United States International Relations

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Your Thursday Briefing: U.S. Raises Interest Rates

      by

      Also, China and Russia grow closer and the U.S. waits for news of a possible Donald Trump indictment.Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, signaled that officials were still focused on fighting inflation. T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesThe Fed raises rates amid turmoilThe U.S. Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a quarter-point as officials tried to balance the risk of runaway inflation with the threat of turmoil in the banking system.The decision was one of the most closely watched in years, and the conflicting forces had left investors and economists guessing what central bankers would do. The Fed raised rates to a range of 4.75 to 5 percent — matching last month’s increase in size — and the central bank projected one more rate increase in 2023 to 5.1 percent. Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said that officials “considered” pausing interest rates because of the banking problems but noted that the economic data had been strong. He added that the American banking system was “sound and resilient.”He also called Silicon Valley Bank, which collapsed earlier this month, an “outlier,” trying to cast its problems as unique. He said it was not a reason to panic about the banking system, even as he acknowledged the need for better supervision and regulation.Context: This is the ninth rate increase in a year. The Fed has been rapidly raising its interest rate since March 2022, making borrowing money more expensive in hopes of cooling inflation.Markets: Wall Street stocks dropped as investors balked at the Fed’s decision.Journalists waited for updates outside of the criminal court in Manhattan.Anna Watts for The New York TimesAwaiting a Trump indictmentAmericans are awaiting news of a possible indictment of Donald Trump, which could come as early as today. Criminal charges against the former president have been hotly anticipated since at least Saturday, when Trump, with no direct knowledge, declared that he would be arrested on Tuesday.The grand jury in the case against Trump did not meet yesterday as expected, and it may still hear from another witness before being asked to vote on an indictment. Prosecutors have signaled that criminal charges against the former president are likely. The prospect that Trump, who is running for re-election, could face criminal charges is extraordinary. No sitting or former American president has ever been indicted. This case, which hinges on an untested legal theory, is just one of several criminal investigations he faces.Case details: The charges most likely center on how Trump handled reimbursing a lawyer for a hush-money payment of $130,000 to the porn star Stormy Daniels during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the payout was a federal crime because it was done by falsifying business records. It could also be considered an improper donation to Trump’s campaign — a violation of election law.Trump’s response: Trump has referred to the investigation as a “witch hunt” against him. Those who have spent time with Trump in recent days say he has often appeared significantly disconnected from the severity of his potential legal woes.What’s next: The timing of any potential indictment is unknown, and an arrest would not immediately follow. If Trump were convicted of a felony, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, but prison time would not be mandatory.President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin used the pomp of the visit to celebrate their close ties.Vladimir Astapkovich/SputnikChina-Russia versus the U.S.China’s leader, Xi Jinping, wrapped up a three-day summit in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin that showed the two superpowers aligned in countering American dominance and a Western-led world order.The summit demonstrated that Xi remains focused on shoring up ties with Moscow to gird against what he sees as a long U.S. “containment” effort to block China’s rise. The leaders laid out their vision for the world in a joint statement that covered an array of topics, including Taiwan and climate change — and often depicted the U.S. as the obstacle to a better, fairer world. They also endorsed an expanded role for China’s currency, the renminbi, a step that would tie Russia’s economy closer to China’s. A broader use of the currency among China’s allies, including in Iran and North Korea, could make it easier to conduct transactions without worrying about sanctions linked to the dollar.Ukraine: The two leaders did not reveal any progress toward achieving peace in Ukraine. Leadership: The two declared their admiration for each other’s authoritarian rule. Xi even endorsed Putin for another term. THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificRhona Wise/USA Today Sports, via ReutersJapan beat the U.S. in the World Baseball Classic, 3-2. See the final moment.China approved its first Covid vaccine that uses mRNA — a technology considered among the most effective the world has to offer.A report analyzing a swab from Wuhan strengthens the case that illegally traded wild animals ignited the coronavirus pandemic.Around the WorldUgandan legislators debated the bill this week.Abubaker Lubowa/ReutersUganda passed a strict anti-gay bill that can bring punishments as severe as the death penalty and that calls for life in prison for anyone engaging in gay sex. Facing a hearing that could curtail his political career, Britain’s former prime minister Boris Johnson denied lying to Parliament about parties held at Downing Street during lockdowns.TikTok’s C.E.O. will testify before U.S. lawmakers today, as tensions over the Chinese-owned app come to a head.Analysts and residents say gangs have taken over most of Port-au-Prince, Haiti’s capital.The War in Ukraine The I.M.F. agreed to a $15.6 billion loan for Ukraine.President Volodymyr Zelensky visited troops on the frontline near Bakhmut.The Russian authorities in occupied Crimea reported a second day of drone attacks.A Morning ReadRenovations to a stained glass window in the Qibli Mosque inside the Aqsa compound.Afif Amireh for The New York TimesThe artisans who maintain the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem — known to Jews as the Temple Mount — are struggling to keep up with repairs after clashes. They are also bracing for more unrest: Ramadan is starting and Passover is just a few weeks away, raising worries that the larger numbers of visitors to the contested site will increase the possibility of clashes.“This takes months to finish, and in one minute, in one kick, all this hard work goes,” said one man who works in stained glass.SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAHeavy winds damaged a road that connects two cities in Malawi.Thoko Chikondi/Associated PressA record-setting stormAs southeast Africa begins to recover from Cyclone Freddy, scientists are taking a closer look at whether the storm could be a sign of things to come on a warming planet.Cyclone Freddy lashed three countries, hitting Madagascar and Mozambique twice. When it moved inland last week, heavy rain and mudslides devastated Malawi, killing 438 people. The storm was remarkable for a couple of reasons. One is longevity. It lasted 36 days, by one measure, and underwent rapid intensification cycles at least seven times, quickly waning and then intensifying. Freddy is now the longest-lasting tropical cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere, and experts from the World Meteorological Organization are working to determine whether it is the longest-lasting storm in history.Freddy was also remarkable for its range. The storm traveled more than 4,000 miles from the northern coast of Australia to the southeast coast of Africa.Understanding the links between climate change and individual storms requires complex research, but scientists know in general that global warming is leading to bigger, wetter storms.“A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture,” said Anne-Claire Fontan, who studies tropical cyclones at the World Meteorological Organization. “We expect that tropical cyclones will bring more intense rainfall.” — Lynsey Chutel, a Briefings writer in Johannesburg PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDavid Malosh for The New York TimesA recipe for Ramadan: Qatayef asafiri, sweet stuffed pancakes drizzled with syrup.What to Read“Bottoms Up and the Devil Laughs” by Kerry Howley explores how the erosion of privacy has fueled conspiracy theories and the national security state.What to WatchOur selection of five science fiction films includes a trippy Japanese time-loop and an Italian remake of the 2021 Australian film “Long Story Short.”Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Exchange (four letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. Our visual journalists won 34 awards in the Pictures of the Year International Awards.“The Daily” is on the roots of the banking crisis.We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Former Iran Hostages Are Divided on Jimmy Carter and a Sabotage Claim

