Police spokeswoman says attacker picked victims according to ethnicity Attacker, shot by police, dies at hospital A teacher and student were killed; another student and another teacher were wounded The attack on a school in Sweden in which a student and a teacher were killed was motivated by racism, police have told CNN. A police spokeswoman said the conclusion was reached because of “the way (the suspect) dressed and behaved but also how he picked his victims, who had a specific ethnic background.” Items found in the man’s home contributed to the determination of motive, she said. Two of the victims were immigrants, Swedish police said Friday. One of the people killed was a male from Somalia born in 1998. A male immigrant born in 2000 was among those wounded, but police did not disclose his nationality. Police had previously said they were looking into the “attacker’s possible links to right-wing organizations.” The man, masked and wielding a sword or knife, killed two people Thursday morning at a school in Trollhattan before police shot him, authorities said. He died at a hospital. Two others – a teacher and student – were wounded in the attack on the Kronan primary and middle school. The injured were reported to be in serious condition at the hospital in Trollhattan, hospital officials said. “This is a dark day for Sweden,” Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said. “My thoughts go out to the victims and their families, pupils and staff, and the entire community that has been affected. There are no words to describe what they are going through right now.” An unidentified student gave Agence France-Presse a photo purportedly showing a masked man – allegedly the person who would commit the attack – posing with students at the school Thursday morning, AFP reported. The photo shows the man wearing a helmet and holding what appears to be a blade. The student told AFP the photo was taken before the attack; the precise timing of the photo was not immediately known. A student identified as Edona told Sweden’s TV4 that students first thought the man was playing a Halloween joke. He was “walking like a soldier, kind of, with a sword in his hand,” the student said. But when the man began attacking, the students reacted with horror. “We were pretty shocked, all of us,” Edona said. Police received an alarm call shortly after 10 a.m. “that a masked man in his 20s had entered the school … (and was) carrying knife-like weapons in his hands, attacking students and adults at the school,” police spokesman Thomas Fuxborg said. “We fired two shots, one of which hit and incapacitated the man so that we could arrest him.” Fuxborg said officers found an injured man outside the school and a dead man just inside. On the second floor, officers found the two students who had been wounded in the attack, Fuxborg said. Police evacuated the school. Police spokeswoman Jenny Widen said the two people killed were both male – a teaching assistant born in 1995 and a student born in 1998. The suspect was born in 1994, she said. Thord Haraldsson, police superintendent in Vastra Gotaland County, told reporters the assailant first attacked a teacher outside the school. “Then he enters the building and meets another one that he attacks,” Haraldsson said. “… Then he systematically searches the school building. We can follow tracks of blood in the premises. “He walks to the classrooms, knocks on the door, and when (a) pupil opens the door, he is attacked … stabbed at the spot. “This happens in two different classrooms, and one of (the attacked students) is now deceased.” Trollhattan is about 420 kilometers (260 miles) west-southwest of Stockholm, the capital. The attack prompted many to question how such a violent attack could happen in a country known for its liberal tolerance. Sweden has a population of more than 9 million and accepted at least 80,000 asylum seekers last year. In line with its traditional liberal immigration policies, Sweden takes in the most refugees per capita, by far, of any EU nation. Today, about one in five Swedes has a foreign background. The government provides generous benefits to asylum seekers. They are given housing and a living allowance. They’re also allowed to work immediately – a policy that sets Sweden apart from many other countries. But there is a dark side to this: Some connect the country’s immigration policies to a growing intolerance to foreigners and outright racism in some segments of Swedish society. There are also worrying signs that Sweden’s model of integration is not working as well as was hoped. The number of hate crimes in Sweden rose 14% from 2013 to 2014, according to the Swedish National Council on Crime Prevention. There were more than 4,000 racist attacks last year. Nearly a quarter of those specifically targeted individuals of African ethnicity, even though less than 2% of Swedes identify as Afro-Swedish. Neighborhoods in cities such as Malmo have controversially been labeled as “ghettos” by Swedish media, which has drawn a connection between the large immigrant populations and rising crime rates and unemployment. Malmo, in particular, has suffered from a series of grenade attacks that, police say, are driven by gang warfare linked to immigrant communities. According to the OECD, Sweden has one of the largest employment gaps between foreign-born and native Swedes. The latest data show that while only 6.5% of the native labor force is unemployed, that number is more than double for foreign-born Swedes at 16.1%. The public has reacted to these trends by shifting further to the right politically. In 2014, the Sweden Democrats campaigned on a staunchly anti-immigration platform. They claimed 13% of the vote, becoming Sweden’s third largest political party. Now, Sweden is once again taking in a growing number of refugees, this time from Syria and Iraq. But amid the influx, the attack in Trollhatten is likely to heighten fears of more racist attacks, even in a country as welcoming as Sweden. CNN’s Margot Haddad, Richard Morris, Lindsay Isaac, Vasco Cotovio, Jim Stenman, Jason Hanna, Joshua Berlinger and Hande Atay contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Sara Davies is the ARC Fellow at Queensland University of Technology, and Phil Orchard is a senior lecturer and research director at the Asia-Pacific Center for the Responsibility to Protect. