying support to counter Iran's malevolent behavior, and in replacing Venezuela's odious dictatorship with democratic change.  What should concern his supporters, however, is his disdain for the sort of allies, strategies and process that he'll need to address all the above challenges. With their level of risk and complexity, Trump isn't going to score lasting wins on any front without allies. Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis' resignation letter was all about differences he had with Trump on that central issue.  It won't make it any easier that he's dealing with a cabinet that lacks the many decades of experience lost through recent departures. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan observes in her weekend column that, when Mattis, John Kelly and H.R. McMaster left the Trump White House, "a cumulative 123 years of military and diplomatic experience left with them."  To steer all the above issues across the finish line and beyond may take a more strategic actor and thinker than President Trump.  Let's see where we are at the end of this month.  Frederick Kempe is a best-selling author, prize-winning journalist and president & CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of the United States' most influential think tanks on global affairs. He worked at The Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years as a foreign correspondent, assistant managing editor and as the longest-serving editor of the paper's European edition. His latest book – "Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth" – was a New York Times best-seller and has been published in more than a dozen languages. Follow him on Twitter @FredKempe and subscribe here to Inflection Points, his look each Saturday at the past week's top stories and trends.  For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.


cnbc--2019-03-12--Dick Cheney reportedly confronts Mike Pence over Trumps foreign policy

Dick Cheney reportedly confronts Mike Pence over Trump's foreign policy

Former Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly confronted Vice President Mike Pence about President Donald Trump's foreign policy at a gathering Saturday, with Cheney questioning Trump's decision to remove troops from Syria and take a tougher stance on NATO allies.  The conversation between Cheney and Pence took place at a closed-door retreat hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. A transcript of the event, which was meant to be "off the record," was obtained by The Washington Post from an unnamed source.  Cheney, who was vice president under President George W. Bush, reportedly said he worries the Trump administration is looking "a lot more like Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan."  In addition to his qualms about Trump's stance on NATO allies and the withdrawal of troops from Syria, Cheney expressed concern over Trump's choice to end U.S. military exercises with South Korea, which had been happening for decades, as an olive branch to North Korea. He also was alarmed by reports that said Trump "supposedly doesn't spend that much time with the intel people, or doesn't agree with them, frequently."  Cheney's questions prompted Pence to strongly defend the Trump administration. The vice president said ending the biannual "war games" in South Korea would "not affect our readiness" in the country. When discussing NATO, Pence and Cheney engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth, with Pence saying Trump can ask allies to increase funding for defense while still maintaining a positive relationship.  "I think there is a tendency by critics of the president and our administration to conflate the demand that our allies live up to their word and their commitments and an erosion in our commitment to the post-World War II order," Pence said.  A spokesman for Pence confirmed the discussion with Cheney took place but declined to comment, according to the Post article. A spokeswoman for Pence did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.  A spokeswoman for Cheney did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.  Click here to read the full article by The Washington Post.


cnbc--2019-04-05--Trump says economy would take off like a rocket ship if Fed cut rates ending tightening policy

Trump says economy would take off like 'a rocket ship' if Fed cut rates, ending tightening policy

President Donald Trump said Friday the U.S. economy would climb like "a rocket ship" if the Federal Reserve cut interest rates.  Commenting after a strong jobs report for March, Trump said the Fed "really slowed us down" in terms of economic growth, and that "there's no inflation."  "I think they should drop rates and get rid of quantitative tightening," Trump told reporters, referring to the Fed's policy of selling securities to unwind its balance sheet, a stimulus put in place during the financial crisis. "You would see a rocket ship. Despite that we're doing very well."  White House aides have called for the Fed to cut interests rates by as much as 50 basis points.  Following the Fed's most recent meeting in March, the central bank decided to maintain interest rates and hold off on any further increases this year. As Trump's chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow did on Friday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell highlighted the slowing global economy.  "We're facing a worldwide slowdown [as] Europe is not doing well," Kudlow said on Bloomberg TV.  But unlike the White House, the Fed did not conclude in March that slowing global growth means the bank should begin cutting rates. Trump has been heavily critical of Powell's decisions at the Fed, going as far as to say that "the Fed has gone crazy" with raising rates. Trump has blamed Powell's decision-making for drops in the stock market, calling him "loco" for steadily raising rates in 2018 and saying choosing Powell for Fed chairman was the worst mistake of his presidency,  But the White House declared repeatedly that Trump does not plan to remove Powell as Fed chairman.


cnn--2019-01-10--Pompeo says no contradiction on Syria policy despite shifting US statements