      by

      A report about a covert effort to delay their release until after the 1980 presidential election drew anger, resignation and disbelief from the survivors of the crisis.They are the last survivors of an international crisis that hobbled Jimmy Carter’s presidency and may have cost him re-election. Many are now in their 80s.With the former president gravely ill in hospice care, some of the 52 Americans who were held hostage in Iran for 444 days are looking back on Mr. Carter’s legacy with a mix of frustration, sadness and gratitude.Many feel neglected by the government, which has paid them only about a quarter of the $4.4 million that they were each promised by Congress in 2015, after decades of lobbying for compensation, said their lawyer, V. Thomas Lankford. Some endured physical and mental abuse, including mock executions, during the hostage crisis. About half have died.Jimmy Carter preparing to address the American people from the Oval Office on April 25, 1980, on the failed mission to rescue the Iran hostages.Associated PressLast week, their ordeal was thrust back into the news with the account of a covert effort to delay their release until after the 1980 presidential election in a bid to help the campaign of Mr. Carter’s Republican challenger, Ronald Reagan.A former Texas politician, Ben Barnes, told The New York Times that he had toured the Middle East that summer with John B. Connally Jr., the former Texas governor, who told regional leaders that Mr. Reagan would win and give the Iranians a “better deal.” Mr. Connally, a former Democrat turned Republican, was angling for a cabinet position.Mr. Barnes, 84, said that he was speaking out now because “history needs to know that this happened.”He told The Times that he did not know if the message that Mr. Connally gave to Middle Eastern leaders ever reached the Iranians, or whether it influenced them. Mr. Connally died in 1993. Nor was it clear if Mr. Reagan knew about the trip. Mr. Barnes said Mr. Connally had briefed William J. Casey, the chairman of Mr. Reagan’s campaign and later the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an airport lounge after the trip.The account stirred anger among some of the former hostages, while others dismissed his story of election sabotage as not credible. They are a diverse group that includes former diplomats, retired military officers and academics, and members of both major political parties.“It’s nice that Mr. Barnes is trying to soothe his soul during the last years of his life,” said Barry Rosen, 79, who was press attaché at the embassy in Tehran when it was overrun on Nov. 4, 1979. “But for the hostages who went through hell, he has not helped us at all. He has made it just as bad or worse.”Mr. Rosen, who lives in New York, said that Mr. Barnes should have come forward 43 years ago, given the decades of speculation about political interference.“It’s the definition of treason,” he said, “knowing that there was a possibility that the Carter administration might have been able to negotiate us out of Iran earlier.”Kathryn Koob, 84, of Waterloo, Iowa, who was the director of an Iranian-American cultural program when she was taken hostage, said, “If somebody wanted to be so cruel as to use us for political gain, that’s on their conscience, and they have to deal with it.”That Mr. Connally could have been engaged in political skulduggery was hardly shocking after Watergate, said John W. Limbert, 80, who was a political officer at the embassy when he was taken hostage.“It’s basically just confirmation of what we strongly suspected all along,” Mr. Limbert said. “We should not be surprised about this in American politics — people willing to stoop to anything.”He credited Mr. Carter with showing patience during the crisis, even if voters blamed him for mishandling the showdown with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian leader whose followers stormed the embassy after the Carter administration admitted Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the deposed shah of Iran, to the United States for medical treatment.“He basically sacrificed his presidency to get us out alive,” Mr. Limbert said.But Kevin Hermening, a certified financial planner in Mosinee, Wis., who was a Marine Corps sergeant guarding the embassy, said that he did not believe Mr. Barnes’s account and that, even if it were true, the effort would not have influenced his captors.“The Iranians were very clear that they were not going to release us while President Carter was in office,” said Mr. Hermening, 63. “He was despised by the mullahs and those people who followed the Ayatollah.”And Don Cooke, 68, of Gaithersburg, Md., a retired Foreign Service officer who was vice consul at the embassy, called Mr. Barnes’s account “mildly amusing.”It suggested, he said, that there were “these other dark forces that were sabotaging our efforts to get these hostages free, and I just don’t buy that.”Mr. Cooke still blames Mr. Carter for the crisis. He said the president should have cleared the embassy of its personnel before he admitted the shah or have refused to allow the shah to enter the country.When Mr. Carter flew to Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany to greet the freed hostages, Mr. Cooke said he snubbed the former president, staying on the phone with his parents as Mr. Carter put a hand on his back. He handed the phone to Mr. Carter, who spoke to his mother.“The reason we were released was because Ronald Reagan was elected president,” Mr. Cooke said. “The Iranians were clearly afraid of Reagan. No question about that. And they had every right to be.”Ben Barnes, left, with Lady Bird Johnson and former President Lyndon B. Johnson in Austin, Tex., on Aug. 29, 1970.Ted Powers/Associated PressThe hostages were released on Jan. 20, 1981, minutes after Mr. Reagan took office.It was the end of an anguished chapter. Network news anchors had kept nightly counts of how long the hostages had been in captivity, accompanied by martial music and “America Held Hostage” graphics. People across the country tied yellow ribbons around trees in a show of support for the hostages.After months of fruitless negotiations, Mr. Carter had authorized a rescue mission in April 1980 that ended in disaster when a helicopter crashed into a plane in the Iranian desert. Eight service members were killed, and their charred bodies were displayed by Iranian officials.In the end, Mr. Carter did not pull off the pre-election “October surprise” that some in Mr. Reagan’s orbit feared. It was only after Mr. Carter’s defeat that his outgoing administration struck a deal that released billions of dollars of frozen Iranian assets.Those assets were “the weapon that kept us alive,” said Mr. Rosen, the former press attaché. Referring to Mr. Carter, he added, “I think the thing he did — and did absolutely right — was to free the American hostages without us getting murdered.”The Barnes account cast a new light on these long-ago events, troubling David M. Roeder, a retired colonel who was the deputy Air Force attaché at the embassy. Mr. Roeder said that he had repeatedly told his captors that if Mr. Reagan won, they would be dealing with a “much tougher person.”“I have come to the conclusion — perhaps because I want to — that hopefully President Reagan was unaware that this was going on,” said Mr. Roeder, 83, of Pinehurst, N.C.But, he added, “I gained a great deal more respect for President Carter because I’ve seen what he went through with us in captivity.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Iran Hostages, and a Plot to Thwart Carter

