US Politics

US expected to remove Farc from international terrorist listThe announcement comes five years after the demobilised rebel group signed a peace deal with the Colombian government The US is expected to remove the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) from its international terrorist list, five years after the demobilised rebel group signed a peace deal with the Colombian government and formed a political party.The announcement is expected to bolster the struggling peace process, which has been implemented haltingly as violence from dissident rebel groups and drug traffickers continues to trouble the South American nation.US officials quoted by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal said the move could happen as early as Tuesday afternoon, while the state department said that it had provided notifications to Congress on “upcoming actions” regarding the Farc.The US added the Farc to its terror list in 1997, when the rebel group was at the height of its power, commanding thousands of fighters and launching large-scale attacks on regional capitals and military bases. The group kidnapped thousands of politicians and ordinary Colombians, and planted landmines across the country.Colombia’s ex-guerrillas: isolated, abandoned and living in fearRead more“Taking the Farc off the list is long overdue, since the group that the state department listed doesn’t exist any more,” said Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America (Wola), a thinktank. “13,600 guerrillas demobilized and became ex-guerrillas in 2017.”“More than four years later, more than 90% of them remain demobilized and transitioning to civilian life. To keep penalizing and shunning all contact with them is not only absurd, it’s counterproductive,” he said.The Farc took up arms against Colombia’s government in 1964, claiming to fight in defense of peasant farmers. They soon turned to drug trafficking and kidnapping for ransom to bolster their war chest, carrying out massacres and atrocities over decades of civil war that killed more than 260,000 and left more than 7 million displaced. Government forces, state-aligned paramilitary groups and other leftist rebels contributed to the bloodshed.A peace deal was signed in October 2016, formally ending the war and promising rural development, though the accord failed to pass a public referendum. Colombia’s then-president, Juan Manuel Santos, won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts despite the defeat, and subsequently ratified a revised peace deal via Congress the following month.But since the signing of the peace deal, the limitations on Farc members imposed by the terror listing have hindered the accord’s implementation, analysts say, as individually listed former combatants are unable to access the local banking system.“US sanctions have handicapped economic and political reintegration, penalizing ex-combatants who laid down their arms in good faith and continue to remain committed to the process despite enormous challenges,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, a Colombia analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG). “We have heard testimonies of ex-combatants who have had to go from bank to bank in order to open accounts, a basic requisite to start cooperative agricultural projects.”The terror listing also hamstrung the US government’s ability to support and influence the peace deal, which was negotiated with the backing of then-president Barack Obama’s administration, Dickinson said.“US officials cannot meet with the former Farc, they cannot sit in the same room, USaid cannot provide financing to any projects whose beneficiaries include the Farc, or might include them,” Dickinson said. “Five years after the signing of the accord, these restrictions are illogical and counterproductive.”TopicsFarcColombiaAmericasUS politicsUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

House Capitol attack committee subpoenas far-right leaders and groupsNew subpoenas aim to uncover whether there was any coordination between the groups and the White House The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack on Tuesday issued subpoenas to the leaders of the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, directly focusing for the first time on the instigators of the violence at the 6 January insurrection.The subpoenas demanding documents and testimony targeted both the leaders of the paramilitary groups on the day of the Capitol attack that sought to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win, as well as the organizations behind the groups.Proud Boys leader denied early release from Washington DC jailRead moreHouse investigators in total issued five subpoenas to Proud Boys International LLC and its chairman, Henry “Enrqiue” Tarrio, the Oath Keepers group and its president, Stewart Rhodes, as well as Robert Patrick Lewis, the chairman of the 1st Amendment Praetorian militia.The chair of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, said in a statement that subpoenas reflected the panel’s interest in uncovering potential connections between the paramilitary groups, efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election and the Capitol attack.