Pompeo says 'no contradiction' on Syria policy despite shifting US statements

"This is a story made up by the media. That's fine, you all write what you like, but the President's been very clear, and (national security adviser John) Bolton and I have been very clear about this too, that the threat from radical Islamic terrorism is real," Pompeo said in Cairo. "ISIS continues -- we fight them in many regions around the country. Our commitment to prevent Daesh's growth, ISIS' growth, is real. It's important. We will continue at that."  While analysts have underscored the impact the withdrawal decision has had on US allies, particularly the Kurds, and the potential benefits to Iran and Russia of an American pullback, none have suggested the threat from ISIS has dissipated and instead have stressed it continues to exist.  "We're going to do it in a way in one particular place, Syria, differently," Pompeo also said. "The United States' decision, President Trump's decision, to withdraw our troops has been made. We will do that."  Trump caused an uproar among US allies when he announced last month that ISIS had been defeated in Syria and that US troops would be "coming back now" from the country. Since then, Trump and his top advisers have qualified that declaration, and Bolton said Sunday that US forces wouldn't leave until ISIS has been crushed and Kurdish fighters working with US troops are protected from Turkish attacks.  Bolton's remarks earned a swift rebuke from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who said the national security adviser had made a "serious mistake" and that Turkey would not compromise. Pompeo said Thursday "it is possible to hold in your head the thought" that the US would withdraw uniformed troops while continuing its "crushing campaign" against ISIS. "I've told each of the leaders here in the region that I've met that we're committed to that," he said. Asked about disagreements with Turkey over the US Syria withdrawal commitments, Pompeo said that discussions were ongoing, noting that special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey was in the region. "Our entire team is engaged and having the conversations about how we achieve all of the outcomes that are important there," he said. Pompeo is traveling to nine Middle Eastern countries this week to stress the US remains committed to the region, officials have said. In a gaggle with the traveling press at the outset of the trip, Pompeo denied that there was confusion from allies. "Everyone we've communicated with, all the countries I'm going to visit to -- we've communicated with all of our European allies. I think everyone understands what the United States is doing. At least the senior leaders in their governments do," he said then.


cnn--2019-01-13--Analysis Polished Putin tempestuous Trump are a contrast in foreign policy styles

Analysis: Polished Putin, tempestuous Trump are a contrast in foreign policy styles

(CNN) Last year's Helsinki summit still seems to be paying dividends for Russian President Vladimir Putin.  President Donald Trump's closed-door meeting with the Kremlin leader last July was in the news again this weekend, following a report by The Washington Post that highlighted Trump's efforts to keep the details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from public scrutiny.  The Helsinki summit was a prime example: Trump and Putin met for two hours, accompanied only by translators, fitting what the Post described as a pattern of secrecy about Trump's encounters with Putin. (When asked about the story, Trump told Fox News host Jeanine Pirro on Saturday he and Putin had "a great conversation.")  It's worth revisiting the summit, which gave Putin a chance to deliver a polished performance that contrasted with Trump's chaotic foreign-policy style.  In the US commentators were aghast that Trump appeared to dismiss his own intelligence community , casting doubt in Putin's presence on the US government's own assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.  Russian officialdom hasn't responded yet to the swirl of news generated by the Post report, along with a New York Times report about an investigation into whether Trump was working on behalf of Russia against US interests after the firing of FBI Director James Comey. The weekly Sunday news program Vesti Nedeli touched briefly on the weekend's Trump revelations, but focused in large part on an exotic new word: Шатдаун (shutdown).  Political turmoil in Washington always plays into a Russian narrative about Western democracies being dangerously dysfunctional, but does it matter how the Kremlin spins this latest controversy? Russia, of course, is an authoritarian country, and Putin's press apparatus can set the agenda domestically.  But the Kremlin's sophisticated press office often appears to be ahead of the White House when it comes to spinning the news.  As the Post article notes, the Kremlin is swift to issue readouts of phone conversations and meetings with foreign leaders. That gives Moscow the chance to cast the first version of the news in a light that is flattering to Putin.  That's especially important as Russia takes on a more energetic role in world affairs. A cursory glance at the Kremlin website shows the Russian president at the center of the geopolitical conversation.  In recent days, Putin has had phone calls with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He also is getting ready for a visit by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the coming days to hash out the future of Syria after Trump announced last month that US troops would be withdrawing from that war-torn country.  Still, Russia does not have an unlimited ability to set the news agenda. A pattern of propaganda and disinformation has given the Russian government little credibility, whether Putin is explaining away the occupation of Crimea by "little green men" or dismissing evidence of Russian intelligence's complicity in the Salisbury nerve-agent poisoning nearly a year ago.  Commenting on Twitter, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves summarized how Moscow's credibility has been strained.  "In my 15 years as foreign minister and prez, after a meeting the Russians would lie about what we had talked about even *with* ample note-takers and staff present," he said.


