Chemical weapons deliberately against civilians in Darfur conflict, says Amnesty The attacks may constitute a war crime, the report said. Witnesses say skin became rotten and fell off in chunks after attacks. The Sudanese government has been accused of using chemical weapons against the people of Darfur, according to a report released by Amnesty International on Thursday. The attacks targeted civilians and may constitute a war crime, the report said. The Sudanese government has denied the allegations, calling them “rumors.” Amnesty says it has new evidence abuses persist in a war that has been described as one of the world’s worst humanitarian conflicts by the United Nations. Unidentified witnesses quoted in the Amnesty report said the attacks left a smoke, which turned dark blue and smelled “like rotten eggs,” coating the trees, ground, and humans in a thick black dust. Related article US lauds state sponsor of terrorism ... for fighting terrorism After exposure to the smoke, some said their skin turned white and became rotten or hardened and fell off in chunks. “When the bomb exploded I inhaled the poisonous air which I am still smelling even now,” said one witness. Some children vomited blood, the report said. Another witness said: “My youngest child was walking before the attack. Now she is only crawling.” Pictures obtained by Amnesty International show graphic images of children with large welts, peeling skin, and infected lesions. The alleged use of chemical weapons came during a large-scale offensive by the Sudanese forces and its allied groups against an armed opposition group, the Sudan Liberation Army-Abdul Wahid (SLA-AW), which operates in the Jebel Marra region. The Sudanese government accused the group of looting and attacking civilians and military vehicles prior to the January offensive. Since the Sudanese military campaign began in January, Amnesty International says up to 250 people have been killed by chemical weapons. The report alleges the Sudanese forces targeted civilians: “The overwhelming majority of the attacked villages had no formal armed opposition presence at the time of the attacks. The purpose…appears to have been to target the entire population of the village.” Chemical attacks in some regions have been taking place for eight months, including just weeks before the report’s release. Related article Global leaders at UN tackle world's worst to-do list The Sudanese government has denied allegations it had used chemical weapons against civilians, calling them “rumors.” “I don’t know from where these rumors are being said,” Sudan’s Information Minister Ahmed Bilal told CNN. Bilal acknowledged a government offensive in Jebel Marra had taken place, saying it was in response to rebel activity. “It was started by them,” Bilal said. “The rebels were doing some sort of looting, they were attacking innocent people. This has stopped. There is not an inch occupied by rebels,” Bilal said. “The whole Darfur is quite in peace and the people are very happy,” he said. Journalists and humanitarians have been prohibited from entering Jebel Marra for more than four years, making reporting extremely difficult from the region. Amnesty International claims to have evidence of the use of suspected chemical weapons in Darfur. It says two independent experts have concluded the evidence suggests exposure to blister agents.Blister agents include sulfur mustard and nitrogen mustard. Sulfur mustard has long been in use as a chemical weapon – it inflicted horrific casualties in World War I. Mustard agents inflict chemical burns on the skin, eyes and lungs, and can also affect the internal organs. Victims can be disabled as a result of exposure. It can be fatal if they come into contact with large amounts.While damage is caused to the body’s cells within minutes of contact with mustard agent, it can take hours before the full effects are felt.Symptoms can include blistering, itching or severe burning of the skin; weeping eyes, swollen eyelids or even blindness; vomiting and collapse.The effects of severe exposure can last for years.There’s no antidote for mustard agent injury.Sources: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Blister agents include sulfur mustard and nitrogen mustard. Sulfur mustard has long been in use as a chemical weapon – it inflicted horrific casualties in World War I. Mustard agents inflict chemical burns on the skin, eyes and lungs, and can also affect the internal organs. Victims can be disabled as a result of exposure. It can be fatal if they come into contact with large amounts.While damage is caused to the body’s cells within minutes of contact with mustard agent, it can take hours before the full effects are felt.Symptoms can include blistering, itching or severe burning of the skin; weeping eyes, swollen eyelids or even blindness; vomiting and collapse.The effects of severe exposure can last for years.There’s no antidote for mustard agent injury. Amnesty International had to do all reporting remotely. Collecting soil samples for confirmation was impossible. Two chemical weapons experts reviewed photographic and video evidence and both found the symptoms consistent with chemical agents such as sulfur mustard, lewisite and nitrogen mustard – or a combination. “The symptoms varied between the attacks and this tells me there were likely more than one chemical in use as well as the possibility that the chemicals were mixed or that different chemicals were used at different times for different attacks,” said Dr. Jennifer Knaack, one of the weapons experts involved in the study. The writer of the report, a senior Amnesty adviser, Jonathan Loeb calls it “by far the most substantial, credible release of evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Darfur since the conflict began.” The conflict in Darfur began around 2003 when several rebel groups in Darfur took up arms against the government in Khartoum. They had grievances over land and historical marginalization. In response, the government’s counterinsurgency strategy targeted the opposition groups but reportedly expanded to target tribes associated with the insurgents. The violence escalated into a war and the in 2008, the UN estimated that 300,000 people may have died in the Darfur conflict, although experts say that figure has likely risen since then. Sudan’s President, Omar al-Bashir, was charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, including genocide, related to the Darfur conflict in 2010. Bashir has yet to cooperate with the court and continues to travel freely around the continent. South Africa and Uganda have both been criticized for allowing President Bashir to travel to their countries without being turned over to the ICC.


Trump fired Comey last week Lieberman is a former senator from Connecticut White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and Attorney General Jeff Sessions recommended Sen. John Cornyn for the FBI director position last weekend, two Republicans familiar with the process told CNN Wednesday. One source said that Trump favored Cornyn for the post. The President called Cornyn to discuss the position twice, including after Cornyn passed up the job. Cornyn, who the officials say was intrigued by the idea and initially interested, ultimately withdrew from consideration  after a number of his colleagues said they believed Trump should shy away from picking a GOP politician. Trump was meeting Wednesday afternoon with four FBI director candidates, just as he is facing fresh questions over his firing of former director James Comey. Among the candidates, Trump will meet with 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate-turned-independent Joe Lieberman, a former senator who supported Republican Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Trump will also meet with acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating and Richard McFeely, a career FBI official who retired in 2014 as head of the Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services branch. Related article Memo: Trump asked Comey to end Flynn investigation Lieberman told CNN the appointment “was not sought after or expected,” but that he got a call Tuesday asking him to fly into Washington for the interview. Keating, the governor of Oklahoma during the 1994 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, left the White House with a smile on Wednesday. “We had a good conversation,” Keating told reporters. Asked if he would accept the job if offered, he said that he liked public service. The meetings come a day after news broke that Trump allegedly asked Comey in February to drop the FBI’s investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go,” Trump told Comey, according to a memo Comey wrote at the time, excerpts of which leaked to reporters on Tuesday. The memo only added to the furor surrounding Trump’s sudden and controversial firing of Comey last week, which came amid the FBI’s intensifying probe into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and Trump campaign associates’ potential collusion with Moscow officials. That firing has sparked heated questions from members of Congress in both parties who have called for a closer look into why Comey was fired and whether it was tied to the Russia investigation. Comey is expected to testify before the House Oversight Committee next Wednesday. Lieberman’s selection could be controversial and while he was for a time a Democrat, his exit from the party and eventual support for McCain in 2008 has caused many Democrats to sour on their party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee. One Senate Democratic leadership aide responded to the news by saying, “There couldn’t be worse time to take the unprecedented step of handing the FBI over to a politician. That includes Sen. Lieberman.” CNN’s Jay Shaylor contributed to this report.


Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday his country will react if the United States renews sanctions against the Islamic Republic. “If this sanction is implemented, this is definitely a violation of the agreement, without any doubt,” Khamenei said in an address on state television. “And they should know that the Islamic Republic will definitely react towards it.” The US Congress voted last week to extend the Iran Sanctions Act for another 10 years. However, the Obama administration is working to stave off any additional sanctions and encouraging American companies to do business with Iran, a US official tells CNN.