“We believe the individuals and organizations we subpoenaed today have relevant information about how violence erupted at the Capitol and the preparation leading up to this violent attack,” Thompson said.Dozens of paramilitary group members have been indicted by the justice department as they pursue criminal charges against rioters involved in the insurrection, but the select committee had not yet publicly sought their cooperation in its investigation.The new subpoenas are aimed to uncover whether there was any coordination between the paramilitary groups and the White House, according to a source close to the investigation, and whether Donald Trump had advance knowledge of plans about the Capitol attack.The select committee said they subpoenaed the Proud Boys group since its members called for violence leading up to 6 January and that at least 34 individuals affiliated with the group had been indicted by the justice department for their roles in storming the Capitol.Thompson suggested in the subpoena letters to Proud Boys International LLC and Tarrio that the group appeared to have advance knowledge of the violent nature of the Capitol attack, having fundraised for “protective gear and communications” in planning for 6 January.The select committee said they similarly subpoenaed the Oath Keepers for their part in leading the deadly assault on Congress, which a federal grand jury indictment in Washington DC described as a conspiracy involving at least 18 members.The members of the Oath Keepers led by Rhodes, the select committee said, planned their assault on the Capitol in advance, and travelled to Washington DC with paramilitary gear, firearms, tactical vests with plates, helmets and radio equipment.According to the indictment, the main unnamed conspirator – believed to be Rhodes – was in direct contact with his Oath Keepers members before, during, and shortly after the Capitol attack, the select committee added in the subpoena letters.The justice department has said Rhodes directed members of the Oath Keepers as they stormed the Capitol on 6 January but has not been charged with a crime and has denied any wrongdoing. He surrendered his phone to law enforcement and has sat for an interview with the FBI.House investigators also subpoenaed the leader of the 1st Amendment Praetorian, as Lewis was in constant contact with Trump operatives based at the Willard hotel in Washington DC that served as a “command center” for Trump to stop Biden’s certification.The select committee said to Lewis that he was subpoenaed in part because he claimed the day after the Capitol attack that he “war-gamed” with constitutional scholars about how to stop Biden from being certified president on 6 January.Thompson noted in the subpoena letter that members of the 1st Amendment Praetorian wore body cameras, suggesting the select committee’s interest in obtaining those recordings.The five subpoenas come a day after House investigators issued subpoenas to several Trump operatives including Roger Stone and Alex Jones. The select committee demanded documents from the groups by 7 December, and testimony from its leaders later in the month.TopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesThe far rightUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Humanity’s failure to tackle climate change in the 1980s had many causesNathaniel Rich responds to claims about Losing Earth, his 2018 article for the New York Times, later published as a book In his article (Neoliberalism wrecked our chance to fix the climate crisis – and leftwing statements of faith have changed nothing, 17 November), Jeff Sparrow repeats Naomi Klein’s simplistic claim that, in Losing Earth, I “attribute” the missed opportunity on climate change during the critical decade between 1979 and 1989 to “human nature”. Anyone who reads Losing Earth will see that I do no such thing.The failure can be attributed to various causes. Among them are: the fecklessness of bureaucrats tasked with developing legislative solutions to a global problem; a generation of influential US scientists’ blind faith in American exceptionalism; the anti-environmental blitzkrieg launched by the Reagan administration on taking office; the failure of journalists, scientists and policymakers to explain the severity of the threat to a disinterested public; the refusal by the major environmental organisations to embrace climate change as a cause worthy of their attention; the machinations of George HW Bush’s chief of staff, John Sununu; and ultimately the mobilisation of the oil and gas industry around a massive disinformation campaign, the origin story of which I reported for the first time.Humanity’s general reluctance to take urgent, dramatic action to counteract long-term threats offers a serious challenge to the passage of major climate policy, but not a decisive one. The story is far more complex, fascinating and tragic than that. It doesn’t serve anybody to condense history into talking points for the purpose of hollow sloganeering. When “neoliberalism” is the answer to everything, it’s the answer to nothing.Nathaniel RichNew Orleans, Louisiana, United StatesTopicsClimate crisisUS politicsEnergyFossil fuelslettersReuse this content More