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors. CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. The European Union is trying to stop thousands of migrants from drowning at sea Migrants risk their lives by paying people smugglers to get them to Europe Australia has successfully stopped the flow of migrant boats to its waters Much of the world has been stunned by the huge increase of migrant deaths in the Mediterranean this year, increasing the number of deaths at sea by a factor of 30 compared to the same time last year. Almost all the deaths have occurred in the perilous central Mediterranean crossing from Libya to Italy. The flows of migrants across the Mediterranean are unlikely to stop – Italian authorities estimate that up to 200,000 migrants in Libya are waiting to cross, following 170,000 refugees and migrants who arrived in Italy last year. These flows reflect a significant increase in the number of refugees and internally displaced people across the world, with a total estimate of 51.2 million people. The latest sinking has triggered some action in the European Union, which has unveiled a new ten-point action plan. The plan includes both deterrent mechanisms, such as efforts to capture and destroy vessels being used by smugglers and a rapid return system, but also an expansion of search-and-rescue programs and a proposed new voluntary resettlement scheme, though it is reported that this may only provide 5,000 spaces. But some EU critics called for much tougher action to deter asylum seekers from making the risky journey. In a column published in the UK’s Sun newspaper just hours before the sinking, Katie Hopkins declared: “It’s time to get Australian. Bring on the gunships, force migrants back to their shores and burn the boats.” Since then, Australia’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has also suggested that Europe adopt a tougher approach, saying, “The only way you can stop the deaths is to stop the people smuggling trade. The only way you can stop the deaths is in fact to stop the boats… That’s why it is so urgent that the countries of Europe adopt very strong policies that will end the people smuggling trade across the Mediterranean.” So what would it mean if the EU did “get Australian” in its approach to asylum seekers? And could Australia’s current policy be used as a global solution, or at least one for asylum seekers trying to cross the Mediterranean? There were dramatic changes in Australia’s immigration policy in 2013, in the final months of the Labor government, led by Kevin Rudd, which have been followed up and taken further by the current Liberal National coalition government, led by Abbott. In 2013, with bipartisan support of those two major parties, mainland Australia was legally “excised” from the migration zone. It was done so that anyone arriving without a visa by boat would not be processed in Australia. All people who seek to enter Australia by sea, under the Asylum Legacy Act, are no longer entitled to enter or stay in Australia while their refugee claims are processed. Instead, they can be transported to detention facilities in Papua New Guinea or Nauru. Alternatively, under a recent agreement, they can also agree to move to Cambodia. Beyond this, the Abbott government has also returned some boats to Indonesia without processing asylum seeker claims and, in two instances, to Sri Lanka following a very brief teleconference interview with the asylum seekers on board. That process was widely condemned by human rights advocates, given ongoing human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. That shift in policy under successive Labor and now the Liberal National governments in Australia has been chiefly designed as a deterrent: or, to use Tony Abbott’s slogan, to “stop the boats”. So has it worked? First, the numbers. If your sole criteria for success is the number of boats arriving in Australia each year, then “no advantage” (meaning no asylum in Australia) and “stop the boats” (including the turning back of boats in international waters) has worked. In 2013, the Australian government reported that 300 boats with approximately 20,000 people on board arrived; in 2014, there were 0. The current government has argued that its objective was to end the people smuggling trade – and this required secrecy concerning the extent of its operations and turn-backs. So we do not know how many boats tried to enter Australian waters with asylum seekers. It also appears that no asylum seekers drowned in Australian waters during the 2013-2014 period. Abbott explained the tactic of secrecy and turn-back in the following statement: “We are in a fierce contest with these people smugglers. And if we were at war, we wouldn’t be giving out information that is of use to the enemy just because we might have an idle curiosity about it ourselves.” If we accept that these responses have worked, the question for Australia’s government is whether it is sustainable, and whether it alleviating the flow of asylum seekers in the larger Asia Pacific region. In sum, if this policy had to end due to its financial cost, has this policy been a “solution”? The later years of the Howard administration saw both policy and budget departures from 2001’s “Pacific Solution,” which first introduced the excision zones and temporary protection visas as deterrents to asylum seekers. The Rudd government abandoned temporary protection visas altogether but retained the excision zones; this occurred in a period of heightened regional instability, leading to an increase of asylum seekers under the Rudd era. The earlier Howard years of deterrence did not provide long-term solutions regarding the regional flow of asylum seekers. At present, in the greater South-East Asian region, we may see potential regional pressures finding a way to Australian shores. The drowning of asylum seekers who sought passage via people smugglers appear to have increased, in particular, in the Bay of Bengal. At the same time, the number of asylum seekers attempting to flee within the Asia Pacific region has increased; they are just not making it to Australia yet. On cost alone, it is hard to see Australia’s approach to asylum seekers working or being affordable in Europe. For Australia, these short-term solutions have been extraordinarily expensive. A 2014 report by the Guardian estimated that the Australian government may have spent as much as A$10 billion ($7.72 billion) on its detention policies since mid-2007– and that each person in offshore detention costs the government as much as A$440,000 ($343,000). For comparison, we estimate that a similar model to respond to the 170,000 refugees and migrants who arrived last year in Italy would cost A$75 billion ($58.5 billion). The Australian government’s ability to “stop the boats” – or at least keep asylum seekers offshore – depends on a number of factors, including tolerance from Indonesia, significant spending devoted to asylum deterrence and weathering international condemnation for violating the human rights of asylum seekers. The consequences of a policy of no asylum and no refuge in Australia for those who arrived by boat from July 2013 has been asylum seekers placed in situations where they are vulnerable to abuse, as we saw with the death of an Iranian refugee in the Regional Processing Center on Manus Island and sexual and physical assault of asylum seekers held at the Regional Processing Center in Nauru. The Australian government’s interception of asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia by boat, and then their relocation to Nauru or Papua New Guinea (or perhaps Cambodia), does not remove or absolve the human rights obligations that Australia has to these populations. The operation to stop and return the boats, called “Operation Sovereign Borders” has been politically