Faced with a growing torrent of outrage both at home and abroad, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has moved to address his country’s persistent issue with sexual violence, asserting “rape is rape” and should not be politicized. The comments come amid stinging criticism from India’s former leader over Modi’s alleged mishandling of the issue, following a string of particularly brutal rape cases which have shocked the nation and triggered countrywide protests. Modi, who is currently visiting the UK, made the remarks Wednesday during an address to selected members of the Indian-diaspora in London. “A rape is a rape. How can we tolerate this torture with our daughters? You are always questioning your daughters, why don’t you ask the same questions to your sons? I believe this is the evil of not just the individual but also of the society,” he said. “This is a matter of great concern for the country. The people who are committing the sin are someone’s son.” Around 100 sexual assaults are reported to police in India every day, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. There were nearly 39,000 alleged attacks in 2016, an increase of 12% on the previous year. “Any time a small girl is sexually assaulted, it is painful for all us,” Modi said in London. “But can we compare the number of rapes in different governments? We can’t say there were this many rapes in our government and that many in yours. There cannot be a worse way to deal with this issue.” Fallout from recent cases, including two alleged unrelated attacks on girls aged 16 and eight, is threatening to overshadow Modi’s visit to the UK. On Wednesday, hundreds of protestors gathered outside Downing Street and the British Parliament, waving placards reading “go home Modi” and “hang the rapists” as the Indian leader prepared to meet with UK Prime Minister Theresa May. Modi’s arrival in the UK comes as violent clashes between protesting students and police continued in the northern Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the scene of the rape and murder of an 8-year-old Muslim girl, with demonstrators demanding justice for the young victim. In Jammu and Kashmir’s Shopian district Thursday, security forces fired warning shots into the air and launched teargas shells to disperse the crowd. As many as twelve people were taken to hospital where they are in stable condition, hospital officials said. The alleged gang rape was originally reported in January but it wasn’t until April 11, when a group of lawyers and right-wing Hindu activists attempted to forcibly block investigators from filing charges against the accused, that the case began to attract nationwide attention. The girl, who belonged to a Muslim nomadic community known as the Bakarwals, was abducted while grazing horses in a meadow in the isolated Himalayan district of Kathua on January 12. From there, it is alleged she was taken to a Hindu temple, where she was drugged, held captive and repeatedly raped for five days by different men. Police have arrested eight suspects in connection with her death, all of whom are Hindu. Seven of the eight have pleaded not guilty, while the eighth will be tried separately as a minor. The arrests of the men, who investigators allege plotted the girl’s abduction as a means of scaring the predominately-Muslim nomads into vacating the region, has proved a lightning rod in a part of India simmering with religious tension. Last Friday, two BJP ministers in the Jammu and Kashmir state government who had participated in the protests in support of the accused outside the courthouse were forced to resign from office, amid accusations of political interference and religious discrimination. In another case, a state lawmaker from Modi’s own Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stands accused of raping a teenager. Kuldeep Singh Sengar, an elected BJP member of the Uttar Pradesh state legislative assembly, was arrested last week as police investigate claims he raped a 16-year-old girl in June 2017. A week after the attack, the girl was allegedly abducted and repeatedly raped by others allegedly known to Sengar, who has denied the allegations. Prior to his arrest, Sengar told India’s CNN News 18: “I have done nothing wrong. I will be proved innocent after the investigation. The rape allegations are false and baseless.” The alleged involvement of a BJP member in one of the recent cases has amplified calls for action from Modi, with opponents rounding on the prime minister for his apparent reluctance to properly tackle what is fast becoming a policy crisis. Speaking to CNN Thursday, the spokesperson for India’s opposition Congress Party, M.V. Rajeev Gowda, accused Modi of “ignoring his party’s people’s complicity in this whole matter.” “There is a very, very active BJP involvement in all of this. But Modi has referred to them [the separate cases] only as small incidents, basically sending a signal to many rapists … that they can continue to do what they want. It is a let down to the people of India and the women and girls involved in these incidents.” Speaking to The Indian Express Wednesday, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Modi “should follow his own advice to me and he should speak more often. Through press [reports] I know that he used to criticize me for not speaking up.” After several days in which he failed to publicly address the cases, despite widespread protests, Modi finally broke his silence during a speech in Delhi on April 13, promising justice for “our daughters.” Related article Indian women's commissioner on hunger strike over rape laws His comments came after a day after Swati Maliwal, the head of Delhi’s Commission for Women, published an open letter to Modi, in which she called on rape to be punishable by death. Maliwal has been on a hunger strike since April 13 to push for stricter laws for rape in India. Vrinda Grover, a lawyer and women’s rights activist, told CNN the issue should be the “single most important agenda of the government.” “If a prime minister is to be held accountable for basic security and exercise of right to life and liberty for half the population of this country, then it should be a problem for Modi,” said Grover, adding the apparent defense of an accused rapist is symptomatic of “polarization and hate ideology” in the country’s political system. “A sitting legislator is yet to be removed by the party. There is therefore some kind of overt or covert political patronage,” she said. “The signal from the top is that there is impunity for sexual violence.” CNN’s Mukhtar Ahmad and Edwin Thomas contributed to this report.


There is a bipartisan deal. And that is a very big deal. The deal proposed by Senate leaders would lock in a two-year agreement on spending numbers, essentially taking shutdowns threats and continuing resolutions off the table for the time being. It would provide long overdue disaster relief funding to hurricane-ravaged Texas, Florida and, most urgently, Puerto Rico. Congress has been lurching from spending crisis to spending crisis for seemingly months. Should the House and Senate pass this, it in large part clears the decks. But there are still major steps that need to be taken, so expect an exciting next 24 hours. It certainly doesn’t look like it. There are still several steps to go, and things can still going wrong/the votes may not appear. But aides in both parties, and in both chambers, tell me things are on track. The Senate and House will both vote on Thursday. Some perspective on this: The first CNN heard that negotiators were going to take a serious run at this was Sunday, but even then senior aides were skeptical they could get there. It is, after all, a very large deal to put together from a technical standpoint, combined with the fact these types of talks historically collapse under the weight of the sheer scope of the various pieces. RELATED: Trillion dollar deficits to hit sooner than expected Yet three days later they are on the brink of it. Crazy to think about: The era of fiscal responsibility as a driving force behind any budget agreement has all but fallen by the wayside. This does away with not just the sequester, but also rolls back the limits imposed by the Budget Control Act. And there are no significant commiserate spending cuts in sight. That’s quite a thing for anyone who has covered the spending wars of the Obama administration. According to several sources involved, the votes will be there for this in the House, but that doesn’t mean Democrats – who will have to provide a significant number of “yes” votes due to pockets of GOP opposition to the spending increases – will be happy about it. Unlike their Senate colleagues, House Democrats remained steadfast that no caps deal should be reached until a DACA resolution was in sight. A DACA resolution very clearly is not in sight. That’s a problem for many. Related article Read Senate's full bipartisan budget agreement Reality check: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi announced on the House floor she was against the plan but her team has been very involved in these negotiations and they wouldn’t be at this point if she wasn’t. How many House Democrats will support this is still up in the air – several are very angry this was agreed to – but enough should be there to get it across the finish line. Remember – this includes major Democratic priorities as well. Is this locked in yet: No. The loss of leverage for Democrats is real here. Expect several heated closed-door Democratic caucus meetings in both chambers in the next 24 hours. But remember: There is still a vote on the omnibus – the vehicle that will officially lock in the spending deal, which will need to be written by appropriators and then voted on by March 23. Several Democratic aides have pointed to that as a degree of leverage on DACA if there is a need for it. So why would Democrats sign onto this: It’s a question you’re going to hear repeatedly – and loudly – from immigration advocates on and off the Hill in the next few days. The bottom line is this has an awful lot for Democrats to like, but perhaps more importantly, is extremely consequential for Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s caucus. For Senate Democrats up for re-election in Trump states – there are 10 – a major bipartisan agreement they can tout that funds major priorities is a very big deal. Will it upset immigration advocates? No question. Outrage them even. But the calculation was made in the last two weeks that a deal – just getting something done – was better than no deal. It’s unquestionably a roll of the dice for Democrats. Defense spending was the key piece of leverage. Senate Democrats have grown more comfortable with McConnell’s approach to the issue – a floor debate that won’t be tilted in any one direction. But that answers zero questions in the House, where House Speaker Paul Ryan has noted nothing will move on the DACA front without Trump’s sign-off, no matter what the Senate does. RELATED - Graham: ‘Increasingly pessimistic on immigration’ House Democrats are still pushing for a commitment from the Speaker to take up specific pieces of DACA legislation in order to unlock their votes. But at the moment, it’s not clear that will have any effect. Which means the pathway to a DACA resolution is still very, very unclear. For a solid hour or so Tuesday, negotiators working on this deal were holding their collective breath – President Donald Trump calling for a shutdown if border security wasn’t addressed was, as one Republican aide working on the deal put it to me in a text: “Certainly not ideal!” Keep in mind Republicans are on the verge of accomplishing something they’ve been pushing for months to get: a separation of the budget talks from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program issue. And here was the President … bringing immigration back into those talks? Needless to say, Republicans aides were nervous, for a least a brief period, that it would spook their Democratic counterparts. That hasn’t happened – Democrats have largely ignored it, save for the rolling of the eyes. But CNN has been told to expect to hear a lot about it from a messaging perspective from Democrats frustrated with the budget deal in the next 48 hours. This story has been updated and will continue to be updated with new developments.


The Democratic advantage on the generic congressional ballot has tightened to 6 percentage points, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds. The poll finds that 50% of registered voters say they prefer a Democrat in their congressional district, while 44% say they want a Republican. That’s a major shift in favor of the GOP since February, when Democrats held a 16-point edge. It’s much closer to January, when their lead was just 5 points. But Democratic voters are much more enthusiastic about casting ballots in November’s midterm elections. About half – 51% – of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress in November, compared with just 36% among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. And at the same time, those voters who are deeply enthusiastic about voting give Democrats a better than 20-point lead on the generic ballot: 60% prefer the Democrat in their district, while 38% who prefer the Republican. Overall, just 18% of voters approve of Congress, while 75% disapprove. And an even smaller share of those enthusiastic to vote in the fall, 11%, approve of the way Congress is handling its job. Though Republicans control Congress, voters say they believe Democrats would do a better job of dealing with a host of key issues. Among them: Health care (56% Democrats to 36% Republicans, a sharp change from 2010 when the two parties were nearly even on the issue following passage of the Affordable Care Act), the Russia investigation (51% Democrats to 35% Republicans), immigration (51% Democrats to 40% Republicans) and gun policy (48% Democrats to 40% Republicans). The GOP is favored on just one issue: National security, at 48% to 40% Democrats. The public is split over whether they prefer the Democrats or the Republicans in Congress on the economy (45% choose each party) and the federal budget (43% prefer the Democrats and 42% the Republicans). The findings come just two weeks after Democrats won a stunning victory in a special congressional election west of Pittsburgh, where Conor Lamb – fueled in part by energized labor unions – narrowly defeated Republican Rick Saccone in a district President Donald Trump won by 20 percentage points in 2016. The poll showed that Trump’s approval rating has ticked up to 42% – the highest since the 100-day mark of his presidency. The CNN poll was conducted by SRSS on March 22-25 among a random national sample of 1,014 respondents, including 913 registered voters, reached on landlines or cell phones by a live interviewer. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. For registered voters, the margin of error is 3.8 points. CNN’s Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.