Michael Cohen says Trump will not run in 2024: ‘His ego can’t stand to be a two-time loser’Trump’s former attorney says the former president will not run again after losing five states by narrow margins in 2020 Donald Trump’s pollster thinks he will run for the White House again in 2024, with a path to victory through five states he lost to Joe Biden in 2020: Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.Joe Biden intends to run again in 2024, White House confirmsRead moreBut Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer who is fresh out of house arrest, thinks he will not.“His fragile ego cannot stand to be considered a two-time loser,” Cohen said on Monday.Trump lost the five states in question by narrow margins – defeats he refuses to accept, continuing to promote the lie that Biden won thanks to electoral fraud, which led to deadly violence at the US Capitol on 6 January.Politico obtained a memo from Trump’s pollster, Tony Fabrizio, which said a poll carried out for the former president’s fundraising committee put him up over Biden in all five states, by margins ranging from three points in Georgia to 12 in Michigan.In recent books about the Trump administration, Fabrizio is depicted as willing to give Trump polling news he did not want.But he told Politico: “Poll after poll clearly demonstrates that … Trump is still the 800lb gorilla in the [Republican party] and would be its 2024 nominee should he run.”“This new data clearly shows that today the voters in these five key states would be happy to return Trump to the White House and send Biden packing.”With Biden struggling in the polls, Trump dominates both his party and Republican fundraising, with a huge post-election haul. He also remains in extensive legal jeopardy. The Washington Post revealed details on Monday of his legal troubles, including how the Republican party is paying some of his legal bills.Cohen, one of more than 10 Trump associates who have been convicted of crimes, has completed his sentence for his role in illegal hush-money payments to women to help Trump’s 2016 campaign and lying to Congress about a project in Russia.“Donald will not run,” Cohen told CNN. “Why? Because first of all, he has an incredibly fragile ego. He lost by 9m votes the first time [actually a little more than 7m]. He will lose by more than 9m the second and his fragile ego cannot stand to be considered a two-time loser.”Asked if Trump would again react to defeat by simply saying he won, Cohen pointed to Trump’s political fundraising, which has brought in more than $100m.“This is nothing more than the world’s greatest grift,” Cohen said. “He’s bringing in money greater than when he had the Trump Organization with all of its assets. So why would you give this up?“He will drag this thing on all the way to the end. I have an original document … whereby he decided not to run in 2011. And of course, the reasons he talked about was his real estate, it was, you know, The Apprentice and so on.“He’s going to do the same thing. The only difference this time versus last is that he’s making money each and every day by sending out more texts. ‘Oh, Donald won. Send $25.’”Alluding to pictures of Republicans including the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, at Trump’s Florida resort, Cohen said Trump “doesn’t need to be the president in his mind to be the man behind the power, which of course goes to his adage, right? ‘Come and kiss the ring.’“He says that all the time. They’re all coming to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring.”TopicsUS elections 2024Donald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Joe Biden intends to run again in 2024, White House confirmsThe US president’s approval rating has dipped to 40% but Vice-President Kamala Harris’s was just 28% The White House has said that Joe Biden intends to run for re-election in 2024, a statement that comes amid speculation over his future as the president sees a dip in his approval rating.Joe Biden reportedly telling allies he will run for president again in 2024Read moreBiden, 79, has suffered a drop in his polling numbers in recent months, leading some Democrats to speculate he might not seek another four-year term.