tumultuous for Australia’s relationship with Indonesia. Returning boats to international waters potentially violates Australia’s obligation to international maritime law; push-backs to Indonesian waters violates Indonesia’s sovereignty and has placed people at great risk. In 2013 and 2014, the Australian government sought the Sri Lankan government’s assistance to intercept those attempting to flee, and receive those who had already fled the country, at a time when that government was under investigation by the UN Human Rights Council for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As the situation in Europe illustrates, just because people are not making it to your shoreline to seek asylum does not mean people stop attempting asylum. In the short term, the “stop the boats” approach appears to be working for the Australian government. It is questionable whether this policy is financially or politically sustainable in the long term. It certainly has not ended people smuggling or people’s attempts to seek asylum in the wider Asia-Pacific region. Nando Sigona argues that the recent tragedy in Italy is not just about how to manage search and rescue operations, but requires consistent and long-term engagement with the root causes of refugee flows. This is a message that both the European Union and Australia should heed. Italy is a good example of the failure of trying to stop asylum seekers with deterrence. The Italian government ended its Mare Nostrum search and rescue program last autumn, which was effective but was also costing the Italian government €9.5 million per month. It was replaced by a much smaller European Union-run program, Operation Triton, which has a smaller patrol area and a budget of less than a third that of Mare Nostrum. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, has noted that this new program is totally inadequate and “more geared to border control and policing the seas than to saving lives”. In Italy, both Mare Nostrum and Operation Triton were stemming an inevitable tide given the political instability in North Africa. The migrants currently in Libya are in a perilous limbo, with a growing civil war having displaced more than 400,000 Libyans and with Human Rights Watch noting that the conflict and collapse of government authority has “eliminated any semblance of law and order from large parts of Libya.” Second, such policies have significant legal implications. The Australian High Court has ruled that these policies are legal as long as they take place outside of Australia’s migration zone, an area that today includes all of Australian territory for the purposes of boat arrivals. By contrast, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2012 that efforts by the Italian government to return migrants intercepted at sea to Libya violated its legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights because the migrants “were under the continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control of the Italian authorities.” This suggests that similar practices to Australia’s would be illegal under the European Convention.


McFarland was deputy to former national security adviser Flynn CNN reported she spoke with the special counsel team, and Democrats are calling for her to testify before Congress As the investigations into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election continue, another former Trump official is making her way into headlines. Two top Democrats on Sunday called for testimony from former Trump transition official KT McFarland after reports showed that she and incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn discussed his communications with Russia during the presidential transition process. The call for testimony came as the latest development for McFarland, who last year went from Fox News to President Donald Trump’s national security team and now awaits a diplomatic post in Singapore. Weeks after the election last year, the Trump team announced McFarland would serve as Flynn’s deputy on the National Security Council. “So proud & honored to have KT McFarland as part of our National Security team. She will help us #MAGA,” former Gen. Flynn tweeted last year, adding the hashtag acronym for Make America Great Again. So proud & honored to have KT McFarland as part of our National Security team. She will help us #MAGA The appointment meant McFarland would work closely with Flynn, who at the time was one of the key officials headed for the White House. Days later, McFarland took down her website and social media accounts. But a CNN review of her past statements showed she called years ago for former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to be tried for treason for providing a trove of classified documents to WikiLeaks, which she called a “terrorist organization,” and to be executed if guilty. Manning was found not guilty of the charge of “aiding the enemy,” but was convicted on other charges and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. After years of incarceration at Fort Leavenworth, an all-male Army prison, then-President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence as one of his final acts in office. The CNN review of McFarland’s statements showed she warmed to WikiLeaks to some extent, quoting from its release of stolen Democratic Party emails to criticize Hillary Clinton – who McFarland once challenged for a seat in the US Senate. Court documents from Friday outlining Flynn’s charge and plea agreement described a transition official who spoke with Flynn about what he should convey to Sergey Kislyak, who at the time was the Russian ambassador to the United States, about US sanctions. CNN reported McFarland was this transition official. The New York Times reported that McFarland wrote in an email last December that Russia had “thrown” the US presidential election for Trump, although the Times said the meaning of that statement was unclear; a White House lawyer told the Times that McFarland’s comment meant only that Democrats were painting Russia’s role in the election that way. After the inauguration, Flynn and McFarland helmed the White House national security team in its opening weeks, until reports showed Flynn was untruthful about his communications with Kislyak. Shortly after, Flynn was ousted from the job, and McFarland’s continued role as deputy was uncertain, particularly after Trump settled on a permanent replacement for Flynn, Lt. Gen. HR McMaster. CNN reported in April that McFarland would step down from the National Security Council, and at the time, an official said Trump would appoint her to be the US ambassador to Singapore. Trump formally nominated her for the diplomatic position in June, and she awaits confirmation by the Senate. Two Democratic senators – Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee – said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that McFarland should testify before Congress about Russia. CNN reported McFarland had already spoken with investigators for the special counsel probe led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.