North Korea’s latest missile test has sparked the familiar round of international condemnation and new fears that the US mainland is now in reach of the country’s arsenal. Here’s what you need to know. North Korea launched the longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile it has ever tested – and the second ICBM this month. It flew for about 45 minutes, going 3,700 kilometers (2,300 miles) high and for a distance of 1,000 kilometers (621 miles), according to analysis from the US and its allies. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un touted the test as a success and claimed the “whole US mainland” is now within range of his missiles. US President Donald Trump condemned the missile launch and said the United States would act to ensure its security. Trump on North Korea: ‘We Handle Everything’ The latest test shows that Pyongyang’s missile program may be more advanced than previously thought. If the missile was fired on a flatter, standard trajectory, it would have major US cities such as Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago well within its range, with the possible ability to reach as far as New York and Boston, according to David Wright, a missile expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. North Korea also claimed Friday’s test was designed to show the missile’s maximum range when equipped with a “large-sized heavy nuclear warhead.” But last week a US official told CNN that the US government doesn’t believe North Korea will be able to launch a reliable, nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile until early 2018. The official said that while North Korea can currently get a missile “off the ground,” a lot of undetermined variables remain about guidance, reentry and the ability to hit a specific target. Some experts are skeptical of North Korea’s claims, pointing out that the size of the missile’s payload is unknown. The heavier the payload, the shorter the usual range. “We don’t know the mass of the payload used in the test; if a real warhead is significantly heavier, that would reduce the range the missile could reach,” the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Wright told CNN. Read: What we’ve learned from the North’s tests One thing is clear: Friday’s test marked a big step forward for a country once deemed incapable of developing a serious ICBM program. The US and South Korea conducted live military exercises in a show of force hours after the test. The US also sent two B-1 bombers on a 10-hour round trip over the Korean Peninsula on Saturday. On Sunday, the US conducted a test of its THAAD missile defense system, but the THAAD system is not capable of intercepting ICBMs, and the test had been scheduled since earlier this month. On the diplomatic front, US officials spent the weekend reassuring its allies in the region and warning North Korea to end its missile tests and nuclear program. I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet... ...they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem! Trump renewed his criticism of China, claiming in a tweet that it has done “NOTHING” to rein in North Korea, while Vice President Mike Pence said “all options are on the table” when it comes to the rogue country. On Sunday, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley echoed Trump’s stance, saying that “the time for talk is over” and that Washington would not seek UN Security Council action following the latest missile test. North Korea has long maintained that the only way to protect itself against US-led attempts at regime change is through the threat of a nuclear attack. Related article US detects 'highly unusual' North Korean submarine activity According to a US defense official, evidence of an “ejection test” – which examines a missile’s “cold-launch system” – was carried out on land at the Sinpo Naval Shipyard, a port city on the Sea of Japan, on Sunday. It was the third ejection test carried out in July, and the fourth demonstrated this year. The latest ejection test is further evidence that Pyongyang is trying to beef up its nuclear capabilities, as were “highly unusual and unprecedented levels” of North Korean submarine activity detected earlier in July. In that instance, North Korea sent a diesel-powered Romeo-class sub around 100 kilometers (62 miles) out to sea in international waters –  farther than it had ever traveled. North Korea had also been outfitting its Gorae sub with a possible missile launch demonstration tube. US and South Korean forces raised their alert levels slightly after detecting the subs’ atypical training activity. North Korea’s submarine fleet is believed to encompass around 70 vessels, but most are outdated and are probably unable to fire missiles. Without offering any specifics, US President Donald Trump said his administration would be able to take care of North Korea. “We will handle North Korea. We are gonna be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything,” Trump told reporters at his second full Cabinet meeting. CNN’s Brad Lendon, Faith Karimi, Zachary Cohen, Ryan Browne and Steven Jiang contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Nic Robertson is CNN’s diplomatic editor. The opinions in this article belong to the author. Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams has carefully choreographed his departure this coming weekend from the party’s most powerful post, but it’s unlikely that we’ve seen the last of him. For his many critics, Adams is the utterly unacceptable face of Irish Republicanism. In their opinion, he has blood on his hands — an assertion he’s rejected. Adams has repeatedly denied he was a member of the Irish Republican Army, a militant organization that in 1999 admitted to killing people during the three decades of sectarian bloodletting in Northern Ireland known as “the Troubles.” The conflict – which saw more than 3,600 people killed – pitted Catholic republicans against Protestant unionists. The former wanted to unite Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, while the unionists wanted Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Related article Gerry Adams Fast Facts Adams has also repeatedly denied that Sinn Fein, the party he led for 34 years, was the political wing of the IRA. It is heavy political baggage that Adams hauls, and time has not lightened his load. The stains of his alleged paramilitary past have never faded. Instead, they have become a sticky residue attracting conspiracies, grudges, even police investigations. No amount of spin doctoring can erase that kind of tarnish. By handing over Sinn Fein’s presidency in an uncontested leadership change, to longtime party deputy leader Mary Lou McDonald, Adams seems to accept the limitations of his legacy and image, but he may also be exploiting Brexit. McDonald is untainted by allegations of affiliations to the IRA, allowing Sinn Fein to win more votes particularly south of the border in the Irish Republic, where Adams’ toxic past has long been an impediment to Sinn Fein’s success. A survey in January showed a fifth of Irish voters would be more likely to support Sinn Fein under McDonald. But the process leading to his departure has suffered some unwelcome wobbles. In January, a Sinn Fein lawmaker posted an image of himself on social media with a loaf of Kingsmill bread on his head. He was forced to resign because he appeared to be making fun of the murder of 10 Protestant workers in 1976 in what became known as the Kingsmill massacre. And two weeks ago, one of Adams’ closest allies became an unwitting star in a video that went viral. Gerry Kelly, a very senior Sinn Fein politician who was a convicted IRA bomber, was videoed outside his local gym using bolt cutters to take a wheel clamp off his car. He said he feared being late for important political meetings, but the damage to Sinn Fein’s recent efforts at an image makeover was done. Local headlines read “Wheel IRA,” a play on the “Real IRA,” an IRA splinter group. Related article Northern Ireland Fast Facts The episode underlines the view that old-school IRA/Sinn Fein leaders can be expected to play by their own rules rather than the law. While Adams looks for political capital from a seamless succession, the wobbles will have set him back. But he’s has built his career on overcoming setbacks. When the British government jailed him and many other young Republicans during the internments in the 1970s, Adams turned the table on British authorities by using the time to educate his young cadres in politics and the republican cause. In Northern Ireland today, Sinn Fein is by far the largest Catholic party, and Adams the most powerful Catholic politician. His long-term goal as stated as recently as the past couple of weeks is for Sinn Fein to gain enough political power across the island of Ireland to engineer conditions for a united country. “We need to devise strategies and win support for a referendum on Irish unity. And we need to campaign for this. We also need to win that referendum… Don’t believe the naysayers and begrudgers … who claim that a United Ireland is a pipe dream. “It isn’t. It’s very real. It’s very achievable. We can do it.” It was Adams’ astute foresight following the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement to immediately pivot his party toward building political clout south of the border that has put the party on the strong footing it enjoys today. While his principle partner in peace talks, the late Sinn Fein MP and accused former IRA commander Martin McGuinness, focused on Northern Ireland, Adams turned his attention to the Republic of Ireland, becoming a member of parliament there and establishing Sinn Fein as the third most popular party. Under Adams’ leadership, Sinn Fein has become a grassroots, socially supportive party with a hard-earned reputation of taking care of the people and communities it represents. The party has made gains and broadened its appeal beyond its core. Adams has helped cultivate a progressive mantle for Sinn Fein, calling for change to Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws, among other issues. But it appears that even with his political savvy, he could take Sinn Fein no further. Adams’ decision to step down may also be timed to exploit an unexpected political windfall from the UK’s Brexit referendum. South of the border, Brexit is already leading to extreme frustration between the Irish government and Theresa May in London, which Adams has been ably exploiting by demanding the Irish Taoiseach or Prime Minister take a tough line. But it is north of the border where Adams may see a bigger opportunity from Brexit. Not for the first time, an event not directly linked to the province may nudge the politics forward. It has happened before. In the 1990s Adams and McGuinness and Kelly led the IRA into a ceasefire and ultimately to the 1998 Good Friday agreement, but they refused to surrender the IRA’s weapons. After the peace deal, the decommissioning of the IRA’s guns became the next big stumbling block to lasting peace. Adams had cannily brought the IRA to a position of not using the weapons: They weren’t technically defeated, but it was a bad-faith impasse that helped bring down the unionist leaders they negotiated the peace agreement with. And it was threatening to halt the whole peace process. Then al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington in 2001. The September 11 attacks were a game changer for the IRA. The word terrorist suddenly had a very clear meaning in the US and Adams quickly realized that American political capital and backing – not to mention fund-raising – would be lost unless the IRA got rid of its guns. An event far away from the island of Ireland, in other words, had moved the peace process forward. Brexit also may hasten change in Ireland. Sinn Fein opposed Brexit. Its biggest political rival, the Democratic Unionist Party, was vociferously in favor of it. Yet despite unionists being a majority in Northern Ireland only 38% of people there voted to leave the European Union. Not long after the vote, when I saw Adams in Cuba as he was sweltering in an hours-long line to pay his respects to Fidel Castro’s body, I asked him how Brexit was affecting his political calculations. He smiled, a big broad smile, in that moment answering all my questions. On this, he remained enigmatic and opaque – other, that is, than the smile. There was no doubt in my mind that Adams was calculating gains republicans like him might reap from Brexit. Related video Brexit brings worries for those on the border Unionist farmers along the border I’ve met are appalled at the damage Brexit may do to their businesses. They rely on an open border. The DUP demands something that at this time it seems impossible for London to deliver. What Theresa May wants is a Brexit that keeps an open border with the Republic of Ireland, but pulls the UK out of the EU customs union. But a fully open border and an exit from the customs union are mutually exclusive unless Northern Ireland gets a deal that differs slightly from the one the rest of the UK gets, and that’s something the DUP categorically rejects. Sinn Fein will try to sell the idea that a united, borderless Ireland is better for everyone. There are nowhere near enough buyers of that view to make it a reality, but such is Adams’ multitrack logic that he will want to harness Brexit divisions for all he can get. With Adams gone and McDonald at the helm. Sinn Fein might just get closer to critical mass, to increased political support north and south of the border without his bloody legacy. Incremental gains on both image and Brexit are the margins that Adams is playing for. Of course, it’s impossible to know the real reasons why Adams’ is stepping down. We don’t even know if he went willingly. Such is the opacity with which Sinn Fein conducts its core business, Adams’ departure may only ever be fully understood by a tiny handful of people. His health is one question. Adams will be 70 this year and while he appears in great shape I’ve noticed during our past few interviews that his voice is not as strong as it once was. Related article Martin McGuinness: From IRA terrorist to political leader and peacemaker And then there is the question of his effectiveness. In the past year he lost his closest ally in the republican project, Martin McGuinness. For decades they were inseparable in leadership. Twenty years ago, in the tiny village of Bellaghy, I spent the night in the road chatting to the pair of them. They’d come to join a small protest stopping a traditional Protestant marching band pass through the mostly Catholic streets. They mingled easily with the people blocking the police vehicles at the head of the march. Their presence alone signaled that the march was doomed to failure. Adams and McGuinness were the visible face of the republican movement and personified its intransigence to British authorities. At peace talks, it was always Adams and McGuinness outside, whispering to each other away from prying ears. Just them, rarely others. Without McGuinness’ easy charm, could Adams make the headway they managed together for so long? We may never know. Whatever the reason for Adams’ departure as president of Sinn Fein, it would seem out of character that the party is done with him, or him with it. He has been its ultimate guide, like a chess master planning many moves ahead. In all likelihood, he has been carefully stage-managing his departure and replacement for some time, just as he has controlled so much else at Sinn Fein. He is unlikely to become a silent partner in the enterprise he created. What we are seeing this weekend isn’t so much Adams stepping down as president. Instead, we’re witnessing his accession to republican legend.