“He is. That’s his intention,” said the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, as Biden flew onboard Air Force One for a Thanksgiving event with US troops in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.Democrats were rattled by Republican victories in Virginia’s gubernatorial election earlier this month and a narrow Democratic victory in New Jersey.The statement from the White House follows reports that Biden has been reassuring allies of his intentions to run again, and that he is keen to quash rumors of a one-term presidency.A recent Washington Post/ABC survey survey found just over 40% of voters approved of Biden, continuing a steady downward trend in the president’s ratings amid inflation and supply chain issues and intra-party fighting over key aspects of the president’s agenda.Questions have arisen about the viability of Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate in 2024 should Biden decide not to run again. A recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll found her with a 28% job approval rating.Biden underwent his first physical examination on Friday since taking office in January and doctors found he has a stiffened gait and attributed frequent bouts of coughing to acid reflux. Doctors said he was fit to serve.Biden’s political prospects appeared to have been buoyed last week by congressional passage of a $1.2tn infrastructure plan. Still being debated is another $1.75tn in spending on a social safety net package.Biden was already the oldest presidential candidate to be elected as commander-in-chief when he beat Donald Trump in the November 2020 election, and will be 15 days short of his 82nd birthday on 5 November 2024, the next time voters in the US will be asked to choose their president.TopicsJoe BidenUS elections 2024US politicsnewsReuse this content More

‘Corporate’ Senate Democrats imperil the Build Back Better plan, says TlaibHouse progressive warns such Democrats are influenced by donors who ‘don’t have the best interests of the American people in mind’ “Corporate” Democrats in the Senate imperil Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act, a leading House progressive warned – but not just Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the targets of most leftwing ire.Such Democrats, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan said, are influenced by donors who “don’t have the best interests of the American people in mind”.Republicans’ vilification of Trump critics is ‘ruining’ the US, says governorRead moreAt the same time, the New York Times reported that Manchin and Sinema are increasingly receiving money from corporate and conservative donors.The president’s domestic spending package is worth $1.75tn and seeks to increase spending on social programs and healthcare and to combat the climate crisis.After months of negotiation, and after Biden signed into law a $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure bill, the House of Representatives passed Build Back Better on Friday.There was no Republican support and there will be none in the Senate. That gives Manchin of West Virginia and Sinema of Arizona huge influence, in a chamber split 50-50 and controlled by the vote of Vice-President Kamala Harris.The two senators have already pressured the Democrats to cut the cost of the spending plan in half.Tlaib is one of the first Muslim women in Congress, representing the third-poorest congressional district.In an interview broadcast on Sunday, she told Axios she was “fearful” that “corporate Dems” would “guide this agenda. It’s gonna be the people that are gonna continue to profit off of human suffering.“I know that they’ve been influenced and guided by folks that don’t have the best interests of the American people in mind.”Tlaib said she was referring to Manchin and Sinema, “but I think there are some others that … have issues with the prescription drug negotiations there.“And so I can’t say it’s just those two. They seem to be leading the fight, but I wouldn’t be surprised if folks are hiding behind them.”Manchin has spoken regularly, mostly painting the spending plan as too expensive. Sinema is less vocal but on Friday she gave an interview to ABC15, an Arizona station.Saying she was “a workhorse, not a show horse”, she said she welcomed progressive criticism.“I appreciate the first amendment,” she said. “So I appreciate when folks are willing to tell me they agree with me or disagree with me. If they want to protest, if they want to offer things, all of that is welcome.“So I guess my message to folks would be keep telling me what you think. I appreciate it. And I’m going to keep doing the work and delivering results for Arizonans.”Sinema said she would not “bend to political pressure from any party or any group”.In terms of financial pressure, the New York Times reported on Sunday that Manchin and Sinema were attracting support from “conservative-leaning donors and business executives”.Kenneth Langone, a Wall Street billionaire, usually gives to Republicans but has praised Manchin and promised to fundraise for him.Langone told the Times: “My political contributions have always been in support of candidates who are willing to stand tall on principle, even when that means defying their own party or the press.”Stanley Hubbard, a billonaire Republican donor who has given to Sinema, said: “Those are two good people – Manchin and Sinema – and I think we need more of those in the Democratic party.”TopicsRashida TlaibDemocratsUS SenateUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More