Pregnant women should get tested if they have traveled to a 4.5-square mile area of Miami Beach since July 14, 2016 They should specifically avoid travel to two Miami neighborhoods. Pregnant women who have “lived in, traveled to, or had unprotected sex with someone who lived in or traveled to Miami-Dade County” since August 1 should be tested for the Zika virus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday. “Our guidance today strengthens our travel advice and testing recommendations for pregnant women, to further prevent the spread of the infection among those most vulnerable,” Dr. Lyle Petersen, director of the CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, said in a statement. The updated recommendations for Miami-Dade County come in response to last week’s announcement by Florida Gov. Rick Scott that local transmission of the virus was confirmed in Miami’s Little River neighborhood – the third Miami neighborhood where local transmission or non-travel related cases have been confirmed. Zika can be especially devastating for pregnant women because the infection can cause the devastating birth defect microcephaly and other neurological deficits. It can also cause miscarriage and stillborn births. Florida officials have said Zika was only being actively transmitted in two Miami neighborhoods: the 1-square-mile area in Little River and a 4.5-square mile stretch of Miami Beach. Pregnant women should avoid travel to those areas, the CDC reiterated, echoing previous advice. The CDC is now designating active transmission areas by the color red and cautionary areas, where local transmission is considered to be at risk, with the color yellow. Pregnant women should consider postponing travel to the rest of Miami-Dade, which are considered yellow areas, the agency said. In July, the CDC had confirmed the first local transmission in the continental US in the Wynwood neighborhood of Miami. The agency later lifted a warning for pregnant women to steer clear of Wynwood after massive mosquito control efforts successfully stopped local transmission of the virus there. The CDC said pregnant women who live in, have traveled to or had unprotected sex with anyone who lived in or traveled to the 4.5-square mile area of Miami Beach since July 14 should be tested for the virus. The CDC has designated all of Miami-Dade County as an area where there has been local transmission but not at the same “intensity” as in the areas where local transmission has been confirmed. In August, the CDC first advised pregnant women to consider postponing travel to all areas of Miami-Dade because of the virus. Related video Mosquito samples test positive for Zika in Miami Beach “Zika continues to pose a threat to pregnant women living in or traveling to Miami-Dade County,” Petersen said. To date, there have been 184 locally transmitted cases of the virus in Florida, including 19 nonresidents who became infected while visiting Florida, according to state health department figures. In addition, there are nearly 800 travel-related cases in Florida, figures show. On Thursday, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell is expected to travel to Cuba for the so-called Cuba Zika Summit, a regional meeting on surveillance and control strategies for Zika and other arborviruses.


NEW: Deal is mutually beneficial to France and Egypt, a "slap on the wrist" to Russia, naval historian says French President Francois Hollande announced last month that the deal with Russia had been canceled Hollande: France "clearly could not deliver a force-projection instrument to Russia in the current context" France has agreed to sell Egypt two Mistral-class helicopter carriers that were previously contracted to go to Russia, the Elysee Palace announced Wednesday. The previous $1.3 billion contract with Moscow was signed in 2011 by the French government under Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency, but was suspended last year in the midst of violent unrest in eastern Ukraine. The warships are powerful amphibious assault vessels equipped with six helicopter landing zones. Each of them can carry up to 16 heavy helicopters, along with tanks and about 500 troops. A source close to French Minister of Defense Jean-Yves Le Drian said that the two warships were to be sold to Egypt for around 950 million euros ($1.06 billion) and delivered around March 2016. The sale amount included the costs of training of 400 Egyptian naval crewmen in the Saint-Nazaire shipyards in France, the source said. Negotiations began on August 6. French President Francois Hollande and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi on Tuesday reached an agreement that will be signed in the coming days, the source said. Other countries, including Canada, were interested into buying the two vessels, according to the source. The deal is mutually beneficial to France and Egypt, according to British naval historian Andrew Lambert. By dealing Russia a “slap on the wrist,” France had been left with two helicopter carriers it didn’t need, said Lambert, who is professor of naval history at King’s College London’s War Studies Department. “The French are very keen to offload these assets which they’ve had to re-compensate the Russians for.” Meantime, Egypt benefited diplomatically. “Egypt is very keen to have some friends in the West – not just Americans but in Europe too – and their international standing has been declining markedly,” Lambert said. “I see this not as Egypt having a pressing need for helicopter carriers but as Egypt having a pressing need for friends who are prepared to sell them weapons they need.” Militarily, Lambert said the warships might be useful in dealing with the unrest in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. “Having a secure offshore base for operations against the Islamists would be very attractive,” he said. The first of the two carriers originally due to be delivered to Russia completed sea trials in the summer of 2014, when 400 Russian troops were sent to France to train on it in the northwestern port of Saint-Nazaire. However, developments in Ukraine saw questions raised over the deal. .@fhollande et le président Sissi se sont accordés sur les modalités de l’acquisition par l’#Egypte des deux Mistral pic.twitter.com/8Mhb4unt4r The United States and others accused Moscow of supporting separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine and believe that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was downed by rebels using a Russia-supplied Buk missile system. Russia has denied the allegations. In July 2014, the West imposed stringent sanctions on Russia, which included a ban on future arms imports and exports. While existing contracts, including the Mistral deal, were allowed to go ahead under the sanctions, French President Francois Hollande eventually announced it had been suspended. At a NATO summit in Wales in early September 2014, Hollande said that it would not be possible to deliver the warships while there was evidence that Russia’s military could be involved in Ukraine, or could have given support to the separatist rebels there. He stressed that France had not been forced to suspend the contract and said he had set two conditions for the delivery of the ships – the first being that there was an effective ceasefire and the second that the crisis was resolved through political agreement. Related video Ukraine military chief: 'Ceasefire is holding' Later that September, Hollande told reporters he was still hopeful that the deal could go through – if conditions of peace were achieved. Last month, however, Paris announced that the deal had been canceled. The Elysee Palace issued a statement saying that Presidents Hollande and Putin had held talks confirming that the deal would be terminated. The French administration said that any advance payment by Russia would be fully reimbursed and Russian equipment on the warships would be returned to Russia. Opening Ambassador’s Week in Paris on August 25, Hollande referred to the Ukraine crisis, which he said had left relations “frozen” between Russia and Europe. “In September 2014, I suspended the delivery of the first Mistral battleship to Russia, due to the conflictual situation,” Holland said. “A year later, France clearly could not deliver a force-projection instrument to Russia in the current context. The issue was addressed with a strong sense of responsibility from both sides and with mutual respect. I discussed this with President Putin on several occasions,” he said.