A controversial national security aide to President Donald Trump has been removed from his post, the White House said on Wednesday. Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who served as the senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council, will be reassigned to another area of the administration, a White House official said. It’s the second major departure from the NSC in a week. The official said H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, “appreciates the good work” that Cohen-Watnick accomplished in the intelligence division of the NSC, but “has determined that, at this time, a different set of experiences is best-suited to carrying that work forward.” “Gen. McMaster is confident that Ezra will make many further significant contributions to national security in another position in the administration,” the official said. Cohen-Watnick’s new post or department was not specified. Cohen-Watnick served on Trump’s transition team and later his administration under Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser who was ousted from the job after it became clear he misled members of the administration about his interactions with Russian government officials. Another Flynn appointee, Retired Col. Derek Harvey, was also removed from his post last week. Harvey, a long-time intelligence officer, was appointed by Flynn and continued to serve as the council’s senior director for the Middle East under McMaster. Earlier this year, Cohen-Watnick came under scrutiny for his alleged roundabout role in providing information to GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, showing members of Trump’s team included in foreign surveillance reports collected by US intelligence. Cohen-Watnick, along with White House national security lawyer Michael Ellis, are believed to be two of the individuals involved in assisting Nunes in gathering the intelligence materials, US officials told CNN and other news outlets in March. Nunes refused to identify the sources of his information, and the White House would neither confirm nor deny that Cohen-Watnick or Ellis had aided the Republican congressman. In late June, three months after the controversy, Nunes told CNN in an interview that it was definitely not Cohen-Watnick or Ellis who provided him the information. But criticism over Nunes’ actions led to him temporarily stepping aside his committee’s investigation into Russia’s election-year meddling. Cohen-Watnick served at the Defense Intelligence Agency alongside Flynn, who ran that office until 2014.


Maisie Williams is perhaps best known around the world as kick-ass teenage heroine Arya Stark, from the hit TV show “Game of Thrones.” But before the swords and direwolves, 18-year-old Williams was not always so assured. “For a long time I thought ‘I’m just a weird acting kid,’” says Williams. “At school, kids didn’t audition for things – and I had a job at 12.  But now I’ve met so many other people and I’ve realized that’s very normal, everyone felt that weird segregation at some point.” After her huge success in “Games of Thrones,” Williams is now taking her talents to the big screen. Last year she starred in supernatural drama “The Falling,” in which a mysterious epidemic of fainting takes over the pupils at an English girls’ school. “The transition from Game of Thrones where I’m a small piece in a big puzzle, to something where you’re taking the lead was very nerve-wracking,” says Williams. “The role I play in ‘The Falling,’ Lydia, was a character that I wanted to show other people that I could do. I had to leave it at home, the nerves of carrying the film, and actually prove to people that I have more confidence in it,” she added. The film led to her nomination as one of 10 “European Shooting Stars” – young actors chosen from across the continent and honored at Berlin Film Festival for their talent and future potential. Following in the footsteps of actors Carey Mulligan, Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz and Alicia Vikander, Williams received her award from Hollywood star Natalie Portman. Between Berlin and promotional duties for Season Five of “Game of Thrones,” Maisie was given another opportunity to prove her cinematic credentials with a film called “The Devil and The Deep Blue Sea,” directed by Will Purple and starring Jason Sedakis and Jessica Biel. Co-star Biel described Williams as a “sparkling” talent set to make it big in the film industry in the coming years. “Maisie is one to watch because you literally cannot take your eyes off her,” added Biel. “She is enigmatic, charismatic, deeply emotional and able to share all of those abilities, plus many more, and put them on the screen in a way that is so raw and authentic. “From an actor’s point of view, you’re jealous of how easily she is able to do that and envious of that ability.” Indeed, both of Maisie’s films made an impression in Cannes. Buyers were given a sneak preview of “The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea,” while “The Falling” was snapped up for U.S. distribution following positive reviews on its UK release. “I’ve been told by directors that I should direct because what I find so interesting is not just the acting, but just watching when I’m on set,” said Williams. “A lot of the time between takes I like to sit on set with my warm coat just watching what’s going on and ask directors why they’ve lit it this way and why they’re using that lens. “One day if I find a project I’m passionate about and feel like I could do a good job on, I would love to direct it.” Phoebe Parke contributed to this report