cnn--2019-01-18--House panel demands answers from Trump administration on zero tolerance family separation policy

House panel demands answers from Trump administration on 'zero tolerance' family separation policy

(CNN) A House panel sent a letter Friday to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar requesting he turn over documents related to the administration's "zero-tolerance" policy that led to the separation of families apprehended along the southern border.  The controversial policy was eventually reversed in a June executive order. Still, a new inspector general report released Thursday found that "thousands" more children had been separated than previously reported by the government.  The letter concludes a week of back-to-back revelations about the administration's policy that led to the separation of families. It's yet another example of how House Democrats intend to hold Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security accountable.  The panel -- headed by Rep. Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado -- has oversight authority over the Department of Health and Human Services among other agencies.  DeGette is expected to hold a hearing soon focusing on the policy and its beginnings.


cnn--2019-01-22--Top US State Department diplomat on Europe policy resigns

In a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dated January 4, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs A. Wess Mitchell said, "I feel that I have completed what I set out to do in taking this position."  Mitchell, who took on the role October 2017, said he was proud of the accomplishments made under his tenure but said "the time has come for (him) to spend more time with (his) young family."  In a tweet Tuesday, Pompeo commended Mitchell for "an outstanding job" in the role.  "I have valued his counsel and wisdom as he has led our European team in this administration. I wish him and his wife Elizabeth, who is also a committed public servant, much happiness with their two young children," Pompeo tweeted. "Assistant Secretary A. Wess Mitchell has been a valued and effective leader in @StateDept and good friend to our allies and partners in #Europe. We thank him for his service and wish him and his family well." Palladino said that Elisabeth Millard, principal deputy assistant secretary, will serve as acting assistant secretary of state for the bureau.


cnn--2019-01-23--House Foreign Affairs plans probe into whether Trumps businesses impact foreign policy decisions

House Foreign Affairs plans probe into whether Trump's businesses impact foreign policy decisions

Engel told CNN that examining the President's business ties is one of his priorities on the committee, one of numerous House panels now led by Democrats that will probe the President's private businesses and finances.  "I'm concerned about -- we want to make sure that policies are being made based on what's good for the United States and not what might be good for the president personally," Engel said. "I mean, there are a lot of people who look at the Constitution and say that it's being violated right now."  Asked whether he thought the Constitution was being violated, Engel said: "I think we'll find out soon. I think it's a possibility, yeah."  The White House has not immediately responded to a CNN request for comment on Engel's remarks.  , which is still pending, over foreign payments to his businesses, accusing him of violating the emoluments clause by not seeking congressional approval to accept payments from foreign governments. The issue is something that several Democratic committee chairman have vowed to investigate. , which is still pending, over foreign payments to his businesses, accusing him of violating the emoluments clause by not seeking congressional approval to accept payments from foreign governments. The issue is something that several Democratic committee chairman have vowed to investigate. Democratic lawmakers have brought a lawsuit against the President , which is still pending, over foreign payments to his businesses, accusing him of violating the emoluments clause by not seeking congressional approval to accept payments from foreign governments. The issue is something that several Democratic committee chairman have vowed to investigate. In addition, Democrats have raised questions about the President's financial ties to Saudi Arabia following his response to the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump has denied any financial interests in Saudi Arabia. Engel and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of California have also both expressed interest in seeking the testimony of the interpreters who were present for Trump's meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The staffs of the two committees met last week to discuss their next steps and whether issue subpoenas. Engel said that his committee is organizing next week, which will allow it to begin holding hearings. Engel said that his first hearing will examine US policy and the civil war in Yemen. "The first hearing that we're going to have is going to be on US policy in the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen, everything to do with that," Engel said.


newswars--2019-01-02--Leftists Worried That Rand Paul Has Become Trumps Foreign Policy Advisor