Administration officials pushed back against lawmakers who are seeking to end US support for the Saudi Arabian-led coalition in Yemen unless its takes “urgent steps” to reduce the enormous toll of human suffering there. Saudi Arabia, along with other Sunni Arab states, have had US backing since intervening in Yemen’s civil war in 2015 to support the country’s president and counter-rebels backed by Shiite Iran. The conflict has left an estimated 10,000 civilians dead, 75% of the population in need of aid, and 8 million on the brink of starvation as cholera ravages Yemen’s cities. In the vacuum created by conflict, groups such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS have found space to thrive. While lawmakers argued that the Saudi campaign is fueling suffering that will drive terrorism, administration officials said that countering Iran is essential and that the situation would be worse if the US pulls out – though they had little evidence to show their efforts with the Saudis have lessened effects on civilians. “The longer the civil war continues, the worse the humanitarian crisis will grow, and the more Yemen will serve as a staging ground for terrorist activities that threaten the US and our partners,” said Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, during a Senate Foreign Relations hearing on administration policy on Yemen. “Our values and our national security interests demand that we take additional action to improve the horrible humanitarian conditions in Yemen and end the civil war,” Young said. The Indiana senator is part of a bipartisan group proposing legislation that would require the State Department to repeatedly certify that Saudi Arabia is taking urgent steps to end the Yemeni conflict, ease the humanitarian crisis and lower the risk to civilians. If State isn’t able to do this using unclassified information, the bill would bar US air refueling for Saudi coalition aircraft focused on missions over Yemen. Saudi Arabia has conducted an average of 15 airstrikes a day for three years now, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut estimated. At the UN, where the Security Council gathered to meet on Yemen, US Ambassador Nikki Haley stressed that while the US wants peace, it has no intention of rewarding Iran and the Houthi rebels that Tehran backs. “Iran and the Houthis, in particular, need a much better understanding of our seriousness when it comes to their destabilizing activity,” Haley said. She also stressed Saudi Arabia was entitled to defend itself from missile attacks by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, particularly since they caused a civilian death. “If a missile killed civilians in Washington DC, I know how we would respond,” Haley said. In Washington, the emphasis was on Yemeni civilians. “The Senate has yet to take decisive action to influence the Saudi-led military operations and protect innocent civilians in Yemen,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat who helped write the bill. “It’s long past time to send a strong message to Saudi leadership that we have high expectations for our allies, particularly those who are benefiting from US military support.” US officials from the Defense and State Departments argued that the presence of US personnel helps to mitigate the toll on civilians. “Curtailing US military support would not persuade the Saudi-led coalition to abandon its air campaign,” said acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, David Satterfield. If Washington backs away, Satterfield argued, Saudis could pursue defense relationships with countries that “do not have an interest in ending the humanitarian crisis, minimizing civilian casualties, or making progress towards a political solution. The US has “fewer than 50 US military personnel” working in Saudi Arabia with the coalition, said Robert Karem, the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for policy, “advising and assisting with the defense of Saudi territory, sharing intelligence, and providing logistical support,” including aerial refueling. Karem said that the US is “focused on helping the coalition avoid civilian casualties in Yemen.” But when pressed by Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, Karem said the US doesn’t actually track the results of Saudi military activities. “We see a difference in how the Saudis operate,” Karem said before admitting that, “we do not have perfect understanding because we are not using all of our assets to monitor their aircraft.” “If we don’t track the results of the Kingdom’s military actions, how can we know civilian deaths are being reduced,” Cardin asked. “You don’t have direct information about it. This is the US reputation on (the) line… don’t make statements you can’t back up.” As that debate played out in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the UN Security Council gathered in New York to discuss the conflict, which the Special Envoy to Yemen called “this great tragedy.” Critics say the Saudi-led air campaign and particularly its closures of Yemen’s ports have fueled famine, disease and the breakdown of the country’s basic services. One of the world’s poorest nations before the conflict began, Yemen now has nearly 18 million people struggling to find enough to eat, and 1 million cases of cholera – a disease partly driven by the fact that 16 million people do not have clean water to drink. Martin Griffiths, the UN Special Envoy for Yemen, told the council he plans to present them a framework for negotiations within the next two months. Satterfield and Karem told lawmakers that Saudi Arabia is committed to political negotiations, but Murphy dismissed that claim as “spin.” “This impression that you’re giving the committee that the Iranians don’t want to come to the table and the Saudis and the Emirates do, is spin,” he said. “The Saudis have made it pretty clear to everyone that’s asked them that they are not going to come to the table until the military battle lines on the ground inside Yemen change.” He noted that for three years, Saudis have been trying to score military victories without success. “So why are the Saudis going to come to the table today?” he asked. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting (a) different set of results,” Murphy said. “And I feel like that’s where we are, [three] years into a conflict in which nothing has changed except for the worse.” CNN’s Laura Ly and Elizabeth Joseph contributed to this report.


