World news
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Ivanka Trump quizzed as part of inauguration fund lawsuit
Ivanka Trump was interviewed by attorneys alleging that Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration committee misused donor funds, a new court filing reveals.The document, first reported by CNN on Wednesday, shows that Ivanka Trump, the president’s oldest daughter and a senior White House adviser, was interviewed on Tuesday by attorneys from the Washington, DC, attorney general’s office.The office has filed a lawsuit alleging waste of the nonprofit’s funds, accusing the committee of making more than $1m (£746,000) in improper payments to the president’s Washington, DC, hotel during the week of the inauguration in 2017.As part of the suit, they have subpoenaed records from Ivanka Trump; the first lady, Melania Trump; Thomas Barrack Jr, a close friend of the president who chaired the inaugural committee, and others. Barrack was also interviewed last month.Trump’s inaugural committee spent more than $1m to book a ballroom at the Trump International Hotel in the nation’s capital as part of a scheme to “grossly overpay” for party space and enrich the president’s own family in the process, the District of Columbia’s attorney general, Karl Racine, alleges.He has accused the committee of misusing nonprofit funds and coordinating with the hotel’s management and members of the Trump family to arrange the events.“District law requires nonprofits to use their funds for their stated public purpose, not to benefit private individuals or companies,” Racine has said. “In this case, we are seeking to recover the nonprofit funds that were improperly funnelled directly to the Trump family business.”The committee raised an unprecedented $107m to host events celebrating Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, but its spending has drawn continued scrutiny.In a statement, Alan Garten, from the Trump Organization, said that “Ms Trump’s only involvement was connecting the parties and instructing the hotel to charge a ‘fair market rate,’ which the hotel did.” More
The Road Leading to the India-China Standoff
The reason for the China-India standoff in the Galwan Valley may not be the oft-mentioned construction of the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldie (DSDBO) road. The new thoroughfare improved Indian logistics in the Ladakh area, meaning that supplies and troops can be deployed with far greater speed. While the DSDBO might have irked China, Beijing has deeper …
Continue Reading “The Road Leading to the India-China Standoff”
The post The Road Leading to the India-China Standoff appeared first on Fair Observer. More- in US Politics
Donald Trump suggests 2024 presidential bid: 'I'll see you in four years'
Donald Trump has floated the idea of running for president again in 2024 at a holiday reception at the White House on Tuesday evening.“It’s been an amazing four years,” Trump told the crowd, which included many Republican National Committee members. “We’re trying to do another four years. Otherwise, I’ll see you in four years.”Trump’s comments appeared to acknowledge that he thought he could have lost the election. While speculation about a presidential run in 2024 has been rife, and many US politics watchers expect him to declare a bid soon, he has not spoken publicly about it before.The video was streamed live on Facebook by one attendee of the party, Pam Pollard, who is national committee member for the Oklahoma GOP. The footage showed dozens of people crammed into the Cross Hall of the White House state floor, standing closely together. Many seen in the video were not wearing masks. Coughing could be heard.The Trumps began hosting holiday receptions this week, intent on celebrating a final season before Trump leaves office on 20 January. Trump has not formally conceded, but belatedly allowed the transition to Biden to proceed.According to social media postings reviewed by The Associated Press, the White House Christmas events have featured large crowds of often maskless attendees gathered indoors – violating the very public health guidance the US government has pressed the nation to follow this holiday season as cases of Covid-19 skyrocketed across the country.The White House has been the site of at least one suspected Covid-19 super-spreader event, and dozens of the president’s aides, campaign staffers and allies have tested positive in numerous outbreaks. Trump himself was hospitalized for the virus in October, and the first lady and two of his sons have tested positive. Numerous others have had to quarantine.Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s spokeswoman and chief of staff, had said last month that the White House would be moving forward with events, “while providing the safest environment possible.” She said that would include smaller guest lists, that “masks will be required and available, social distancing encouraged while on the White House grounds, and hand sanitizer stations throughout the State Floor.”“Attending the parties will be a very personal choice,” she added.The video of Trump discussing the 2024 election emerged as he threatened to veto the $740bn National Defense Authorization Act unless it included a measure eliminating a federal law protecting tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter.“If the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk,” Trump tweeted late on Tuesday.Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects tech companies from liability over content posted by users, and has been under attack from Trump and Republican lawmakers, who have criticized internet platforms’ content moderation decisions and accused them of stifling conservative voices.The sweeping NDAA sets policy for the Department of Defense. It has been passed for six decades, one of the few major pieces of legislation seen as a “must-pass” because it governs everything from pay raises for the troops to how many aircraft should be purchased or how best to compete with rivals like Russia and China.Congressional aides expressed skepticism Trump would actually veto the legislation. Democrats won’t agree to repealing 230 because the 24-year-old law provides a vital protection to social media companies.With Associated Press and Reuters More
- in US Politics
UK and US lock in behind Australia in China row