Leftists Worried That Rand Paul Has Become Trump’s Foreign Policy Advisor

Leftists in the mainstream media and deranged detractors in general are worried that Senator Rand Paul, who has a staunch anti-war constitution, has become President Trump’s senior advisor on foreign policy.  Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin declared a “Welcome to the world of President Rand Paul,” in a piece that slammed Trump for paying too much attention to Paul’s worldview.  “Several U.S. officials and people who have spoken directly to Trump since his Syria decision tell me they believe that Paul’s frequent phone conversations with Trump, wholly outside the policy process, are having an outsize influence on the president’s recent foreign policy decisions,” a worried Rogin writes.  “Officials told me that, throughout the national security bureaucracy, everyone is aware that Paul’s voice is one to which the president is paying increasing attention.” the writer adds.  How frightening. Trump is listening to perhaps the only person in Washington who isn’t thirsty for more illegal and wasteful war in the Middle East.  “Paul has a history of pushing false claims and theories,” Rogin claims, not realizing the horrible irony in that statement given the years of lies and subterfuge used by so called foreign policy ‘experts’ in misadventures such as the Iraq and Libya invasions.  “The existing concern over Paul’s influence on Russia policy has now boiled over with respect to Syria,” Rogin further whines.  He continues that “In the run-up to 2020, Trump should realize that most Republicans—and most Americans—favor a robust U.S. foreign policy.”  Apparently, for this deranged leftist, ‘robust’ equates to never ending occupation of foreign countries to the detriment of the military and the economy of the US.  Most Americans do not actually support this ‘robust’ position, and they havn’t been for years.  “Ideally, Trump will soon realize that adopting Paul’s vision for the future of U.S. foreign policy is not only dangerous for our national security but bad politics as well,” Rogin continues to blather, showing just how far removed from reality he is.  Rogin and his ilk were all for limiting American militarism when Obama campaigned on it. When the former President failed to deliver on those promises it suddenly became OK to support never ending war.  “Trump has already decided to slash the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, which Paul has long pushed. Is South Korea next?” Rogin frets.  “Trump often says he wants to bring U.S. troops there home, too. Paul’s idea is to swap out U.S. soldiers with Chinese troops, which would be a huge blow to U.S. leadership in Asia.” the writer claims.  By taking the position that U.S. leadership about having thousands of troops stationed all over the planet, this fake news pushing leftist is taking the exact same position as the lunatic neocon warmongers that lurk in the Washington shadows.


newswars--2019-01-02--Sand Death Trump Destroys Globalist Policy To Stay in Middle East

‘Sand & Death’: Trump Destroys Globalist Policy To Stay in Middle East

President Trump defended his decision to withdraw troops from Syria and begin a drawdown of forces in Afghanistan after the mainstream media and neocons accused him of being premature.  During a Cabinet meeting in the White House on Wednesday, Trump doubled down on his decision to pull out of Syria and begin drawing down troops in Afghanistan.  “We don’t want Syria. We’re talking about sand & death. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about vast wealth. We’re talking about sand and death,” Trump told reporters.  Trump then reminded the media that regional neighbors like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India have more incentive to defeat ISIS than the U.S. because they pose a direct threat to their national interests.  “Russia’s not happy, you know why they’re not happy? Because they like it when we’re killing ISIS, because we’re killing them for them. And we’re killing them for Assad. And we’re killing ISIS also for Iran,” Trump said.  “We were supposed to be out of Syria many years ago. If you remember, we went to Syria for some spot hits, and that was five years ago, and we never left. I don’t want to be in Syria. I want to rebuild our country.”  His statements come after former Gen. James Mattis stepped down last month as Secretary of Defense over Trump’s decision to wind down the Middle East wars.  Shortly after, Trump took a jab at Mattis and the other military leaders who discouraged his decision to withdraw troops, saying they were the brains that led to the rise of ISIS in the first place.  “General Anthony Tata, author, ‘Dark Winter.’ I think the President is making the exact right move in Syria. All the geniuses who are protesting the withdrawal of troops from Syria are the same geniuses who cooked the books on ISIS intelligence and gave rise to ISIS,” he tweeted.


newswars--2019-01-30--Trump Touts Tremendous Progress On Foreign Policy

Trump Touts ‘Tremendous Progress’ On Foreign Policy

President Trump fired off a tweet barrage Wednesday morning touting ‘tremendous progress’ on foreign policy, pressing the point that things were a mess when he took office.  Trump furthered expectations that he is seeking to end the ‘never ending’ war in Afghanistan and withdraw American troops, saying that the “Caliphate will soon be destroyed, unthinkable two years ago.”  The President then turned to North Korea, noting that the relationship with the rouge state is the “best it has ever been with U.S.” and that he sees a “Decent chance of Denuclearization.”  The President further stressed that the progress made with North Korea could not have been foreseen considering the previous administration’s position.  “At the end of the previous administration, relationship was horrendous and very bad things were about to happen.” Trump urged.  The President was less optimistic concerning the situation in Venezula, however, issuing a warning to Americans not to travel there for the forseeable future.  The Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has claimed that Trump surreptitiously sought to have the Colombian government and mafia assassinate him.  Maduro also claimed that White House National Security Adviser John Bolton has prevented Trump from communicating with the Venezuelan government, despite efforts to start a dialogue.  “For all these years, I have been trying on a personal level. But Bolton prevented Donald Trump from initiating a dialogue with Nicolas Maduro. I have the information that he has prohibited this,” Maduro said.  Turning to the southern border, Trump addressed Democrats, stating that if they do not wish to discuss a border wall with Republicans at a meeting scheduled for today then it will be pointless.  The President followed up with another tweet warning of new caravans of migrants marching toward the US.