      by

      More from our inbox:Why the U.S. Invaded Iraq: Theories AboundWhite Supremacy PropagandaCare at the End of Life“History needs to know that this happened,” Ben Barnes now says of his trip to the Middle East in 1980.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “43-Year Secret of Sabotage: Mission to Subvert Carter Is Revealed” (front page, March 19), about an effort to delay release of the American hostages in Iran to weaken Jimmy Carter’s re-election campaign:By way of apology to Mr. Carter, Ben Barnes details the mission to ensure that the 52 Americans held hostage by Iran were not released on Mr. Carter’s watch. Mr. Barnes’s candor, though overdue, is welcome, but his apology is somewhat misdirected.While Jimmy Carter might rightly claim that he suffered defeat in 1980 because Ronald Reagan’s campaign engaged in a contemptible plot, he was nevertheless a “second tier” victim.More than 50 Americans were held in terror for 444 days, not knowing whether they would live or die. If, as Mr. Barnes implies, his mission resulted in extending the hostages’ captivity, they stand at the front of the line of those to whom he should apologize.Mark SteinbergLos AngelesTo the Editor:How would President Jimmy Carter have responded to this news that, according to Ben Barnes, the G.O.P. was involved in an effort to thwart Mr. Carter’s efforts to win the American hostages’ release?I was on Air Force One accompanying Mr. Carter in the days leading up to the 1980 election. All efforts were focused on getting those Americans home.Our last hope came when news reached Mr. Carter at 2 a.m., Chicago time, on the Sunday before the election. Learning that the Iranian mullahs had modified their demands, the president put off campaigning and raced back to Washington. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter realized that obstacles remained.Imagine if he’d just learned that a Republican ally of President Reagan had been spreading the word in Arab capitals that Iran should keep the 52 hostages until after he had taken office? Imagine if Mr. Carter had gotten this story just before his final debate with Ronald Reagan? It would have put the G.O.P. challenger on the defensive.Imagine if …Chris MatthewsChevy Chase, Md.The writer, the former longtime host of the MSNBC show “Hardball,” was a speechwriter for President Carter.To the Editor:Ben Barnes’s revelations that political operatives met with overseas governments before the 1980 presidential election didn’t surprise me. The release of American hostages from Iranian captivity a few minutes after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981 was too much of a coincidence.This unwarranted interference in American foreign affairs by private citizens reminded me of Richard Nixon’s intrigues to entice the South Vietnamese government to stall the Paris peace talks in an effort to derail a Democratic victory in the 1968 presidential election.Shame on all those involved for risking American lives to benefit their political ambitions.Paul L. NewmanMerion Station, Pa.To the Editor:Thanks for an important and credible addition to the narrative of the Iran hostage crisis.An addendum: John Connally and Ben Barnes would almost certainly have received a chilly response to their scheme from President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt, who was close to President Carter and loyal to him.Moreover, at the time of the trip, Sadat had welcomed his friend, the recently deposed shah of Iran, to Egypt, and the shah died there in July. Thus there is little chance Sadat conveyed the Connally-Barnes message to Tehran, though other Middle Eastern heads of state might have done so.Jonathan AlterMontclair, N.J.The writer is the author of “His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life.”Why the U.S. Invaded Iraq: Theories AboundOnly a statue of Saddam Hussein remained standing at an Iraqi communications center that was the target of a bombing attack by American forces in 2003.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesTo the Editor:“Two Decades Later, a Question Remains: Why Did the U.S. Invade?,” by Max Fisher (The Interpreter, March 19), suggests that the triggering motive for the 2003 invasion of Iraq will remain unknown.The article says “a critical mass of senior officials all came to the table wanting to topple” Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, “for their own reasons, and then talked one another into believing the most readily available justification”: weapons of mass destruction.The clear goal was to topple Mr. Hussein. Recall that President George W. Bush desired revenge on Mr. Hussein for an attempt on his father’s life and that he was reportedly advised that only wartime presidents become great.The missing piece of the puzzle is that neoconservative advisers, with an array of reasons for toppling Mr. Hussein, were able to play on President Bush’s personal aspirations to get the go-ahead for the invasion.Richard ReillyOlean, N.Y.To the Editor:“Two Decades Later, a Question Remains: Why Did the U.S. Invade?” gives plausible answers. Another possible explanation was foretold by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address.He warned of “the unwarranted influence” of the “military-industrial complex,” telling us, in effect, that those who make money from war and those whose careers benefit from these actions have both influence and a shared interest in military interventions.His words are still worth heeding.Barbara H. ChasinIthaca, N.Y.The writer is emerita professor of sociology at Montclair State University and the author of “Inequality and Violence in the United States: Casualties of Capitalism.”White Supremacy Propaganda Michael Dwyer/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “White Supremacist Propaganda Soared Last Year, Report Finds” (news article, March 10):The alarming rise of white nationalist vandalism and propaganda, the majority of which is being spread by Patriot Front, is more than offensive — it is often a criminal offense. Legislators, prosecutors and law enforcement should recognize the dangers these attempts to intimidate, recruit and inspire violence pose to American communities.White nationalist activities are occurring nationwide, are coordinated and are often evading accountability in local jurisdictions. The arrest of 31 Patriot Front members preparing to disrupt an L.G.B.T.Q.+ Pride celebration in Idaho last summer should have been the notice federal authorities needed. After the mass arrest, 17 organizations called on the Department of Justice to open an investigation into Patriot Front.We hope that The Times’s coverage of this disturbing trend adds urgency to the appeal for federal action against these dangerous campaigns of hate. Our local communities — and our democracy — can’t afford to be left to manage this threat alone any longer.Lindsay SchubinerBerkeley, Calif.The writer is the program director for the Western States Center, a nationwide group that works to strengthen inclusive democracy.Care at the End of Life Nadia HafidTo the Editor:Re “Aggressive Care Still Common at Life’s End” (The New Old Age, March 14):As a nurse practitioner in a large hospital, I see this kind of aggressive care all too often.In addition to the physical and emotional stress it places on patients and families, there’s a financial cost, since such care isn’t free.I will never forget an older man who spent his last months in one of our I.C.U.s. His wife not only lost him when he died but also their house, as the cost of medical care made her unable to pay the mortgage.These kinds of nonmedical consequences need to be considered, acknowledged and regularly assessed for. Something else our health care system doesn’t do.Marian GrantReisterstown, Md. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Your Tuesday Briefing: Xi Meets Putin in Moscow

      by

      Also, a major U.N. climate report and a manhunt in the Indian state of Punjab.This photograph released by Russian state media shows Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the Kremlin yesterday.Sergei Karpukhin/SputnikXi meets Putin in MoscowPresident Vladimir Putin welcomed Xi Jinping at the Kremlin yesterday and pledged that Russia would study China’s peace proposals for Ukraine “with respect.” But Xi did not mention Ukraine at all in his public remarks.Though the war and the divides that it exposed hung over the meeting, the leaders focused on projecting unity and shoring up their countries’ overall relationship during the three-day summit.“Dear friend, welcome to Russia,” Putin told Xi, who is the highest-profile world leader to visit since the invasion. Putin said that China took a “fair and balanced position on the majority of international problems.” Xi hailed the two nations as “good neighbors and reliable partners,” Russian state media said.The state visit, which is being closely watched by Kyiv and its allies, underscores China’s increasingly close ties with Russia. The U.S. has warned that China could go even further than diplomatic or economic support for Russia, possibly by supplying weapons to use in the war.A peace mission? Chinese officials have tried to cast Xi as a mediator who can broker peace, though Western leaders have expressed doubts. Ukrainian officials have brushed off China’s proposals for peace talks and have insisted that a complete Russian withdrawal is a precondition for negotiations.War crimes: In its first response to the arrest warrant for Putin issued by the International Criminal Court, China’s foreign ministry said that the court should “avoid politicization and double standards.”U.S. reaction: Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Xi’s visit amounts to Beijing’s providing “diplomatic cover for Russia to continue to commit” war crimes.“We are walking when we should be sprinting,” said Hoesung Lee, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesClimate’s ‘rapidly closing window’A major U.N. climate report said that the Earth would most likely cross a critical global warming threshold within the next decade — unless countries made an immediate and drastic shift away from fossil fuels. There is “a rapidly closing window of opportunity” to address climate change, the report said.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which issued the report, said that global average temperatures are estimated to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels sometime around “the first half of the 2030s.” Beyond that point, scientists say, the impacts of climate change — catastrophic heat waves, crop failures and species extinction — will become much harder for humanity to handle. To shift course, the report said, countries need to cut greenhouse gases by half by 2030 and stop emitting carbon dioxide altogether by the early 2050s. If those two steps were to be taken, the world would have about a 50 percent chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.Practically, that means retiring fossil fuel infrastructure or canceling planned projects. It also means efforts like expanding wind and solar energies, making cities friendlier to pedestrians and cyclists and reducing food waste.However, global fossil-fuel emissions set records last year, while China and the U.S. continue to approve new fossil fuel projects. Under the current policies, Earth’s temperature is estimated to heat up by 2.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius this century.Analysis: “The report is sobering, gut-wrenching and above all, practical,” my colleague Somini Sengupta writes in our climate newsletter. “Its clearest takeaway: The continued use of fossil fuels is harming all of us, and harming some of us a lot more.”The cost: Governments and companies would need to invest three to six times as much as they currently spend to hold global warming at 1.5 or 2 degrees, the report says.Police officers outside the home of Amritpal Singh in Jallupur Khera, a village in Punjab.Narinder Nanu/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIndia’s manhunt in PunjabIndian authorities have restricted communications in Punjab for a third day as a manhunt continues for Amritpal Singh, a Sikh separatist leader who has called for an independent Sikh homeland. Singh’s rapid rise in the public eye has stirred fears of violence in India’s only Sikh-majority state, which still has vivid memories of a deadly separatist insurgency. The search for Singh began on Saturday. Since then, the government has blocked the internet, restricted mobile communications and deployed thousands of paramilitary soldiers. The manhunt comes a month after Singh and hundreds of his supporters stormed a police station armed with swords and firearms, demanding the release of an aide. Six police officials were injured in the clash. History: For many in India, the clash was similar to the 1980s revolt in Punjab, when thousands were killed during an insurgency organized by Sikh separatists that raged for years.Singh: The 30-year-old self-styled preacher has called for protecting Sikh rights against what he believed to be the overreach of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government. He also implicitly threatened Amit Shah, the home minister.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificNeo-Nazis have shown up at a number of events in the past few months in Melbourne.James Ross/EPA, via ShutterstockThe Australian state of Victoria moved to ban the Nazi salute after protesters gave the salute at a rally against transgender rights in Melbourne.The Taliban ordered officials in Afghanistan to fire relatives that they had hired to government posts, the BBC reported.Around the WorldLawmakers protested the pension overhaul after the government survived yesterday.Bertrand Guay/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn France, President Emmanuel Macron’s government survived a no-confidence vote, ensuring his bill to raise the retirement age to 64 becomes the law of the land.Israel’s government plans to enact the most contentious part of its proposed judicial overhaul next month, but other changes were postponed in a move that was framed as a concession.Twenty years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Times journalists explore the lives of young people who grew up with the traumas of war. An estimated 43,000 people died in Somalia’s drought last year, according to the first official death toll. At least half were children younger than 5.From OpinionThe authoritarian, Hindu nationalist streak of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India is worth worrying about, Nicholas Kristof writes.Nan Lin, an activist in hiding, lives a dangerous, lonely life in Myanmar. His apartment “is both sanctuary and prison,” he writes. A Morning ReadNoriko Hayashi for The New York TimesJapan’s exotic animal cafes are popular selfie spots, but a survey found that many contain critically endangered species — and others banned from international trade.Similar cafes have cropped up in other Asian countries. Critics say they could threaten wildlife conservation, animal welfare and public health.ARTS AND IDEASThe “afternoon fun” economyKate Thornton for The New York TimesRemote workers in the U.S. have fueled a surge in midday exercise and beauty treatments during the workweek. With new flexibility, they are opting to extend their leisure time into the afternoon, and tack on extra hours of work after dark — often with the blessing of their bosses.For instance, a new study using geolocation data found that there were 278 percent more people playing golf at 4 p.m. on a Wednesday in August 2022 than in August 2019. One of the report’s authors said that the rise of afternoon leisure could have an under-examined role in driving the economic rebound since 2020.“They’re not sneaking away,” the owner of a golf course in New Jersey said. “They’re getting the work done, just not at your typical hours.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookBryan Gardner for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Barrett Washburne.Make these salmon saffron kebabs for the Persian festival Nowruz, which starts this week.What to Read“The Nursery” paints a frightening, honest and claustrophobic picture of new motherhood.What to WatchA rare British romantic comedy with Black leads, “Rye Lane” celebrates love in London.ExerciseTry this 19-minute high-intensity interval training workout for beginners.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Tremble (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. The Times announced its fifth cohort of young career journalists who will join our newsroom for a year on a fellowship.“The Daily” is on U.S. concerns about TikTok.We’d love your thoughts: briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 63 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Never Mind About Ron DeSantis