The British government has vowed to stand with Australia to “protect our key interests and values” and push back at “disinformation” amid a deepening rift in Canberra’s relationship with Beijing.The American ambassador to Australia also accused a Chinese foreign ministry official of spreading “disinformation through fabricated images and disingenuous statements” about Australia.The United Kingdom and the United States are the latest countries to speak out in support of Australia, after France and New Zealand criticised China over an official tweeting a digitally-created image depicting an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child in Afghanistan.China has accused Australia of overreacting to the tweet and hyping the issue for domestic political purposes.When asked about the tweeted image, a spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office told the Guardian the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, “has made clear we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with Australia to make sure that we protect our key interests and values”.“Disinformation is an issue we take extremely seriously and we will continue to coordinate closely with Australia and other international partners to ensure our citizens are protected,” the spokesperson said.The Guardian understands the British government believes that China, as a leading member of the international community, should live up to the obligations that come with that. It views the tweeted image as clearly fake and deeply concerning.When asked in the House of Commons last month about China’s escalating trade actions against Australia, Raab indicated he had regular exchanges with the Australian foreign minister, Marise Payne, and expressed “solidarity”.Raab said the UK was also working alongside Australia and the other Five Eyes partners – the US, Canada and New Zealand – on issues such as the crackdown on pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong.The US ambassador to Australia, Arthur Culvahouse, responded to questions from the Guardian by saying the Australian government had “responsibly investigated and disclosed allegations that its soldiers committed crimes in Afghanistan”.“The world can only wish that the Chinese Communist party were to bring the same degree of transparency and accountability to credible reports of atrocities against the Uighurs in Xinjiang,” Culvahouse, who was appointed by Donald Trump, said in an emailed statement on Wednesday.Those sentiments were backed by the US State Department’s deputy spokesperson, Cale Brown, who described the Afghanistan tweet as “a new low, even for the Chinese Communist party”.The CCP’s latest attack on Australia is another example of its unchecked use of disinformation and coercive diplomacy. Its hypocrisy is obvious to all. While it doctors images on @Twitter to attack other nations, the CCP prevents its own citizens from reading their posts.— Cale Brown (@StateDeputySPOX) December 2, 2020
The Florida senator Marco Rubio wrote to the chief executive of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, to ask why the tweet had not been taken down. A Twitter spokesperson has previously said the image contained within the tweet had been “marked as sensitive media”, meaning it is hidden behind a warning message by default.On Tuesday, Scott Morrison turned to the popular Chinese social media platform WeChat to reach out to the Chinese Australian community.The prime minister sought to make clear that the escalating tensions between the two governments – which led last week to the imposition of hefty tariffs on Australian wine – were not a reflection on Chinese Australians.Morrison wrote that “the post of a false image of an Australian soldier does not diminish our respect for and appreciation of our Chinese Australian community or indeed our friendship with the people of China”.The prime minister said the “difficult issues” that had arisen in the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force’s report into alleged war crimes by special forces soldiers in Afghanistan were being dealt with in a “transparent and honest way”.Earlier this week, when he demanded an apology from the Chinese government over the tweet by Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, Morrison said the dispute was broader than just the two countries, and that other nations were watching.Zhao’s tweet seized on the findings of a recent report from a four-year official investigation into the conduct of Australian special forces soldiers in Afghanistan, known as the Brereton report.Another Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, held up the front page of the Brereton report at Tuesday’s regular press briefing in Beijing as she declared that the “computer-generated graphic” was not a case of disinformation.“The Australian side … is under immense criticism and condemnation from the international community for the ruthless killing of Afghan innocents by some of its soldiers, but the Australian side wants to turn that into a tough-on-China position,” Hua said.The Chinese embassy in Canberra urged the Australian government to “face up to the crux of the current setback of bilateral relationship and take constructive practical steps to help bring it back to the right track”.“The rage and roar of some Australian politicians and media is nothing but misreading of and overreaction to Mr Zhao’s tweet,” an embassy spokesperson said.The former senior Australian foreign affairs official Richard Maude told the Guardian on Tuesday there was no end in sight to the rift in the relationship with Beijing, and it was a “pretty lonely and tough battle for a middle power to be in on its own”.“What we really need is enough countries to be willing to publicly take a stand,” Maude said.Australia and China have been at odds over a number of issues over the past few years, including the Turnbull government’s decision to exclude Chinese telcos Huawei and ZTE from Australia’s 5G network and its introduction of foreign interference laws that were seen as targeting China’s activities.But the relationship deteriorated sharply in April when the Morrison government issued an early call for an independent international inquiry into the origin and handling of Covid-19 and floated the idea of international weapons inspector-style powers for pandemic investigations.It triggered a furious reaction from Beijing, which has subsequently taken trade actions against a range of Australian exports including barley, red meat and wine, citing technical grounds. More Why Is Foreign Investment Flooding Into India?