Search warrant documents used by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators reveal how agents zeroed in on potential criminal activity related to Paul Manafort’s time as Donald Trump’s campaign chairman. The documents, used to obtain a search warrant in building the case against Manafort, were revealed in a court filing late Monday night. Manafort has pleaded not guilty in two federal cases, and the charges he faces do not include allegations about his time on the campaign. The search warrant makes clear that Mueller is also focused on Manafort’s actions connected to the campaign. The White House and others have repeatedly said that the investigation into Manafort concerns his activities before he joined Trump’s team in 2016. Investigators in a search warrant application last July told a judge in Virginia that they sought evidence related to Manafort’s interactions with a Russian real estate magnate and were suspicious of possible campaign finance violations. Specifically, the investigators sought from Manafort’s apartment records “involving any of the attendees of the June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower” and anything involving Aras and Emin Agalarov, an Azerbaijani-Russian billionaire and his son tied to the meeting, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and to a possible earlier unsuccessful attempt to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Manafort attended the meeting, which was facilitated by the Agalarovs and attended by their publicist and an employee of their company, and a Russian lawyer who was believed to be bringing revealing information about Hillary Clinton. Manafort was in the meeting, along with Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner. CNN has reached out to the Agalarovs’ attorney. It follows the disclosure last week that in August 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein outlined for the special counsel that he could investigate Manafort for payments from Ukrainian politicians but also allegations that Manafort was “colluding with Russian government officials” to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. An FBI agent’s affidavit included in the paperwork also describes how investigators had probable cause to search for evidence related to several crimes with which Manafort was eventually charged, like foreign lobbying, tax and banking violations. Yet there’s one possible crime listed on the affidavit he hasn’t been charged with, and that could point to the core of the current probe: violations of the foreign contribution ban. That law bars foreign nationals from donating “directly or indirectly” to US elections, campaigns and political parties and also prohibits people in the US from receiving those contributions. CNN reported last week that Mueller’s investigators have looked into the possibility that wealthy Russians funneled money into the presidential election. Twenty-seven pages of the affidavit that follow the description of crimes under investigation are blacked out, indicative of redactions needed to protect the ongoing investigation. The search warrant paperwork was made public as Manafort argues that the seizure of all the computers and electronics in his Alexandria, Virginia, apartment was too broad. He says the search gave the investigators access to devices that might not have been used in his suspected crimes, according to the filing. For instance, they grabbed an Apple iPod Touch and old electronics in a junk drawer, he said. Manafort is asking a judge to throw out evidence collected during the raid, and also says the special counsel’s office has violated his Fourth Amendment rights by not returning to him items they seized that were unrelated to the investigation. The investigation team sought a laundry list of data, including interactions between Manafort and his family and close associates, financial records and purchases of luxury suits, rugs and watches. Manafort previously took issue in court with a search of his storage locker in Virginia, which contained boxes of business records. The illumination of the July raid of Manafort’s home, which became public days after it happened, happens hours after prosecutors in New York, separate from Mueller, swept the belongings of Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney.

Robert Mueller’s investigation into Paul Manafort


When we think of people coming to the United States to escape danger and persecution, we tend to think of refugees. But the caravan of Central American men, women and children currently languishing at the US-Mexico border has turned national attention to another type of endangered group: asylum seekers. In the United States, applying for asylum is a completely different process than arriving to the country as a refugee. Asylum seekers also tend to be of different nationalities than refugees. According to statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, China was the country with the highest number of citizens seeking asylum in the United States in 2015, followed by El Salvador, Guatemala and Egypt. The country that had the most asylum request denied? Mexico. So what does the asylum process look like? And to whom does it apply? When people request asylum, they are essentially seeking protection from violence or persecution that keep them from feeling safe in their home country or keep them from returning safely to their home country. In order for someone to qualify for asylum, they must meet the definition of a “refugee” as laid out by the Immigration and Nationality Act. And yes, there is a difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker. Refugee status is granted to people who are outside the United States. Asylum is granted to people who are either already in the country or are seeking entry and asylum at a border. There are two ways to request asylum. Since there are a lot more variables with that kind of asylum, we’ll focus on the affirmative asylum process. The most important document for asylum seekers is the I-589, the Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. It’s not the longest government document ever, but the 12 pages of questions and 14 pages of instructions are understandably extensive. There are several fields that require “detailed and specific” accounts of persecution or fear of persecution, as well as requests for dates and events that could have taken place years ago. If spouses or children are to be included on the application, there’s even more to provide, including photographs. Also, if someone is newly in the United States, they may immediately run into a problem that could follow them throughout the asylum process: Providing a reliable address where they can be contacted. Once the process has begun, applicants will be scheduled for a “biometric services appointment,” usually conducted at one of dozens of Application Support Centers located around the country. Though “biometrics” sounds fairly ominous, it’s actually just referring to various forms of identification related to the body. At the appointment, applicants are fingerprinted and photographed, and sign documents to verify everything they stated in their I-589. During this period, other security measures, like background and security checks, will also be conducted. Applicants may face challenges in getting to and from appointments. Some states have only one or two Application Support Centers, meaning applicants may have to make costly and time-consuming travel arrangements. After the biometrics appointment comes an interview with an asylum officer. The scheduling process