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I guess we have to talk about Donald Trump’s potential indictment and arrest, right? But before we go there: You know how I told you that I’d vote for Ron DeSantis over Joe Biden?Well, never mind.Gail Collins: Bret! You’re gonna vote for our big-spending president? Student-loan forgiver? Tax-the-richer?Bret: I’m still holding out faint hope that Nikki Haley or Tim Scott or my friend Vivek Ramaswamy or some other sound and sane Republican long shot somehow gets the nomination.Gail: Happy to gear up for that fight.Bret: But for DeSantis to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “territorial dispute” in which the United States does not have a “vital interest” tells me that he’s totally unfit to be president. He’s pandering to the Tucker Carlson crowd.Gail: The Terrible Tuckerites …Bret: He is parroting Kremlin propaganda. He’s undermining NATO. He’s endangering America by emboldening other dictators with “territorial disputes,” starting with China’s Xi Jinping. He’s betraying the heroism and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. He’s turning himself into a kind of Diet Pepsi to Trump’s Diet Coke. He’s showing he’s just another George Costanza Republican, whose idea of taking a foreign-policy stand is to “do the opposite” of whatever the Democrats do.Gail: Wow, can’t believe I’ve found someone who thinks less of DeSantis than I do.Bret: So, about Donald: to indict and arrest or not to indict and arrest? That’s the question. Where do you come down?Gail: No real doubts on the guilt front, and I’m pretty confident we’ll eventually see an indictment. The question is — what then? I’m hoping for a procedure in which he has to appear in public to answer the charges but doesn’t get treated in any way that’ll cause any not-totally-crazy supporters to gather for a riot.Bret: True, though why do I get the sense that Trump is practically jumping for joy? I mean, the first indictment of a former American president is going to be over what is typically a misdemeanor? I yield to nobody in my disgust with the guy, but so far, this sounds like prosecutorial abuse and political malpractice. Democrats will live to regret it.But to go from the horrifying to the truly horrifying: How goes your banking crisis?Gail: Bret, would definitely appreciate this not being “my” banking crisis.Bret: Give the crisis about six months. Or six weeks. Or maybe six days. It’ll be all of ours. Suggest you buy inflation-proof assets, like a rare instrument or 50-year-old scotch.Gail: Or some great old wine! Although in my house it’d never outlast the bank bust.As to a response, I’m in Bidenesque territory — the government does what it has to do to stabilize the situation, including covering the deposits in delinquent institutions like Silicon Valley Bank. But the only people who get rescued are the depositors.Bret: The big mistake of the administration was to bail out all the depositors, including a lot of very rich people who ought to have known better, instead of sticking to the F.D.I.C. limit of $250,000. Now the Feds have bailed out a bunch of rich, foolish and undeserving Silicon Valley dipsticks while creating an implicit, and systemically dangerous, guarantee for all depositors at all banks.Gail: I don’t love the idea of helping out $250,000-plus depositors, even over the short term, but this is not a good moment to destabilize the whole economy.Over the long term, however, those banks, their managers and big stockholders are going to have to be held accountable. Also Congress, which watered down regulations on midsize banks a few years back.Bret: Hard to tell whether the real issue was inadequate regulation, a badly run bank or — my guess — far deeper problems in the economy. Turns out Silicon Valley Bank didn’t even have a full-time chief risk officer for much of last year.Gail: You will notice I haven’t mentioned the Federal Reserve. Saving that for you …Bret: The Fed now has two bad problems, both of them largely of its own making. The first is inflation, which remains stubbornly high and was brought on in part because interest rates were too low for way too long. The second is an economy, particularly the banking sector, that seems to be seriously ill prepared for an era of higher rates. A classic Scylla and Charybdis situation, through which Jay Powell is somehow supposed to steer us. My advice to Powell — other than to tie himself to the mast — is to continue to raise rates, even if it means recession, and call for fiscal relief in the form of tax breaks for businesses ….Gail: Stopstopstop. Bret, Congress has to get a budget passed somehow, and the Republican plan is so nutty that even some Republicans don’t buy it. You’re suggesting that we cut taxes for businesses that are already making handsome profits.Bret: Businesses may be looking forward to a steep recession and much steeper borrowing costs. It’s a recipe for collapsing revenues and mass layoffs for businesses large and small. Better for the government to lighten the load for employers, even if it means piling on additional federal debt. In fact, it could be a good way to solve the debt-ceiling question.Gail: The people who are demanding this kind of bonanza for the rich are the same ones who are violently opposed to giving the deeply underfunded I.R.S. any new money. What could be worse than efficiently monitoring tax compliance?Bret: We’re both in favor of giving the I.R.S. the funding it needs to answer taxpayer phone calls. But if the economy is about to fall off a cliff, I don’t think the answer is to make sure the taxman is at the bottom of it, picking the pockets of the dead and wounded. Gail, this topic is … getting me down. You wrote a column last week saying that Kamala Harris is definitely staying on Joe Biden’s ticket. That gets me down, too, but please explain further.Gail: Well, we both agreed for quite a while that if Biden ran again, he should pick a different veep.Bret: Like Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, or Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, or Danielle Allen, the brilliant Harvard political philosopher who has the added virtue of not being a politician.Gail: Yes, but then I gave it a long, hard thought — trying to imagine how that would work out. Tossing Harris off the ticket would be hugely disrespectful. There’s nothing she’s done that deserves that kind of insult.Bret: Did Nelson Rockefeller deserve it? Politics is politics.Gail: There are lots of terrific women in high places — governors and senators — who’d be terrific as vice president. But we aren’t starting from scratch. Harris has made some errors in her current job, but she’s done some good things, too. Just don’t think this rises to the occasion of Throw Her Out.Bret: To me, she’s Dan Quayle-level ridiculous — and George H.W. Bush would have been wise to toss Quayle from the ticket in 1992. You can bet that whoever the Republican nominee is next year will hammer away at Biden’s age and her shortcomings — like saying we have a secure border with Mexico or confusing North and South Korea — to very good political effect.Gail: Let’s go back to the president you … may be willing to vote to re-elect. He’s fighting hard to reduce federal student debt payments for low- and moderate-income people. I remember your not loving this idea in the past. Any change of heart?Bret: Nope. The problem we have with the banks stems from what economists call moral hazard — basically, encouraging risky behavior. Pardoning student debt is another form of moral hazard: It encourages people to take out loans unwisely in the expectation that they might one day be forgiven. If we are forgiving college loans now, why not forgive mortgages next? Also, it’s an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s legislative prerogatives. Democrats objected when Trump steered Defense Department money to building the border wall without congressional authorization; Democrats shouldn’t further establish a bad precedent.Assuming you see it otherwise.Gail: Yeah. A lot of these people have been making loan payments for decades without making much progress in erasing the actual debt. None of them are rich, and a lot are struggling endlessly.I can understand the resentment from folks who made a great effort and did pay off their loans. But we’re talking, in general, about people who were given the impression that borrowing large amounts of money to get a no-frills degree was a great investment that always paid off.Bret: If the government is expected to backstop everybody’s bad or dumb decisions, the country would bankrupt itself in a week. Part of living in a free society is being responsible for your choices, including your mistakes.Gail: I’m looking at this as a one-time shot that’s worth taking. But I have to admit I don’t love the idea of Biden acting without congressional authorization. Even though he wouldn’t have gotten it.Sigh.Bret: Never mind Congress — I can’t see this getting past the Supreme Court, so what we’re really talking about is another phony campaign promise.Gail: Well, I guess it’s a case of what ought to be versus what can be. But I still think there should be loan forgiveness for those who’ve spent half their lives trying to pay off a debt they were generally too young and uninformed to realize they should avoid.Really, Bret, who wants to perpetually punish people who fell for the siren call of “borrow money for your education”?Bret: In the meantime, Gail, we have Wyoming outlawing abortion pills. We’ll need to devote more time to the subject soon, but all I’ll say for now is: When the world goes to hell, it has a way of getting there fast.Gail: I’ve been thinking about Wyoming so much, Bret. Let’s go at it in depth next week. But if you hear that I was caught growling in public, you’ll know why.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      An Untold Story Behind Jimmy Carter’s Presidential Defeat