For years, India suffered from what came to be called the “Hindu rate of growth” — a result of Jawaharlal Nehru’s policy choices. India’s first prime minister had a fascination for the Soviet Union and championed socialism. In India, this socialist economic model was incongruously implemented by a colonial bureaucracy with a penchant for red tape.
Consequently, the license, quota and permit raj, a system in which bureaucrats commanded and controlled the Indian economy through byzantine regulations, throttled growth for decades. Once the Soviet model started collapsing in 1989, the Indian economy came under increasing pressure. A balance-of-payments crisis led to the 1991 economic reforms. Thereafter, India consistently grew at a rate of more than 5% per year until 2019.
What Ails Corporate Governance in India?
READ MORE
During the COVID-19 pandemic, that growth has stalled. In the first quarter of India’s financial year that begins on April 1, the economy shrunk by a record 24%. Forecasts estimate that it will shrink further, although the rate of the contraction will decelerate considerably over the next two quarters. This contraction has left little elbow room for a government fixated on redistributive policies and fiscal restraint. This fixation is a hangover from the past.
Historically, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been more market-friendly than other political parties. In fact, the BJP broke new ground in the early 2000s by targeting and achieving a growth rate in excess of 8% when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was prime minister. Despite such high growth, the BJP lost the 2004 election.
Foreign Investment Hits Record Figures
The BJP has not forgotten Vajpayee’s defeat. In particular, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a key lesson and focused on providing services to the masses. As a result, the government has focused on redistribution and taxation. It has put growth on a backburner. In 2018, the Modi government embarked upon what these authors termed Sanatan socialism, a policy that courts the poor with financial transfers and private provision of services. This strategy was vindicated by a resounding electoral victory in 2019.
Today, COVID-19 is posing fresh challenges to the economy and to the Sanatan socialism policy. The growth slowdown in India is greater than in other emerging economies. The opposition has upped the ante and is blaming the government. Some business leaders are questioning the government’s lockdown strategy. This puts the BJP on the defensive regarding the economy.
Yet even during such a growth shock, foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI) have been pouring into India. Surprisingly, the FDI has hit record figures. In the first five months of this financial year, $35.7 billion has come into India. The FPI figures are also at an all-time high. In November, foreign investors plowed $6 billion into Indian capital markets, beating figures for Taiwan and South Korea. What is going on?
.custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
.custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
.custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
.custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
.custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
.custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
-webkit-user-select: none;
-moz-user-select: none;
-ms-user-select: none;
user-select: none;
order: 1;
color: #ffffff;
font-weight: normal;}
.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
.custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
.custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}Three key facts explain this inflow. First, corporations from the US and the Gulf have bought big stakes in Reliance Industries, India’s biggest conglomerate. They are also buying shares in Indian companies. In effect, they are betting on future growth.
Second, the Performance Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme has gained some traction. The purpose of the PLI is to boost electronic manufacturing in the country. So far, India has been too dependent on China. Current tensions along the border have led India to change tack and give financial incentives to companies who manufacture in-house. Players like Samsung, Pegatron, Foxconn, Wistron and AT&S have responded well to the PLI.