newswars--2019-02-01--Hungary EU Policy on China Hypocritical

Hungary: EU Policy on China Hypocritical

Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto on Friday called the European Union’s policy on China “hypocritical” and said cooperation between the bloc and Beijing was in the interest of the whole of Europe.  It is also in Europe’s interest that central Europe should develop its infrastructure by utilizing Chinese resources, Szijjarto told Hungarian public media on the sidelines of an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Bucharest.  Romania, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, put EU-China relations on the agenda of Friday’s meeting and EU candidate countries have also been invited to the second part of the talks.  Szijjarto said it was obvious that China would soon become the largest economy in the world and the success of European cooperation with China would be therefore vital for the competitiveness of Europe. An old dogma that capital only travels from west to east, in search of cheap labor, has fallen, he added.  Companies from the East and the West are now equally dictating the speed at which global economy changes and in many industries the technologies required for future competitiveness are developed and first introduced in the East, he said.  “As a result, cooperation with the Chinese is especially important because if the EU cannot cooperate with China then the latest technology in many industries will be inaccessible to us and this would result in a drop in Europe’s competitiveness,” he added.  The EU’s China policy is hypocritical under the current circumstances when trade turnover increased by more than 30 percent in one year, reaching almost 600 billion euros last year and those countries had the largest turnover, including Germany, France, Italy, UK and the Netherlands, that are the loudest critics of China, Szijjarto said. Central Europe wants its share of the benefits of cooperation which will serve not only regional but all-European interests, he added.  “Cooperation between China and central Europe basically concerns infrastructure development projects that are not covered by European resources. As such, the utilization of Chinese support for infrastructure development in north-south direction is an all-European interest and what’s more, this cooperation also yields development for the Western Balkans which will therefore become ever more prepared for EU accession,” Szijjarto said.  Szijjarto criticized Brussels for delaying the European integration of Western Balkan countries, adding that it was “unacceptable” that the European Commission was holding back on Western Balkan integration until 2025, even though it would be in Europe’s economic and security interests.  “There is no need for another six years at all. We believe that accession could be carried out in the context of Serbia and Montenegro much faster. This would be an economic and above all security interest for the whole of the EU, including Hungary. There are some serious tensions in the Western Balkans and if European integration is speeded up, these would be much easier to get under control,” Szijjarto added.


newswars--2019-02-05--EU Targeting Hungary For its Migration Policy Official

EU Targeting Hungary For its Migration Policy – Official

The European Parliament election campaign is not the forum to chew over the politically motivated Article 7 procedure launched against Hungary, a government official said in Bucharest.  But, in this respect at least, European Union presidency-holder Romania “does not lack goodwill” towards Hungary, Gergely Gulyas, the head of the Prime Minister’s Office, said.  After meeting George Ciamba, the Romanian minister for European affairs, Gulyas said Article 7 had been launched against Hungary by pro-migration forces in European Parliament who disfavoured the country’s policy on migration.  “We’re hopeful the May [EP] elections will bring about a shift in powers relations [and] the procedure won’t last long,” he said.  The standpoints on migration of Romania and Hungary are similar, he said, adding that illegal migration “should be prevented”. A key goal of the Romanian presidency is to join the Schengen area with no internal border controls. For this reason, Hungary’s view is the Schengen issue should not be linked to other preconditions, he said.  Gulyas said several salient issues of direct relevance to Hungary were on the Romanian EU presidency’s agenda, some with overlapping Hungarian-Romanian interests, such as the budget for the next seven-year EU cycle.  Cohesion and farm subsidies should not be reduced and monies lost due to Brexit should be compensated for by increased in-payments by member states, he added.  “It’s also clearly in our common interest that no tension between southern and central Europe should emerge to impede adoption of the budget,” he said.  “So we believe that the budget proposals on the table are not suitable to be accepted at this point.”  “But it’s not a matter of indifference which of the most important issues are decided when, and these issues must be defined during Romania’s presidency,” Gulyas said.