      by

      WASHINGTON — It has been more than four decades, but Ben Barnes said he remembers it vividly. His longtime political mentor invited him on a mission to the Middle East. What Mr. Barnes said he did not realize until later was the real purpose of the mission: to sabotage the re-election campaign of the president of the United States.It was 1980 and Jimmy Carter was in the White House, bedeviled by a hostage crisis in Iran that had paralyzed his presidency and hampered his effort to win a second term. Mr. Carter’s best chance for victory was to free the 52 Americans held captive before Election Day. That was something that Mr. Barnes said his mentor was determined to prevent.His mentor was John B. Connally Jr., a titan of American politics and former Texas governor who had served three presidents and just lost his own bid for the White House. A former Democrat, Mr. Connally had sought the Republican nomination in 1980 only to be swamped by former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California. Now Mr. Connally resolved to help Mr. Reagan beat Mr. Carter and in the process, Mr. Barnes said, make his own case for becoming secretary of state or defense in a new administration.The hostage crisis in Iran hampered Mr. Carter’s effort to win a second term.Associated PressWhat happened next Mr. Barnes has largely kept secret for nearly 43 years. Mr. Connally, he said, took him to one Middle Eastern capital after another that summer, meeting with a host of regional leaders to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal.Then shortly after returning home, Mr. Barnes said, Mr. Connally reported to William J. Casey, the chairman of Mr. Reagan’s campaign and later director of the Central Intelligence Agency, briefing him about the trip in an airport lounge.Mr. Carter’s camp has long suspected that Mr. Casey or someone else in Mr. Reagan’s orbit sought to secretly torpedo efforts to liberate the hostages before the election, and books have been written on what came to be called the October surprise. But congressional investigations debunked previous theories of what happened.William J. Casey, left, went on to become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Reagan administration.Getty ImagesMr. Connally did not figure in those investigations. His involvement, as described by Mr. Barnes, adds a new understanding to what may have happened in that hard-fought, pivotal election year. With Mr. Carter now 98 and in hospice care, Mr. Barnes said he felt compelled to come forward to correct the record.“History needs to know that this happened,” Mr. Barnes, who turns 85 next month, said in one of several interviews, his first with a news organization about the episode. “I think it’s so significant and I guess knowing that the end is near for President Carter put it on my mind more and more and more. I just feel like we’ve got to get it down some way.”Mr. Barnes is no shady foreign arms dealer with questionable credibility, like some of the characters who fueled previous iterations of the October surprise theory. He was once one of the most prominent figures in Texas, the youngest speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and later lieutenant governor. He was such an influential figure that he helped a young George W. Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard rather than be exposed to the draft and sent to Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson predicted that Mr. Barnes would become president someday.Confirming Mr. Barnes’s account is problematic after so much time. Mr. Connally, Mr. Casey and other central figures have long since died and Mr. Barnes has no diaries or memos to corroborate his account. But he has no obvious reason to make up the story and indeed expressed trepidation at going public because of the reaction of fellow Democrats.Mr. Barnes, right, with President Lyndon B. Johnson. Records at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum in Austin confirm part of Mr. Barnes’s story. via Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential LibraryMr. Barnes identified four living people he said he had confided in over the years: Mark K. Updegrove, president of the L.B.J. Foundation; Tom Johnson, a former aide to Lyndon Johnson (no relation) who later became publisher of the Los Angeles Times and president of CNN; Larry Temple, a former aide to Mr. Connally and Lyndon Johnson; and H.W. Brands, a University of Texas historian.All four of them confirmed in recent days that Mr. Barnes shared the story with them years ago. “As far as I know, Ben never has lied to me,” Tom Johnson said, a sentiment the others echoed. Mr. Brands included three paragraphs about Mr. Barnes’s recollections in a 2015 biography of Mr. Reagan, but the account generated little public notice at the time.Records at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum confirm part of Mr. Barnes’s story. An itinerary found this past week in Mr. Connally’s files indicated that he did, in fact, leave Houston on July 18, 1980, for a trip that would take him to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel before returning to Houston on Aug. 11. Mr. Barnes was listed as accompanying him.Brief news accounts at the time reported on some of Mr. Connally’s stops with scant detail, describing the trip as “strictly private.” An intriguing note in Mr. Connally’s file confirms Mr. Barnes’s memory that there was contact with the Reagan camp early in the trip. Under the heading “Governor Reagan,” a note from an assistant reported to Mr. Connally on July 21: “Nancy Reagan called — they are at Ranch he wants to talk to you about being in on strategy meetings.” There was no record of his response.Mr. Barnes recalled joining Mr. Connally in early September to sit down with Mr. Casey to report on their trip during a three-hour meeting in the American Airlines lounge at what was then called the Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport. An entry in Mr. Connally’s calendar found this past week showed that he traveled to Dallas on Sept. 10. A search of Mr. Casey’s archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University turned up no documents indicating whether he was in Dallas then or not.Mr. Barnes said he was certain the point of Mr. Connally’s trip was to get a message to the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election. “I’ll go to my grave believing that it was the purpose of the trip,” he said. “It wasn’t freelancing because Casey was so interested in hearing as soon as we got back to the United States.” Mr. Casey, he added, wanted to know whether “they were going to hold the hostages.”None of that establishes whether Mr. Reagan knew about the trip, nor could Mr. Barnes say that Mr. Casey directed Mr. Connally to take the journey. Likewise, he does not know if the message transmitted to multiple Middle Eastern leaders got to the Iranians, much less whether it influenced their decision making. But Iran did hold the hostages until after the election, which Mr. Reagan won, and did not release them until minutes after noon on Jan. 20, 1981, when Mr. Carter left office.Iran released the American hostages minutes after Mr. Carter left office at noon on Jan. 20, 1981.Associated PressJohn B. Connally III, the former governor’s eldest son, said in an interview on Friday that he remembered his father taking the Middle East trip but never heard about any message to Iran. While he did not join the trip, the younger Mr. Connally said he accompanied his father to a meeting with Mr. Reagan to discuss it without Mr. Barnes and the conversation centered on the Arab-Israeli conflict and other issues the next president would confront.