for this interview is actually kind of backwards: The USCIS prioritizes more recent filings to discourage people from filing for asylum for fraudulent reasons and biding their time while the proceedings drag on. The USCIS says the window for this interview typically starts at 21 days after an application is filed. However, in early 2018 the USCIS released new guidelines that said the scheduling process may take longer because of “workload priorities related to border enforcement.” At the interview, an asylum officer will determine whether an applicant fits the definition of a refugee. Applicants are required to bring all of the documents they’ve racked up throughout the process, as well as things like birth certificates and marriage certificates. Some people may choose to bring a lawyer along, which is allowed. And if an applicant doesn’t speak English, they need to bring their own certified translator. According to the USCIS, the interview lasts about an hour. Again, accessibility and transportation play a critical role here. Asylum interviews are conducted at Asylum Offices, sub-offices, or at a USCIS field office. There are only eight Asylum Offices and two sub-offices in the entire country. The Chicago office, for example, services states as far away as Idaho. There are a few dozen field offices, but the availability of interview times may be limited. After the intervew, the fate of an asylum seeker lies in the asylum officer’s hands. A few other people also must sign off on the decision, including a supervisory asylum officer. According to the USCIS, the decision may come within two weeks after the asylum interview. An approval, or “Grant of Asylum,” officially gives someone asylum status and allows them to apply for things like a green card and immigration benefits. A “no” comes in the form of a “Notice of Intent to Deny,” which includes a short window for appeal. When the decision comes back, it may not be a simple “yes” or “no.” Sometimes unfinished background checks or other clearances haven’t been completed yet, and applicants will be given a recommended approval until everything is sorted out. Applicants who were in the United States illegally may have their case referred to an immigration court, which turns the decision over to an immigration judge. Update: The headline of this story has been updated to more accurately reflect how long the asylum application process takes.


Editor’s Note: Ryan Lizza is a CNN Political Analyst. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. At the end of an interview with CNN Thursday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey was asked by Jake Tapper about his unusual place in American politics as a man equally “reviled” by partisans of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Clinton’s most ardent supporters insist Comey had it in for their candidate in 2016 when, in the final weeks of the campaign, he told Congress that the feds had reopened their investigation into Clinton’s emails to conduct a search of Anthony Weiner’s laptop. The rage is understandable: There’s solid statistical evidence that the Comey announcement tipped the campaign to Trump (see Nate Silver’s analysis, “The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton the Election,” for the full argument.) John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, recently said on CNN that he doubted Clinton could even bring herself to read Comey’s book. Trump partisans revile Comey for the Russia investigation, for forcing the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, which has served as a tightening noose around Trump’s presidency, and for Comey’s scorching portrait of the President, who has dubbed Comey a liar who should be jailed. Comey reacted to Tapper’s question by noting that America’s heightened polarization has made the job of the FBI director historically difficult. “The challenge of being the FBI in today’s political environment,” he said, “is you’re not on anybody’s side. That confuses people, which I get. And it angers people, which I also get. And there’s only so much you can do about it, except constantly try to show transparency. Show people your work. So that fair-minded people can make a judgment.” Related video Comey on what John Kelly told him after his firing This idea of transparency is a major thread through Comey’s book, “A Higher Loyalty.” “Buried pain never gets better with age,” he writes. “And by remembering and being open and truthful about our mistakes, we reduce the chance we will repeat them.” In many ways Comey, in his book and on his media tour, has indeed been transparent and self-reflective. But in the Tapper interview he once again demonstrated an enormous blind spot about his role in the election. He remains supremely confident that he did the right thing by disclosing the Clinton email investigation while hiding the Russia investigation. As a journalist I’ve never bought the argument from Clinton partisans that Comey should not have revealed the reopening of the email investigation. Comey found himself in a difficult position. President Barack Obama had made statements about the investigation that were arguably inappropriate for a president. Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, had had a mysterious meeting on Lynch’s plane. If Comey hadn’t disclosed, the information surely would have leaked. Comey has said he thought at the time, “If I hide this from the American people, she’ll be illegitimate the moment she’s elected.” He was right. Voters going to the polls deserved to know whether Clinton was under investigation. (If the Democrats didn’t want an FBI investigation to be part of the campaign, they could have nominated someone who wasn’t under FBI investigation.) But wait: Trump associates were also under investigation at the same time, as part of the Russia probe, which began in July of 2016. It is unforgivable for Comey to argue that the principle of transparency required him to disclose an investigation affecting one candidate but not the other. Asked about this discrepancy, Comey gave an inadequate answer. “I think of the two investigations – and everybody working on it in the Department of Justice and the FBI did, as well – as quite different,” he said. “Very early-stage counterintelligence investigation of Americans, not Donald Trump, a small group trying to figure out, is there any connection of those people and the Russian effort? Separate from the Russian effort, which we had important discussions about whether to publicize that.” Related article James Comey's Ego has a lot to answer for He added that “it wouldn’t be remotely appropriate” to reveal any facts about the Russia investigation. And yet, as Tapper pointed out, Comey did just that, only it occurred five months later in a public hearing before Congress. Sure, the investigation was further along by then, but not by very much. Comey insisted to Tapper that he was pressured by members of Congress, such as Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, to reveal the Russia probe, but the same was true during the campaign, when Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, pushed Comey to disclose the existence of the Russia investigation. In late October, Reid wrote to Comey that “you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government.” Reid was mocked as a bit of a conspiracy theorist at the time. But we now know he was mostly right. Comey should have set the record straight in 2016 – and while he’s lecturing everyone about transparency on his current media tour, he should admit he was wrong not to.