This time last year, CNN Opinion asked a group of commentators from around the world for their take on the US presidential election. One year later, Donald Trump is preparing to be sworn in as President of the United States.  So, what is the world expecting – and hoping for – from a Trump presidency? Guest commentators from around the world weigh in. The views expressed are their own. When Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 presidential election, he received a round of applause in the Russian parliament. It was a pure, almost childish expression of joy. Since then, the “Russian factor” has loomed ominously over Trump’s impending presidency. The Russian term “kompromat” – compromising material – is entering the English language, much like “sputnik” did more than 50 years ago. The American press debates – in total seriousness – whether the Kremlin is literally keeping the President of the most powerful country on Earth on its leash and shaping his policies. More importantly, the notorious hacking story is far from over. For many in Washington, Vladimir Putin has become the main trickster of the election. However, Russian officialdom was hardly expecting a Trump victory. Viewing the American election as a zero-sum game with the West, Putin planned for a likely defeat. Before Election Day, Russia’s propaganda machine was warming up to announce that a flawed American political system would never let the anti-establishment candidate win. That was supposed to be Russia’s consolation prize. Then, defeat suddenly turned into victory. Russia is beyond satisfied with this serendipitous turn of events. A happy and astounded Kremlin will now try to get the most from Trump – from easing sanctions to making a deal on Syria and settling the Ukraine issue. It is difficult, of course, to predict how Trump’s administration will address these issues and what the result will be. But this uncertainty hardly undermines the feeling that Russian officialdom has been experiencing: a sense they have achieved a moral victory over the West and its values. Since the annexation of Crimea, the West has labeled Putin a pariah and a global threat. Yet now, Trump’s win has made something clear: It is not Putin who is a weak outlier before the world’s liberal order. Rather, it is the West that is divided and full of resentment. An outcast yesterday, Putin may now see himself as a major power broker in the emerging global Trumpworld. The least that the Kremlin will now expect from the White House is a display of respect and equality. After what has been presented by Russian propaganda as years of unprecedented humiliation and offense from the West, Putin will easily sell his country’s newfound parity with the United States to the Russian public for his own personal gain. Transforming Putin’s moral triumph into a dramatic expansion of Russian influence on the global stage will be trickier. But from the Kremlin’s point of view, it is probably doable. Mikhail Fishman is editor-in-chief of The Moscow Times. Mexico got Donald Trump elected. That, at least, is what President-elect Trump probably believes.  His promises to build a wall (that Mexico will supposedly pay for), deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and renegotiate NAFTA turned Mexico and its people into the perfect scapegoat for the ills affecting America – unemployment, stagnant wages, crime and drugs. Throughout his campaign, we all hoped he would tone down such rhetoric so as not to alienate the Hispanic vote (too much, at least). However, his rhetoric simply became more vitriolic – and more threatening. So President Enrique Peña Nieto invited him to Mexico, perhaps in hopes that the hospitality and reality of bilateral relations would change Donald Trump´s opinion about the southern border (and awkward facts such as there being potentially millions of jobs at stake – on both sides of the border – if he decided to scrap NAFTA). But mere hours after returning from Mexico, not only did Trump NOT change his mind, but he engaged (in Arizona of all places) in some of his most anti-immigration rhetoric yet. Meanwhile, in Mexico there was a backlash against Peña Nieto’s decision to invite Trump, forcing Finance Minister Luis Videgaray – seen as instrumental in arranging the visit – out of the Cabinet. Trump lamented Videgaray’s departure in a Tweet. As the votes were tallied on election night, there was hope that Trump’s rhetoric was campaign garbage and not genuine policy. But in the two months since the election, Trump has reiterated his calls for a wall, insisted that Mexico will reimburse the US for the cost and called for the renegotiation of NAFTA and a border tax for companies that invest in Mexico and wish to send their products to the United States. On the back of all this, the Mexican peso has plunged, and there is concern that on January 20, the least popular person in decades to be sworn in as US President will deliver a speech that could be catastrophic for the Mexican economy. Since losing his role at the finance ministry, Luis Videgaray has been appointed foreign minister, and will head negotiations with the United States. Perhaps the President is hoping that Trump will now play and negotiate in an appropriate way. He likely is wrong. Through his threats, tweets, and speeches, Trump may have left the President and his negotiators with no political wiggle room to sign any kind of agreement that requires ratification by the Mexican Senate. And the chances for a candidate from Peña Nieto’s party will likely be scuppered in the 2018 presidential elections unless the President can convince Trump not to initiate massive deportations and to stop insisting on building the wall. But if Trump believes his “Mexican agenda” helped get him elected, it is hard to imagine he will do anything but continue to insist on his beautiful wall, deportations and a new and “improved” NAFTA agreement. Ana Maria Salazar worked at the White House as policy adviser for President Bill Clinton’s special envoy for the Americas and was deputy assistant secretary of defense for drug enforcement. She writes, teaches and has anchored radio and TV news programs in Mexico since 2001. After eight years of hostility and tension with President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will let out a huge sigh of relief Friday when Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. For Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition government, Trump’s presidency is viewed as a new beginning when it comes to Israeli-US relations. One government minister went so far as to say that Trump’s victory in November signals that “the days of the Messiah” have come. That might be a stretch, but for Israel, Trump seems like the antithesis of the outgoing president. While Obama regularly pressured Israel to stop construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Trump’s advisers have said they will not. While Obama refused to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, Trump has said that he will. And while Obama championed the Iran deal that Israel aggressively tried to prevent, Trump has raised the possibility that he will scrap it. While this all bodes well for the current government in Jerusalem, it remains to be seen what Trump will do when it comes to Israel’s ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. Will he follow the longstanding US policy of pushing for a two-state solution or will he offer new options for a resolution? Will he stand strong against settlement expansion or will he allow Israeli annexation of settlements as some government ministers are advocating? So far, Trump hasn’t said much, although the announcement that his son-in-law Jared Kushner will serve as the president’s Middle East envoy seems to indicate that he plans to take on the thorny issue. Like other countries in the Middle East, Israel is hoping to see a more engaged America playing an active role in the region. The presence of Russian military forces in Syria, for example, is believed to be directly linked to Obama’s decision not to enforce his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons in that ongoing civil war and humanitarian disaster. Leaving a vacuum allowed Russia to enter the country. Will Trump re-engage the Middle East or will he prefer to remain on the sidelines and stay away from a region that has for decades frustrated consecutive American presidents? Starting on January 20, the world will begin to get some answers. Yaakov Katz is the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post and co-author of “Weapon Wizards: How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower.” On the eve of the inauguration of Donald Trump, India is experiencing some of the same kind of anxiety it felt when Narendra Modi was about to become the country’s prime minister, back in May 2014. A right-wing Hindu leader with a controversial political past who cultivated an image as an outsider, Modi’s rise to power disturbed the existing political equilibrium in the country, and his election brought with it a heightened sense of unpredictability and uncertainty among not just Indians, but overseas as well. Indeed, for many – particularly the country’s liberals – it took quite some time for the reality of a Modi premiership to sink in. A sense of disbelief and uncertainty has gripped many people here again. Will the improvement in India-US relations continue with a Trump administration? How will Indians settled and working in the United States be treated? Will the protectionist measures that Trump is talking about impact Indians living abroad? Will such policies affect the outsourcing that keeps so many Indians in India working? These are just some of the questions Indians have. But the questions also extend to international affairs – how is India going to adjust if Washington decides to revise Obama’s policy towards the Middle East and western Asia? Policymakers in New Delhi are already worried, for example, that reimposing sanctions on Iran would impact India’s crude oil supply and delay the completion of Chabahar port  that will create a new trade route for Afghanistan and drastically alter the trade dynamics in South Asia. In addition, New Delhi is also keenly waiting to see how Trump goes about dealing with Pakistan. Will he continue the old policy of transactional engagement with the Muslim state or take a firm line over its support for terror groups? But there is a more philosophical concern among liberals in India: The potential impact of a close political entente between Modi and Trump. The fear is that the political proximity between the two leaders, who have strong anti-Muslim, anti-minority images, will unleash and strengthen forces inimical to liberal and secular values. Such sentiment is already simmering in India since Modi assumed office in 2014 – and his presence has contributed to keeping the Indo-Pakistan relationship on tenterhooks. Many on the Indian subcontinent see Trump as Modi’s alter ego. Closer ties between them might prove to be a double-edged sword for our country. Sanjay Kumar is a New Delhi-based journalist who writes on national and international issues with particular emphasis on South Asia. On Monday, the British people learned that Donald Trump’s late mother was an admirer of the British monarchy. “She loved the ceremonial and the beauty, ‘cause nobody does that like the English,” he told an interviewer. A family weakness for the British nostalgia industry is unlikely to have much impact on his approval rating among a population deeply concerned about the President-elect’s ethics, prejudices and mental stability. What did get the UK talking was the identity of the interviewer. Michael Gove, who recently left the British Cabinet after losing a leadership election, has returned to his role as a columnist for The Times of London. He remains a prominent figure in Westminster politics and has retained his seat in the House of Commons. Meeting with Trump in his capacity as a journalist, Gove is only the latest right-wing figure to irk the British government by flaunting a relationship with the President-elect outside official channels. Prime Minister Theresa May, who clashed frequently with Gove when they were Cabinet colleagues under David Cameron, has made clear that such freelance diplomacy will not hasten his political rehabilitation. Even Gove, however, failed to match the stir created when the President-elect was pictured with Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK Independence Party, before he had met representatives of the governing Conservative Party. When Trump then suggested on Twitter that Farage should be appointed ambassador to Washington, May was furious. In Britain, where ambassadorships are traditionally held by long-serving career diplomats, this was seen as unprecedented interference in the affairs of Her Majesty’s Government. The Queen nominally appoints each ambassador and takes a close interest due to her contacts with other heads of state. If Trump shares his mother’s fondness for the Queen’s ceremonial role in British life, he would be well advised to respect her protocol. As well as securing a scoop for The Times, Gove’s main aim in meeting the President-elect will likely have been to impress on him the existence of prominent Brexiteers other than Nigel Farage. Farage has enjoyed high visibility on British TV, his divisive rhetoric delivering strong ratings. Unlike Trump, he has not succeeded in translating that into electoral success, having failed at seven attempts to win a seat in Parliament. He was excluded by the official “Vote Leave” campaign in the UK referendum, run by more mainstream members of the Conservative Party, and campaigned instead with a smaller, unregistered “Leave EU” team dominated by UKIP. The anti-European movement in Britain is riddled with personal divisions; Gove, who played a major role in “Vote Leave”, will have bridled at Farage taking credit for the referendum. None of these subtleties are likely to deter the British government from maintaining a formal alliance with the United States as long as it remains a world power. But the President-elect would be wise to avoid playing favorites with squabbling British politicians. Serious concerns remain about the future of the relationship with Britain; elements in the security services are concerned about the legal implications for the “Five-Eyes” intelligence sharing system should Trump authorize the use of torture by their American partners. In Scotland, he has long been an unpopular landlord, indulging in an ongoing feud with the ruling Scottish National Party over environmental and planning issues. Diplomacy by Twitter is not the British way. The Queen would not approve. Kate Maltby is a theater critic for The Times of London and regular broadcaster and columnist in the United Kingdom on issues of culture and politics. Her website is www.katemaltby.com. From a Berlin perspective, there is a particular irony in the inauguration of Donald Trump as the next US president. Today’s Germany in many ways is a product of the post-World War II era in Europe on which the United States has spent so much time and resources over the past decades. Locking Germany into a collective European order has been key to pacifying the European continent, and has served Germany particularly well. Indeed, the principles that are so strongly rooted in this country are largely tied to the pacifist attitudes of the German public and a preference for an economic rather than a security role in foreign affairs. There is also a strong reflexive support among Germans for multilateral approaches aimed at building global institutions and international law, as well as for the need for Germany to have a predictable foreign policy. But what Berlin has understood from the President-elect so far is that Donald Trump is not really very interested in any of these principles. Instead, his rhetoric runs counter to some of the most formative instincts of the political elite in Germany – and of the public at large. The question Germans have now is how Berlin will react once President Trump actually starts to shape politics rather than talking about it? And there has been plenty in the talk so far to cause concern. For example, just last weekend, Trump gave a major interview with widely read German newspaper BILD Zeitung in which he called into question the role of NATO and the future cohesion of the European Union. Both institutions are fundamental pillars of German foreign policy. Angela Merkel gave a first glimpse of her mindset in a news conference with the prime minister of New Zealand in Berlin that same day. “I think we Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” she said when asked about Trump’s comments. By her usually cautious standards this was another remarkable statement following her initial reaction to Trump’s election back in November. When President Barack Obama gave a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin in the summer of 2013, he called for an end to German complacency in international affairs. Developments in and around Europe over recent years have already seen a much more active Germany on the European and international stage. Berlin has understood that some of its vital interests – both in economic and security terms – have come to be challenged. Trump is going to ensure Germany accelerates along this path, a reality that will have major implications for Germany and Europe. Berlin has a realistic understanding of its power, and where the German government has the resources to punch its weight it will attempt to do so. But how willing will Germany be to confront President Trump on fundamental questions over the future of the European and global order? Germany currently holds the G20 presidency. That might give us a sign about how much Merkel is willing to say. Almut Möller is a senior policy fellow and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations’ Berlin office. While the uncertainty surrounding Donald Trump’s incoming administration doesn’t bode well for anyone, the instability ahead could begin to recede if the new executive branch is willing to learn and acts sensibly. For instance, Trump has repeatedly demanded “fair trade”. No one rejects the idea of fair trade, but if the focus is on “fair” rather than “unfair” trade, then the key issue is who decides what type of trade is fair or otherwise. As long as the United States does not exit the World Trade Organization, America, like any other member of the WTO, is subject to the body’s arbitration mechanism to settle trade disputes. The Trump administration may renegotiate the North America Free Trade Agreement or quit the Trans Pacific Partnership, but if it does, it will still be opting for negotiation and bilateral trade agreements with Asia-Pacific nations and other trade partners. In other words, Trump may not be a fan of globalism, but he still subscribes to bilateralism and even internationalism. China, for its part, could well live with a China-US bilateral trade and investment framework, along with a WTO cap. The ongoing negotiation of the Bilateral Investment Treaty is an example. Trump wants “smart” negotiation, to which China has no objection. But if Trump refuses to settle disputes through negotiation, then China won’t be happy. Still, China is wary of the possibility that the Trump team might try to play the Taiwan card as part of any bargaining. This would be unacceptable – China may be willing to negotiate or renegotiate over trade, investment and currency levels, but it will in no way be willing to renegotiate the “One China” principle. This is one thing that China will never put up for sale. If the Trump administration can understand this key point quickly, and if it acts in a diplomatic way, then Trump does indeed have a chance to make America truly great again. Shen Dingli is professor and associate dean at the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University. South Africans in general were more inclined to support Hillary Clinton for president, but that did not happen. Why the support for Clinton? Because South Africans valued the longstanding relationship that their nation had developed with the Clintons, especially during the Mandela years. Now that the election is over and Donald Trump has won, South Africa – like many other nations – hopes that it will be able to secure favorable trade relations with the Trump administration. Of course, the signs from the Trump camp suggest that the incoming administration will take a tough stance on trade. And though Trump did not single out South Africa specifically for criticism, he did warn more broadly that deals would need to be rethought because the United States is always losing out on trade agreements. Another issue that might be of interest to South Africans is US immigration policy toward South Africa. Again, Trump warned over the threat posed by certain kinds of immigration, which became a feature of his campaign. If he cracks down it could make it tougher for South Africans wishing to secure a US visa. But it’s not all trepidation. Some South Africans admire Trump’s apparent success with his own businesses. They hope that he will enjoy similar success running the United States. Indeed, if Trump is successful and the US economy performs well under his presidency, countries like South Africa will likely benefit, too. As John Stremlau, former vice president of the Carter Center, told Africa’s News24, it is still unclear what shape the Trump administration’s foreign policy will take. However, as a businessman, it seems that Trump is determined to try his hand at making deals. It will be interesting to see what this new style means for business with Africa. Tinashe Chuchu is a lecturer in the School of Economic and Business Sciences at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. The election of Donald Trump was welcome news in Cairo. The US President-elect and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi met each other on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly meeting last September. After that meeting, both expressed a mutual admiration for one another. Sisi remarked that Trump would make a strong leader, which Trump reciprocated by praising Sisi as a “fantastic guy.”  Sisi was reportedly the first Arab leader to congratulate Trump, and recently reportedly stated to the Egyptian press that he knew Trump would win as “his honesty touched the hearts of the American people.” It’s not hard to imagine why these two men would get along. Both are not particularly fond of protecting human rights, and have demonstrated a deep disdain for the press. They abhor Islamists of all shapes and forms. Neither man handles criticism well, as demonstrated by their emotional outbursts. Both admire Vladimir Putin, who has spent time cultivating them both. Overall, they share an identical black and white world view, reminiscent of George W. Bush’s “you are either with us or against us.” There is no middle way in Trump and Sisi’s world; only enemies to be annihilated or friends based on mutual interests. With regards to Egypt and the Middle East, discourse on human rights and democratization will become background noise, as the Trump administration’s foreign policy will likely focus on advancing US economic and security interests. Trump and Sisi began collaborating even before the President-elect assumed office: Trump reportedly called on Sisi to withdraw the U.N. resolution against Israeli settlements, which ultimately passed. Conveniently, the Egyptian media has dropped the commentary from Trump about Muslim bans and registries from its coverage, while equating the President-elect with Sisi; a strongman who will bring stability in an age of turbulence. However, almost three years since Sisi’s election, many segments of the Egyptian population feel disappointed in his leadership, as he has failed to bring stability or usher in the era of economic prosperity that he promised. Given time, the American people, like their Egyptian counterparts, are also likely to find themselves profoundly unhappy with their new president. Adel Abdel Ghafar is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center and the author of “Egyptians in Revolt: The Political Economy of Labor and Student Mobilizations 1919 -2011.” Considering that there are, by some estimates, around 300,000 Filipinos living as undocumented migrants in the United States, the question for many here is whether President Donald Trump will be true to his campaign promise of being tough on illegal immigration. As for the about 3.5 million Filipinos living in the United States, they join other Americans in hoping that the Trump presidency will deliver stable jobs, better health care, and safer communities. Like other Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines wants to know whether Trump will continue to endorse the rebalancing of American forces toward the Asia-Pacific region. More specifically, Filipinos have two other questions on defense: What will Trump’s policy be regarding the maritime dispute in the South China Sea involving China and its smaller neighbors? Will he uphold the mutual defense pact between the Philippines and the United States? It is not only on defense that a Trump presidency raises questions for Filipinos. In terms of his economic program, for example, many wonder whether his vow to protect American businesses will mean less investment in the Philippines and the rest of Asia? They also wonder whether his call for the return of manufacturing and outsourced jobs to the United States will disrupt Asian economies. Interestingly, Trump is often compared to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Both are non-traditional politicians who achieved surprising electoral victories despite their controversial, divisive – sometimes politically incorrect – views. Duterte has frequently criticized the United States for its colonial crimes and political meddling, even making an unprecedented declaration of a “separation” of the Philippines and the United States. President Obama chose to ignore Duterte’s rants. Will Trump do the same thing? Will he comment on the alleged American plot to destabilize Duterte’s government? Both are interesting questions. But perhaps the biggest question mark is over whether Donald Trump will raise the issue of human rights with Duterte, whose war on drugs has, by many accounts, left thousands of civilians dead. Filipinos are extremely curious to find out what happens next. Mong Palatino is a Filipino activist, blogger, and former legislator.