“No mention was made in any meeting I was in about any message being sent to the Iranians,” said Mr. Connally. “It doesn’t sound like my dad.” He added: “I can’t challenge Ben’s memory about it, but it’s not consistent with my memory of the trip.”Suspicions about the Reagan camp’s interactions with Iran circulated quietly for years until Gary Sick, a former national security aide to Mr. Carter, published a guest essay in The New York Times in April 1991 advancing the theory, followed by a book, “October Surprise,” published that November.The term “October surprise” was originally used by the Reagan camp to describe its fears that Mr. Carter would manipulate the hostage crisis to effect a release just before the election.To forestall such a scenario, Mr. Casey was alleged to have met with representatives of Iran in July and August 1980 in Madrid leading to a deal supposedly finalized in Paris in October in which a future Reagan administration would ship arms to Tehran through Israel in exchange for the hostages being held until after the election.Mr. Reagan welcomed Bruce Laingen, a former hostage in Iran, to the White House in January 1981. Mr. Laingen and 51 other Americans had been held for 444 days in Tehran.Associated PressThe House and Senate separately authorized investigations and both ultimately rejected the claims. The bipartisan House task force, led by a Democrat, Representative Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana, and controlled by Democrats 8 to 5, concluded in a consensus 968-page report that Mr. Casey was not in Madrid at the time and that stories of covert dealings were not backed by credible testimony, documents or intelligence reports.Still, a White House memo produced in November 1991 by a lawyer for President George H.W. Bush reported the existence of “a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown.” That memo was not turned over to Mr. Hamilton’s task force and was discovered two decades later by Robert Parry, a journalist who helped produce a “Frontline” documentary on the October surprise.Reached by telephone this past week, Mr. Sick said he never heard of any involvement by Mr. Connally but saw Mr. Barnes’s account as verifying the broad concerns he had raised. “This is really very interesting and it really does add significantly to the base level of information on this,” Mr. Sick said. “Just the fact that he was doing it and debriefed Casey when he got back means a lot.” The story goes “further than anything that I’ve seen thus far,” he added. “So this is really new.”Michael F. Zeldin, a Democratic lawyer for the task force, and David H. Laufman, a Republican lawyer for the task force, both said in recent interviews that Mr. Connally never crossed their radar screen during the inquiry and so they had no basis to judge Mr. Barnes’s account.While Mr. Casey was never proved to have been engaged in any October surprise deal-making, he was later accused of surreptitiously obtaining a Carter campaign briefing book before the lone debate between the two candidates, although he denied involvement.Mr. Carter meeting with Gary Sick, a national security aide, in the Oval Office. Mr. Sick advanced a theory after Mr. Carter’s loss that a Reagan ally had brokered a deal with Iran for the hostages’ post-election release in exchange for arms.Associated PressNews of Mr. Barnes’s account came as validation to some of Mr. Carter’s remaining advisers. Gerald Rafshoon, who was his White House communications director, said any interference may have changed history. “If we had gotten the hostages home, we’d have won, I really believe that,” he said. “It’s pretty damn outrageous.”Mr. Connally was a political giant of his era. Raised on a South Texas cotton farm, he served in the Navy in World War II and became a confidant of Lyndon B. Johnson, helping run five of his campaigns, including his disputed 1948 election to the Senate that was marred by credible allegations of fraud. Mr. Connally managed Mr. Johnson’s unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960, then worked for the ticket of John F. Kennedy and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Connally was rewarded with an appointment as secretary of the Navy. He then won a race for governor of Texas in 1962.He was in the presidential limousine sitting just in front of Mr. Kennedy in Dallas in November 1963 when Lee Harvey Oswald opened fire. Mr. Connally suffered injuries to his back, chest, wrist and thigh, but unlike Mr. Kennedy survived the ordeal. He won two more terms as governor, then became President Richard M. Nixon’s secretary of the Treasury and ultimately switched parties. He was a favorite of Mr. Nixon, who wanted to make him his vice president or successor as president.Mr. Connally was indicted on charges of perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice in 1974, accused by prosecutors of taking $10,000 to support a milk price increase, but acquitted by a jury.Along the way, Mr. Connally found a political protégé in Mr. Barnes, who became “more a godson than a friend,” as James Reston Jr. put it in “The Lone Star,” his biography of Mr. Connally. The son of a peanut farmer who paid for college selling vacuum cleaners door to door, Mr. Barnes was elected to the Texas Legislature at age 21 and stood at Mr. Connally’s side for his first speech as a candidate for governor in 1962.Mr. Barnes said he and John B. Connally Jr. met with leaders across the Middle East — though not Iran — to thwart the release of the hostages until after the presidential election.Associated PressWith Mr. Connally’s help, Mr. Barnes became House speaker at 26 and was later elected lieutenant governor, a powerful position in Texas, only to fall short in his own bid for governor in 1972. He urged Mr. Connally to run for president in 1980 even though by then they were in different parties.After Mr. Connally’s campaign collapsed, he and Mr. Barnes went into business together, forming Barnes/Connally Investments. The two built apartment complexes, shopping centers and office buildings, and bought a commuter airline and an oil company, and later a barbecue house, a Western art magazine, a title company and an advertising company. But they overextended themselves, took on too much debt and, after falling oil prices shattered the Texas real estate market, filed for bankruptcy in 1987.The two stayed on good terms. “In spite of the disillusionment of our business arrangements, Ben Barnes and I remain friends, although I doubt that either of us would go back into business with the other,” Mr. Connally wrote in his memoir, “In History’s Shadow,” shortly before dying in 1993 at age 76. Mr. Barnes, for his part, said this past week that “I remain a great fan of him.”Mr. Barnes said he had no idea of the purpose of the Middle East trip when Mr. Connally invited him. They traveled to the region on a Gulfstream jet owned by Superior Oil. Only when they sat down with the first Arab leader did Mr. Barnes learn what Mr. Connally was up to, he said.Mr. Connally said, “‘Look, Ronald Reagan’s going to be elected president and you need to get the word to Iran that they’re going to make a better deal with Reagan than they are Carter,’” Mr. Barnes recalled. “He said, ‘It would be very smart for you to pass the word to the Iranians to wait until after this general election is over.’ And boy, I tell you, I’m sitting there and I heard it and so now it dawns on me, I realize why we’re there.”Mr. Barnes said that, except for Israel, Mr. Connally repeated the same message at every stop in the region to leaders such as President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt. He thought his friend’s motive was clear. “It became very clear to me that Connally was running for secretary of state or secretary of defense,” Mr. Barnes said. (Mr. Connally was later offered energy secretary but declined.)From left, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Connally and President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt. Mr. Barnes said Mr. Connally promoted Mr. Reagan to every leader they met on their trip.via Ben BarnesMr. Barnes said he did not reveal the real story at the time to avoid blowback from his own party. “I don’t want to look like Benedict Arnold to the Democratic Party by participating in this,” he recalled explaining to a friend. The headlines at the time, he imagined, would have been scandalous. “I did not want that to be on my obituary at all.”But as the years have passed, he said, he has often thought an injustice had been done to Mr. Carter. Discussing the trip now, he indicated, was his way of making amends. “I just want history to reflect that Carter got a little bit of a bad deal about the hostages,” he said. “He didn’t have a fighting chance with those hostages still in the embassy in Iran.” More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis’s Ukraine Stance Angers G.O.P. Hawks