Third, global corporations might be diversifying their supply chains to mitigate the risk of manufacturing exclusively or mainly in China. This strategy to tap alternative supply chains to China is widely known as China Plus One, and India might be benefiting from it.
Modi has doubled down on an advantageous situation. Sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and organizations with over $6 trillion of assets under management attended a summit organized by the prime minister in the first week of November. In addition to Modi, India’s business leaders such as Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries Limited, Ratan Tata of the Tata Group and Deepak Parekh of Housing Development Finance Corporation pitched to these investors. More foreign investment might follow soon.
What Lies Ahead?
If investment is flowing in, what are its implications for the Indian economy? First, India will experience a growth spurt within three to four quarters from now. In recent years, private investment has been weak because of a banking crisis. Indian banks lent large sums to big borrowers who had no intention or ability to pay back their debts. This meant that they had no money or appetite to lend to bona fide businesses. A credit crunch ensued, investment suffered and so did growth. Increased FDI will reverse this trend and fuel growth by restoring investment.
Second, India will experience job growth thanks to higher FDI. The entrance of new players and the revitalization of older ones will increase employment. The government has already instituted major labor market reforms to encourage manufacturing and other labor-intensive activities.
Third, increased employment could boost domestic demand, raising growth rates. These might materialize by the 2022-23 financial year, just in time for the next general election. The FDI flowing in right now might be boosting the BJP’s 2024 reelection chances.
Finally, the record FDI is giving the Modi administration a leeway to achieve geopolitical goals. With cash coming in from friendly economies, the government is limiting economic engagement with nations hostile to India, especially in core sectors such as power, telecommunications and roads. Aimed largely at Chinese and probably Turkish entities, the move could benefit European, American and East Asian companies from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
India’s new economic direction reflects the seismic shift in the global economy. The post-1991 era is over. As during the Cold War, countries are now mixing politics and business again.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
- in US Politics
Giuliani and Trump reported to have discussed 'pre-emptive pardon'
[embedded content]
Donald Trump and Rudy Giulani discussed as recently as last week the possibility of a “pre-emptive pardon”, the New York Times reported.
A spokeswoman for the president’s personal attorney, Christianne Allen, told the Times: “Mayor Giuliani cannot comment on any discussions that he has with his client.”
Shortly after the Times published its story, however, Giuliani tweeted a denial.
“Fake News NYT lies again,” he wrote. “Never had the discussion they falsely attribute to an anonymous source. Hard to keep up with all their lies.”
The Times cited two anonymous sources.
Presidential pardons are a common feature of the waning days of any White House term. Trump has not conceded defeat by Joe Biden but he will leave office on 20 January regardless.
Last week, the president pardoned his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with a Russian official.
Trump had already pardoned political allies including Bernard Kerik and Joe Arpaio and commuted a sentence handed to longtime ally Roger Stone. Former Trump aides Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Rick Gates are all thought to be possible pardon recipients.
Gates, a former deputy campaign chair who also worked on Trump’s inauguration, pleaded guilty to financial fraud and lying to investigators and was sentenced to 45 days’ confinement.
Last week, he told the Times Trump “knows how much those of us who worked for him have suffered, and I hope he takes that into consideration if and when he grants any pardons”.
Giuliani, a former mayor of New York, has not been convicted of any federal crime. But he has been reported to be under investigation by federal prosecutors, regarding his dealings in Ukraine and possible violations of lobbying law.
Giuliani’s own lawyer, Robert Costello, told the Times: “He’s not concerned about this investigation, because he didn’t do anything wrong and that’s been our position from day one.”
Presidential pardons pre-empting charges or conviction are extremely rare but not unknown. Jimmy Carter, for example, pardoned thousands of men who illegally avoided the draft for the Vietnam war.
Richard Nixon’s pardon from Gerald Ford after resigning over the Watergate scandal covered all his actions as president.
On Monday, conservative commentator Sean Hannity said on his radio show that Trump “needs to pardon his whole family and himself”.
Most observers think a self-pardon would be both unconstitutional and not likely to work. If Trump did try it, it would have no effect on prosecutors in New York state investigating his tax affairs and possible violations of campaign finance law.
According to the Department of Justice, presidential pardons do not signify that the recipient is innocent.
The White House did not comment on the Times report. More