Trump will not divest his businesses when he enters the White House His adult sons will have no involvement with the White House when he enters office President-elect Donald Trump is not planning to divest from his businesses but will also not be involved with his companies when he enters the White House, the Wall Street Journal’s Monica Langley told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Thursday night. Speaking on “Anderson Cooper 360,” Langley said that even though Trump’s adult sons, Eric and Donald Jr., are involved in transition meetings right now, once Trump enters the White House, they’ll focus on the businesses. But, she predicted, Trump’s family is not going to sell any of the properties or real estate in their businesses. “He’s not going to divest them,” she said. “He is going to lay out how he will not be involved at all. But he’s going to still plan to own it and the reason they’re not going to sell it … is at first everyone thought, ‘Well if they sold it, it’ll be a fire sale.’” She added that if the properties went on the market all at once, many potential suitors might want to buy a Trump property, especially in foreign countries. Trump has been facing questions about his potential conflicts of interest when he enters the White House. A CNN poll released last month found that 6 in 10 Americans believe the President-elect is not doing enough to address his potential conflicts of interest. Trump owns or has a position in more than 500 companies, according to a CNN analysis. That includes about 150 that have done business in at least 25 foreign countries, including Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Trump was supposed to hold a news conference on Thursday to announce how he was distancing himself from his business as he took office, but that event was postponed until January.