      by

      The Florida governor, who joined Donald Trump in declaring that defending Ukraine from Russia was not a vital interest, drew swift condemnations from establishment Republicans.Declaring this week that defending Ukraine against Russia’s invasion was not a vital interest for the United States, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida cemented a Republican shift away from hawkish foreign policy that has played out over the past decade and accelerated with Donald J. Trump’s political rise.Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis — whose combined support makes up more than 75 percent of Republican primary voters in the nascent 2024 presidential contest — are now largely aligned on Ukraine, signaling a sharp break from the interventionist approach that drove former President George W. Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.Republican foreign policy hawks recoiled at Mr. DeSantis’s statement on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News on Monday night, in which the governor deviated from the position held by most of the Republican establishment on Capitol Hill, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader. Mr. McConnell and other top congressional Republicans have framed the invasion by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a fight to defend the post-World War II international security framework.“DeSantis is wrong and seems to have forgotten the lessons of Ronald Reagan,” said former Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who led the House select committee investigating Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.“This is not ‘a territorial dispute,’” she said in a statement, echoing Mr. DeSantis’s phrasing. “The Ukrainian people are fighting for their freedom. Surrendering to Putin and refusing to defend freedom makes America less safe.”She went on: “Weakness is provocative and American officials who advocate this type of weakness are Putin’s greatest weapon. Abandoning Ukraine would make broader conflict, including with China and other American adversaries, more likely.”Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in an interview on Tuesday morning that he “could not disagree more” with Mr. DeSantis’s characterization of the stakes attached to the defense of Ukraine.“The Neville Chamberlain approach to aggression never ends well,” said Mr. Graham, comparing Mr. DeSantis to the British prime minister who appeased Adolf Hitler. “This is an attempt by Putin to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms.”Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also took issue with Mr. DeSantis’s comments — a significant rebuke from the senior Republican in Mr. DeSantis’s home state.“I don’t know what he’s trying to do or what the goal is,” Mr. Rubio, a former presidential candidate, told the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.And Senator John Cornyn of Texas told Politico he was “disturbed” by Mr. DeSantis’s comments.Mr. Trump has long made his views on foreign intervention clear, railing against the Iraq war in his 2016 campaign, but Mr. DeSantis had sought to avoid being pinned down on one of the most important foreign policy questions facing the prospective Republican presidential field.His choice of words, describing the conflict as a “territorial dispute,” was telling. By referring to Russia’s unprovoked invasion that way, he dismissed the argument that Mr. Putin’s aggression threatened the postwar international order. Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Trump have unequivocally rejected the idea that the conflict is a war to defend “freedom,” a position espoused by two of their potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, former Vice President Mike Pence and Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador.Mr. DeSantis left himself some wiggle room in his statement, which came in response to a questionnaire that Mr. Carlson had sent to all of the major prospective Republican presidential candidates. The governor did not promise to end all U.S. aid to Ukraine — an omission noticed by some hard-line opponents of support for Ukraine, who criticized Mr. DeSantis for leaving open the possibility that he would keep up the flow of American assistance.Leading congressional Republicans have framed the Russian invasion as a fight to defend the post-World War II international security framework.Daniel Berehulak/The New York TimesYet by downplaying the stakes of the conflict to the extent he did, Mr. DeSantis angered many Republicans in the foreign policy establishment who said he had talked himself into a corner. Even if he were to change his mind about Ukraine, how would a President DeSantis rally the public and Congress to send billions of dollars and high-tech weapons for a mere “territorial dispute” of no vital interest to America?Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, said that the remarks were “a naïve and complete misunderstanding of the historical context of what’s going on,” and that authoritarians would fill the void if the U.S. retreated from global leadership.Charles Kupperman, who served under John R. Bolton as a deputy national security adviser in the Trump administration, said Mr. DeSantis had shown “a very poor understanding of our national security interests,” adding, “I’m surprised he’s gone so far so fast.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.It was unclear who, if anyone, helped Mr. DeSantis write the statement.Ms. Haley, one of the three major Republicans who have announced a 2024 campaign, released her response to Mr. Carlson on Tuesday, offering an unequivocal “yes” to the question of whether stopping Russia was of vital interest to the U.S.“America is far better off with a Ukrainian victory than a Russian victory, including avoiding a wider war,” she said. “If Russia wins, there is no reason to believe it will stop at Ukraine.”“History has shown us that telling the enemy what you won’t do leads to more aggression, not less,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in an interview on Tuesday. Julia Nikhinson for The New York TimesConservatives who want the United States to shift its focus away from Europe to focus on combating China were delighted by Mr. DeSantis’s statement.“Americans desperately need a foreign policy that understands what’s really in their interests and pursues those interests strategically and realistically in a dangerous world,” said Elbridge Colby, a former senior official at the Defense Department who recently briefed Senate Republicans on China policy.“That’s clearly the approach Governor DeSantis laid out in his response to Tucker Carlson,” Mr. Colby added. “He prioritized the top threats to America, such as China and narcotics streaming over the border, rightly seeing Ukraine as a distraction from these top challenges, while also rejecting the Wilsonian radicalism that has led us to disaster before and would be catastrophic if pursued today.”And there is a sharp divide between elite Republican opinion and the views of party voters. While many top Republicans were outraged by Mr. DeSantis’s statement, he and Mr. Trump stand closer to the average G.O.P. voter than Republicans like Mr. McConnell who are urging Mr. Biden to do more to support Ukraine.A January poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters thought the U.S. was giving too much support to Ukraine. Only 17 percent thought the U.S. was not doing enough.Conservative interventionists had held out hope that Mr. DeSantis would split with Mr. Trump on Ukraine policy. Mr. DeSantis spooked them late last month when he suggested on Fox News that he was not committed to defending Ukraine.But Mr. DeSantis’s comments in that interview were brief and vague enough for these conservatives to stay hopeful that he would end up on their side. They searched for positive signs, finding solace in Mr. DeSantis’s record in Congress. In 2014 and 2015, after Mr. Putin annexed Crimea from Ukraine, Mr. DeSantis criticized President Barack Obama as not doing enough to support Ukraine. In Florida, Mr. DeSantis recently hosted the historian William Inboden, the author of a recent book about President Ronald Reagan’s efforts during the Cold War, to exchange thoughts about foreign policy, according to two people familiar with the meeting.Dr. Inboden and an associate did not respond to emails seeking comment. An aide to Mr. DeSantis did not respond to a request for comment.Several hawks went into overdrive as they tried to lobby Mr. DeSantis. Kimberley A. Strassel, the Wall Street Journal columnist, urged him not to join what she called Mr. Trump’s “G.O.P. surrender caucus.”“The governor has an opportunity to contrast a bold, well-thought-out foreign policy with Mr. Trump’s opaque retreatism,” Ms. Strassel wrote.But pro-Ukraine Republicans who had observed Mr. DeSantis closely had more reasons to be alarmed. They were unsettled by his ties to the Claremont Institute, an influential conservative think tank that promotes foreign policy views broadly aligned with Mr. Trump’s. On Monday night, only the most optimistic interventionists could have still been hopeful that Mr. DeSantis would end up on their side. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Your Wednesday Briefing: A Downed U.S. Drone