Raw sewage has been reported in the Tijuana River, Tijuana River Estuary and Imperial Beach, California With millions of gallons of raw sewage spilled into the Pacific Ocean surface and onto the shores of southern California, officials in the United States and Mexico have launched a bi-national investigation into the spill that apparently originated in Mexico. The spill was first spotted in early February along the beaches of San Diego, California down through Tijuana, Mexico, according to the International Boundary and Water Commission. The IBWC is a joint government agency responsible for brokering water treaties between the two countries. Agency commissioners agreed to investigate the matter after receiving reports about sewage originating in Mexico that affected the Tijuana River, Tijuana River Estuary, and coastal waters at Imperial Beach, California. “This is the worst spill we’ve had in over a decade,” Imperial Beach Mayor Serge Dedina told CNN affiliate KSWB. “More than 143 million gallons of raw sewage were discharged into the Tijuana River, which flowed through south San Diego, into Imperial Beach (causing) closed beaches from the border all the way to Coronado.” Sewage spill report from #IBWC--143 million gallons spilled into TJ Rver starting on 2/6/17. This is why @WILDCOAST @SurfriderSD are needed. pic.twitter.com/P4gySzlxEu Coronado beaches opened for the first time in several weeks Sunday, but stretches of beach further south from Silver Strand State Beach to Imperial Beach remain off limits, KSWB reports. “The ocean shoreline from the International Border to the north end of Silver Strand at Avenida Lunar will remain closed until sampling confirms these areas are safe for water contact,” the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health said in a statement. Initial reports from Imperial Beach city officials indicate the sewage came from a broken sewer pipe in Tijuana,  KSWB reports. “We need to make sure the commission receives timely and accurate information when there are sewage spills in one country that affect the other,” IBWC  Commissioner Edward Drusina said in a release. The duration of the spill and volume have not been confirmed, IBWC officials said. The investigation is expected to last 30 days and results are expected by April 1. Marine conservationist are also expressing concern over the border sewage. Concerned citizens demanding no more Sewage Spills! #CleanWaterNow #StopBorderSewage pic.twitter.com/oQHuzpot1W FACTS you need to know about the “Largest Sewage Spill in a Decade” #SanDiego #Tijuana #cleanwaternow #sewagespill!https://t.co/7UjSMhARAM For now, yellow and red signs lining the shores of Imperial Beach warn beach goers away from the coastal waters. CNN’s Joe Sutton contributed to this report.


Top House Intel Committee member Adam Schiff expressed frustration Thursday about FBI Director James Comey, saying the FBI was not forthcoming about their investigation of ties between Russia and the Trump administration, and said for the first time there should be a special prosecutor to investigate. His comments came after revelations that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met twice with Russia’s ambassador to the US and failed to disclose those meetings when asked about the topic during his confirmation hearing. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a California Republican, shook his head and said “no” when asked if he agreed with having a special prosecutor. Nunes also reiterated he hasn’t seen evidence yet of contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign. He would not say if Sessions should recuse himself. Schiff said Comey briefed members in the committee for upward of three hours Thursday and offered new information that had not been provided to other Congressional leaders yet. Schiff would not specify what they talked about, but did say he was disappointed that Comey dodged lawmakers questions and that he wants Comey’s “full cooperation” next time. Schiff said the information the FBI has provided the committee is a “small fraction” of what the FBI has uncovered. The House Intelligence Committee set the scope of its own investigation into Russia’s interference on Monday.


California’s governor on Tuesday decidedly pitted his state against the Trump administration, in a call to prepare for “the battle ahead,” during the annual State of the State address. Instead of focusing on California, Gov. Jerry Brown pointed to the East, warning Washington that the most populous state in the union views the future as “uncertain” after the election, and that “dangers abound.” Brown said while federal law may overrule state law on immigration, California would use its enacted protective measures for undocumented immigrants. A variety of state measures offers the undocumented access to higher education and limit the state’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities. “We may be called upon to defend those laws and defend them we will,” said Brown. “We will defend everybody – every man, woman and child – who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state.” Brown’s promise comes as President Donald Trump has pledged to cut federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities, which could be millions for California’s major cities. Underscoring his pledge to protect the undocumented, Brown swore in Xavier Becerra as the state’s new attorney general, a former congressman and son of Mexican immigrants. Brown, long an advocate of the environment, also mocked the Trump administration’s “alternative facts.” The governor pledged the state would forge ahead on its own or with other states and countries on climate change initiatives. “Whatever they do in Washington, they can’t change the facts,” Brown said. Brown also pledged to protect the five million Californians covered under the Affordable Care Act, but remained vague about how he would make up any gaps should federal funding evaporate. The governor faced a supportive and friendly legislature. California, which is 40% Latino, has a two-thirds Democratic majority in its legislature. The most striking message in Brown’s address was its tone. Brown, who had been more restrained in public comments after Trump’s election, positioned himself as the leader for the state’s progressives, applauding the women’s marches across the country last weekend. “This is a time which calls out for courage and for perseverance,” said Brown. His last line in his address was a battle cry to his constituents. “California is not turning back. Not now, not ever,” he said.


André Leon Talley was once a "great friend" of Melania Trump He traveled to Paris with her in 2005 to help her choose a wedding dress Vogue contributing editor and former editor-at-large André Leon Talley, whom Melania Trump once referred to as a “great friend,” weighed in on the first lady’s sartorial choices Wednesday evening. Speaking in a conversation with Washington Post fashion critic Robin Givhan, Talley called the first lady “selective,” noting that she has been very intentional with her fashion decisions. “You also worked for Melania Trump when she was – ” Givhan began, but Talley cut her off, shaking his head. “That was then,” he said to laughter and applause from the high-fashion audience. “Melania is very selective and she chooses her looks carefully, and there’s obviously a great deal of preparation for the looks. I think that she is indeed a very, very confident person and she chooses carefully for the clothes that look great on her. And it is always her choice,” Talley said. Speaking to Larry King as a newlywed in 2005, Trump called Talley a “great friend” with whom she had “a lot of fun” planning her nuptials, which took place in Palm Beach, Florida. “I loved my dress. I had a great time in Paris, I went with my great friend André Leon Talley. He’s an amazing man and we went to Paris for one week to the shows,” Trump had said. Talley recalled Trump’s “impeccable” manners during their trip: “When I helped her with her wedding trousseau, it was an assignment from Vogue and I flew with Melania. … She went to all the great couture houses, and the great thing about Melania is her manners. She was very impressive that the couture houses were very impressed that she was not the arrogant Mrs. Trump … She was so impeccable in her manners, in the way she spoke to people and she was so charming.” Trump chose a John Galliano Dior dress for the wedding. “Allegedly, reportedly, it was $230,000 then,” Talley said of the dress, which took eight hours to fit. Twelve years later, the friends have fallen out of touch. “I can only say that was then. And then I saw Melania a bit after she was married and I’ve lost contact with her, so that was then,” Talley said Wednesday. The style icon did have high praise for Trump’s powder blue inaugural Ralph Lauren suit. “I mean, that was beautiful. Let’s face it. Give her credit. … And she walked down the street for two minutes in the stilettos,” he said. “Personally, I’ve never seen anyone, except Melania Trump, who can walk for hours or stand in four-and-a-half inch stilettos. She wore them at her wedding all through the night,” he added, noting that she wore two separate pairs. The first lady has been particular about her fashion choices, opting for solid color dresses, usually slightly below-the-knee, in her few public appearances since her husband took office. She drew some criticism for the outfit worn in her official portrait, an Italian-made Dolce and Gabbana tuxedo jacket. He had kind words for Trump’s predecessor, Michelle Obama, whom he said will “go down in history as one of the great first ladies like Eleanor Roosevelt.” Talley was responsible for Michelle Obama’s first Vogue cover in 2009, interviewing the then-first lady at the Hay-Adams Hotel and assisting on her photo shoot for the magazine. “I  was so very proud of that. When Anna (Wintour) gave me that assignment, I knew that she really, really thought a lot of me,” he said.


To catch a glimpse of the hermit state of North Korea most tourists journey to the heavily fortified demilitarized zone along the South Korean border. Another alternative is to view North Korea from its friendly neighbor, China. Dandong, a riverside city in Northeast China’s Liaoning province, offers great views of North Korea from across the Yalu River. Sneaking a look at North Korea isn’t the only attraction Dandong has to offer. To catch a glimpse of Korean War history in Dandong, visit a bridge the Americans bombed or have a look at anti-American propaganda at the Museum of American Aggression, a Sino-Korean interpretation on the Korean War. Dandong was an important frontier settlement in ancient China. The easternmost section of the Great Wall of China here was constructed at Hu Shan to protect against Korean invaders during the late Ming and early Qing dynasty. Today the Hu Shan Great Wall section overlooks Sinuiju, North Korea. Using binoculars from the top of the wall, you can see for miles into North Korea, as well spot an air force base where a mysterious North Korean warplane took off before crashing in China. While it’s risky to venture into North Korea even with the fenceless border here, you can take a leisurely boat ride on the small river straddling the Hushan Great Wall and North Korean border. Visitors will often see North Korean soldiers and farmers going about their daily business. The banks of the Yalu River could not be a better example of the contrast between Chinese-style capitalism and North Korean communism. What Americans will miss about going to North Korea Dandong’s gleaming condominiums tower over the river, while fields and empty hills dominate the North Korean landscape. On the Chinese side, tourists stroll along a boardwalk brimming with commercial activity. Rusty boats lay idle and small factories belch smoke on the North Korean side. Dandong attracts many South Koreans interested in a look at their North Korean brethren. Curious tourists can take pleasure boats or even speed boats that get very close to the banks of the North Korean side. North Koreans often don’t like being looked at like zoo animals and have been known to throw rocks at tourists in boats that get too close. At dusk, Dandong lights up the skyline while the North Korean side remains eerily dark and quiet. The bridge the Americans bombed during the Korean War is lit up while a newer Friendship bridge allows cross-border trade between North Korea and China. Dandong has a sizable population of ethnic Koreans who serve up the most authentic Korean food. At dusk, restaurants break out small tables and plastic chairs for barbecues. Dandong is famous for its street-side seafood BBQ. The favorites are fresh caught giant yellow clams and prawns. Where to stay The best view of North Korea is from the Crowne Plaza hotel located on the banks of the Yalu River on Binjiang Road. For cheaper rooms, the Chinese business hotel chain Home Inns has three hotels within a ten-minute walk of the Yalu River. How to get there Flights are available from Dandong airport to most parts of the country. From Beijing there’s an overnight train (K27) to Dandong that takes about 13 hours. Dandong can also be reached by bus from the seaside city of Dalian. The trip takes 4.5 hours. Buses depart from Victory Square in downtown Dalian. Dandong is a pedestrian friendly city. A taxi is the most convenient way to the Hushan Great Wall. Editor’s note: This article was previously published in 2010. It was reformatted and republished in 2017.


Two men were arrested on charges of aggravated assault Both men are Turkish nationals Two men were arrested by federal law enforcement agents early Wednesday morning in connection with a violent altercation that occurred outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence in Washington, DC last month, according to the US Marshals Fugitive Task Force. Both men are Turkish nationals and were arrested on charges of aggravated assault, according to Commander Rob Fernandez of the task force. Metropolitan Police identified the two Turkish nationals arrested for their alleged roles in the brawl. Sinan Narin of Virginia was arrested at his job near McLean, Virginia and charged with felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner. Eyup Yildirim was arrested at his home hear Manchester, New Jersey charged with felony assault with significant bodily injury, felony aggravated assault and misdemeanor assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner. He is currently awaiting extradition in New Jersey. Others involved in the brawl left the US prior to the completion of the investigation and before arrest warrants could be obtained for them, a law enforcement official told CNN. Related article Why Turkish embassy violence is unforgivable Last month, the DC Fire and EMS Department tweeted that nine people were hospitalized after approximately two dozen protesters turned out in front of the ambassador’s residence, shortly after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with President Donald Trump. Following the clash, footage surfaced showing Erdogan watching his security detail beating up the demonstrators. The Turkish envoy said the protesters were “affiliated with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party)” and had assembled without permission. The US State Department said the Turkish security involved in the altercation appeared to be embassy and Erdogan security staff. A State Department official condemned the the actions of the security staff: “The conduct of Turkish security personnel earlier this week is deeply disturbing.” Turkish Ambassador Serdar Kılıç was summoned to the State Department the week after the brawl, a senior State Department official told CNN. Related article Trump welcomes Erdogan amid US-Turkey strains “The conduct of Turkish security personnel earlier this week is deeply disturbing,” the official said. “The State Department has raised its concerns about these events at the highest levels and a thorough investigation that will allow us to hold the responsible individuals accountable is of the utmost importance to us.” Likewise, the US Ambassador to Turkey was summoned before Turkish officials who objected to the way the situation was handled. Turkey said that the “lapses of security” during Erdogan’s stay were “caused by the inability of US authorities to take sufficient precautions at every stage of the official program.” CNN’s Sophie Tatum, Zachary Cohen, Elise Labott, Paul P. Murphy, Peter Morris, Hamdi Alkhshali and James Masters contributed to this report


Saudi Arabia’s fresh public willingness to send ground troops into Syria is drawing ridicule from the kingdom’s chief regional rival. The commander of Iran’s revolutionary guard on Saturday mocked Saudi Arabia’s declaration that it is prepared to commit ground troops to fight ISIS in war-torn Syria. “They claim they will send troops (to Syria), but I don’t think they will dare do so,” Maj. Gen. Ali Jafari told reporters in Tehran, according to Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency. “They have a classic army and history tells us such armies stand no chance in fighting irregular resistance forces.” “This will be like a coup de grace for them. Apparently, they see no other way but this, and if this is the case, then their fate is sealed,” Jafari added, according to Fars. Iran and Saudi Arabia, led by regimes representing opposing Islamic sects, already are bitter rivals. A years-long civil war in Syria has stoked tensions – Iran is one of the Syrian regime’s few allies, while Saudi Arabia has given financial aid and weapons to rebels. On Thursday, Saudi Brig. Gen. Ahmad Asiri, a military adviser to the kingdom’s defense minster, said that the Saudis are willing to send – as part of an international coalition – ground troops into Syria to fight ISIS, the terror group that has captured swaths of territory in Syria during the war there. And on Friday, two Saudi officials told CNN that the kingdom plans to run in March a multinational military training exercise – involving as many as 150,000 troops – to prepare for future anti-ISIS operations. Most of the personnel will be Saudis; troops from Egypt, Sudan and Jordan have already arrived in the kingdom for the exercise, and troops from other countries – Morocco, Turkey, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar – are expected, the officials said. 40,000 fleeing Aleppo as battle for Syrian city intensifies, U.N. group says Saudi Arabia also participates in a U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. The predominantly Shiite republic of Iran is no friend to the Sunni terror group ISIS, but it also couldn’t be a fan of a Saudi military presence in a country whose regime Iran supports. Turkey isn’t preparing to invade Syria, source says Jafari’s comment came three days after peace talks for the Syrian conflict were put on hold amid anger among Syrian opposition groups over a Russian air campaign over the northern Syrian city of Aleppo. Russia openly joined the civil war in September, backing the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with airstrikes. You thought Syria couldn’t get much worse. Think again CNN’s Nic Robertson, Greg Botelho contributed to this report.


First lady Melania Trump is the guest of honor at a gala dinner Thursday She will give remarks First lady Melania Trump will take the stage and make remarks Thursday night at the guest of honor at the Kuwait-America Foundation’s gala dinner. She will make remarks and be honored by the foundation “for her dedication to causes affecting women and children in the US and abroad,” per East Wing communications director Stephanie Grisham. President Donald Trump will accompany the first lady to the dinner, which is held at the Embassy of the State of Kuwait. “As an American woman with an international background, she is an inspiration to women and girls worldwide. She is honored by the recognition, but more importantly considers this as an opportunity to continue to shine a light on the fact that it is often children who bear the harshest burdens of cruelty and injustice,” Grisham said in a statement. Related article Melania Trump to donate her inaugural gown to the Smithsonian Thursday’s glitzy dinner is closed to press and no readout of the first lady’s speech is expected. The annual dinner is hosted by the Ambassador of the State of Kuwait, Sheikh Salem Al-Sabah, and his wife, Sheikha Rima Al-Sabah, a former journalist and prominent Washington socialite. The Kuwait-America Foundation is a charitable organization with the core mission “to express gratitude for American sacrifice during the Gulf War, and to strengthen ties between the peoples of the United States and Kuwait,” per its website. A spokesperson for the foundation did not respond to CNN’s request for comment. This year’s dinner benefits UNHCR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which protects and assists refugees around the world. Representatives from UNHCR are attending the dinner as invited guests of the Kuwait-America Foundation. A spokesperson for UNHCR told CNN the organization is grateful to receive the donation, but specific details about the amount and whether it’s designated for particular UNHCR outreach efforts have not yet been announced. While it’s not unusual for high-profile guests to attend and speak at the gala dinner, it’s still rare for the first lady to speak, and the Trumps have not thus far been active on the Washington social circuit, with the exception of appearances at the Ford’s Theater Annual Gala and the June wedding of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry was the keynote speaker at last year’s Kuwait-America Foundation gala dinner, also benefitting UNHCR. Then-CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus was the guest of honor in 2012 alongside actress Nicole Kidman. Petraeus told a story about being mistaken for Ben Affleck at the bank. Other guests of honor over the years have included political and celebrity figures such as former President Bill Clinton, Michael Bolton, and Affleck in 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Leonardo DiCaprio in 2009, President George W. Bush in 2008, and then-first lady Laura Bush, Michael Douglas, and then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2006. The first lady has previously spoken about challenges facing women and children domestically and abroad, delivering remarks on the topic at a luncheon at the US Mission to the UN last month in New York, and earlier this year at an event at the State Department. While Trump has not yet formally unveiled her platform as first lady, these issues have been front and center in recent months, and she signaled priorities in her recent speech. “Together, we must acknowledge that all too often it is the weakest, most innocent and vulnerable among us – our children – who ultimately suffer the most from the challenges that plague our societies,” Trump said during her luncheon speech in New York. “Whether it is drug addiction, bullying, poverty, disease, trafficking, illiteracy, or hunger, it is the children who are hit first and hardest in any country. And as we all know, the future of every nation rests with the promise of their young people.” She has also identified the devastating opioid epidemic as an area of interest for her forthcoming initiatives.