      by

      Also, U.S. markets seem to stabilize and Xi Jinping tightens his control over China’s economy.The U.S. aircraft was an MQ-9 surveillance drone.Fabrizio Villa/Getty ImagesA downed droneA Russian fighter jet struck a U.S. surveillance drone over the Black Sea, U.S. officials said, hitting its propeller and causing its loss in international waters. Russia denied that there had been a collision, saying the drone’s own maneuvers caused it to crash.If a collision is confirmed, it would be the first known physical contact between the two nations’ militaries as a result of the war in Ukraine.U.S. officials said the drone’s operators brought the craft down in the Black Sea after the collision, which the U.S. military said was the result of “reckless” actions by Russian pilots. The U.S. aircraft was conducting “routine operations in international airspace,” an Air Force general said.A White House spokesman said that there had been similar “intercepts” by Russian aircraft in recent weeks, calling them “not an uncommon occurrence,” but that this was the first to result “in the splashing of one of our drones.” He called the behavior of the Russians “unsafe and unprofessional.” Context: Russia’s invasion has turned the Black Sea, which is dominated by the Russian Navy, into a battle zone. Ukraine has attacked Russian naval vessels there, most notably in April, when a Ukrainian missile sank the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.Response: The State Department summoned Russia’s ambassador in Washington to receive the U.S.’s formal objection over the drone downing.Other updates:Russia pounded towns in the southern Kherson region, Ukrainian officials said, as Ukraine prepared for a counteroffensive.Russia said it would extend a deal allowing Ukraine to export grain, but only for 60 days rather than the 120 sought by Ukraine.Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner private military company, said his force would recede after the battle for Bakhmut. The shift coincides with speculation about Prigozhin’s political ambitions.Stocks jumped a day after the turmoil.Justin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockU.S. economy seems to stabilizeMarkets closed up yesterday, after investors seemed to shrug off the recent collapse of two midsize banks and the threat of a crisis appeared to wane. Fresh inflation data, largely in line with expectations, also added to the sense of relief.Stocks: The S&P 500 jumped 1.7 percent yesterday. Midsize banking stocks, which had plummeted on Monday, rebounded.Banks: The Justice Department opened an investigation into the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, my colleagues report.Inflation: It eased to 6 percent on an annual basis, which matched an expected slowdown. But in February inflation rose over the prior month.Now, all eyes are on the Federal Reserve.Some of the inflation details were worrying, including the costs of housing and other goods and services. Generally, that would indicate that the Fed would keep raising rates in hopes of cooling down the economy.But higher interest rates raise costs for companies, and were at the root of the banking stress. Fewer or smaller rate increases could help stocks to rebound after the deep uncertainty set off by the banking crisis.In other business news: Meta will lay off another 10,000 people, roughly 13 percent of its workforce.Xi Jinping was elected to a third term as China’s president on Friday.Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesXi reins in the economyXi Jinping is dealing with China’s economic problems the same way that he has approached issues for most of his decade in power: by getting the Communist Party more involved.At the annual gathering of China’s national legislature, which ended Monday, Xi introduced a series of sweeping changes to the regulatory framework that would allow the party to assert more direct control over financial policy and bank regulation.China’s economy, which is growing near its slowest pace in decades, is teetering from a real estate sector in crisis. Xi needs bankers to comply with his vision and allocate capital in the ways that China wants its money spent, without jeopardizing the financial system.Heads are already starting to roll. Last month, Tian Huiyu, the former head of one of China’s biggest commercial lenders, was charged with abuse of power and insider trading. And Bao Fan, a prominent investment banker, vanished.Challenges: The financial sector is struggling to respond to the shaky balance sheets of local governments — overrun with debt after paying for “zero Covid” policies — and banks that lend to them.Related: China will start issuing visas to foreign tourists again today, Reuters reports.Analysis: On “The Ezra Klein Show,” Dan Wang, an expert on U.S.-China competition, explores how China’s growth trajectory halted.THE LATEST NEWSAround the WorldThe three leaders described the naval partnership as a critical way to confront China. Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesThe leaders of the U.S., Britain and Australia unveiled plans to develop a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, part of an effort to counter China.Major protests are expected in France today before both houses of Parliament vote tomorrow on President Emmanuel Macron’s pension reform.The 2026 World Cup will have 48 teams, up from the current 32, and 24 more games.Other Big StoriesCyclone Freddy, a record-breaking storm, killed nearly 200 people in Malawi.A multibillion-dollar oil project led by French and Chinese companies in Uganda and Tanzania could threaten pristine habitats and Lake Victoria, a source of freshwater for 40 million people.In Antakya, a Turkish city hit hard by the earthquake, the damage is so profound that officials estimate that 80 percent of the remaining buildings will need to be demolished.A Morning Read Julio Sosa/The Daily PennsylvanianAmy Wax, a tenured law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has said publicly that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites” and that the U.S. is “better off with fewer Asians.”The university is now grappling with a conundrum: Is she exercising her right to free speech, or should she be fired?Lives lived: Dr. Jiang Yanyong, who helped expose China’s SARS crisis in 2003, was celebrated as a hero, then punished for denouncing the Tiananmen Square crackdown. He died at 91.Masatoshi Ito introduced the American convenience store 7-Eleven to Japan, starting a retail revolution there. He died at 98.ARTS AND IDEASA new chatbotOpenAI unveiled an update to ChatGPT, its revolutionary chatbot, just four months after the program stunned the tech world with its ability to answer complex questions and mimic human emotions. The update, called GPT-4, ups the ante in the lucrative AI arms race.My colleagues tested GPT-4. It’s more precise, but it has a few of the old quirks.Developments: It can achieve impressive scores on standardized tests like the SAT, summarize complex news articles and wow doctors with its medical advice. It can answer questions about images; for example, if it’s given a photo of the inside of a fridge, it can suggest recipes based on what’s inside. Its jokes are almost funny.Challenges: GPT-4 still makes things up, a problem that researchers call “hallucination.” It can’t really talk about the future.“Though it’s an awfully good test taker,” my colleagues write, GPT-4 “is not on the verge of matching human intelligence.”Society: Chatbots are shifting the way we learn and work. But even the most impressive systems tend to complement, not replace, skilled workers. Morgan Stanley Wealth Management is building a system that will serve information from company documents to financial advisers.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookMelina Hammer for The New York TimesStart brining your homemade corned beef so it’s ready for St. Patrick’s Day this Friday.What to ReadIn “Y/N,” a bored young woman in thrall to a K-pop band buys a one-way ticket to Seoul.What to WatchIn “Punch,” by the New Zealand writer-director Welby Ings, a young boxer befriends a queer outcast and shifts his priorities.RelationshipsHow to make friends as an introvert.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Gossip (three letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. Paul Sonne, who has covered national security for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, is our newest Russia correspondent.“The Daily” is on the Silicon Valley Bank collapse.Send us your feedback. You can reach us at briefing@nytimes.com. More