Officials say 472 more people died this September than in the same month in 2016 The island government's official death toll from Hurricane Maria remains 55 Nearly 500 more people died in Puerto Rico in September – when Hurricane Maria struck the island – than in the same month the previous year, according to government officials. The acknowledgment, made during a Wednesday news conference, comes as the island’s government continues to face questions about an official death toll of 55 from the massive storm that made landfall on September 20. An official with Puerto Rico’s forensics institute told reporters that 472 more people died this September than in the same month in 2016 – up from 2,366 to 2,838. “We are not going to say there could be more or less,” Héctor Pesquera, secretary of Puerto Rico’s Department of Public Safety, which oversees the count, said of hurricane-related fatalities. “We’ve quantified the number of deaths.” Puerto Rico’s uncounted hurricane deaths Pesquera has staunchly defended government efforts to generate an accurate count under extremely trying conditions: most lines of communication were cut and many roads on the island were initially impassable. San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, a frequent critic of the disaster response, said last week that she believed the death toll could be in the hundreds and possibly as high as 500. Many hurricane victims were not included in the official count because the cause of death was improperly recorded or they were “cataloged as dying of natural deaths,” Yulín Cruz said. “When they were, for example, hooked to a respirator, there’s no power, the small generator that they had that gives up, and of course, they die of natural causes, but they are related to a lack of electricity,” she said. Pesquera called the mayor’s comments irresponsible and asked her to back the claims with evidence. Some disaster experts have also questioned the official tally. John Mutter, a Columbia University disaster specialist who studied the death toll after Hurricane Katrina, has said he would have expected fatalities in Puerto Rico to be in the hundreds – in part because of the level of poverty on the island, and also because so few people would have been able to evacuate, as they did for Hurricane Irma in Florida. Mutter told CNN last month that the fact that all potential hurricane fatalities must be reviewed by a single office in San Juan was part of the problem. Some – but not all – of the 50 US states have coroners stationed locally by county or subregion, he said. About 60% of the US territory, which is home to approximately 3.4 million US citizens, is still without power. Khushu Shah, John D. Sutter and Amanda Golden contributed to this report.


Scientists have cloned the Zika virus for the first time This will enable scientists to study the virus and the damage it can cause Engineering the virus could also speed development of a vaccine Scientists have for the first time cloned the Zika virus, a development that could bring a desperately needed vaccine within closer reach. The mosquito-borne virus – which can also be sexually transmitted – has torn through Latin America in recent months, bringing an increase in microcephaly, a condition in which babies are born with abnormally small heads and underdeveloped brains. A team from the The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston was able to genetically engineer Zika, so researchers can now make the virus in test tubes and on Petri dishes, according to a study (PDF) published Monday. Lead author Pei-Yong Shi said his team’s manmade Zika means scientists can study and adapt the virus to develop a vaccine. It could also be used to test the efficacy of their own vaccines. The team was able to infect mosquitoes with the cloned virus as well as mice, which went on to develop neurological diseases. “What we’ve created is something that is reproducible, meaning that batches of this virus can be made in large quantities,” Shi said. He said that if scientists are able to adapt the virus to make a safe vaccine, trials on animals could start soon and clinical trials could start as early as next year. “But of course this will depend on whether we see serious side effects. We don’t even know yet what the full impact of Zika is, besides microcephaly and some other neurological diseases,” Shi said. Some scientists have been researching the virus in mouse models to learn more about how it behaves and how it leads to devastating neurological deficits. The hope there too is that this is a starting point toward the development of a treatment and vaccine. Several scientists welcomed the development, including Arturo Reyes-Sandoval, an associate professor at Oxford University’s Jenner Institute, who is working on a Zika vaccine. He said the new cloned virus would enable his team to better test its efficacy. “The Zika virus took all of us by surprise, and one of the difficulties in developing preventative measures has been the lack of tools available to test the vaccine. So a development like this will help for sure,” Reyes-Sandoval said. What you need to know about Zika While several teams of scientists are working on Zika vaccines, this is the first time the Zika strain has been replicated. The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has created a trial vaccine for similar viruses that can be used as a starting point for a Zika vaccine, and the Jenner Institute has conducted trials with mice and aims to hold clinic trials by 2017. The virus has caused panic across the Americas, with some countries advising women to hold off on getting pregnant. The World Health Organization says Zika is also linked to Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a rare disease in which a person’s own immune system damages the nerve cells, causing muscular weakness and, in some cases, paralysis. Some scientists fear that the impact is greater than initially thought, linking the virus to premature births, eye problems and several neurological conditions in babies born to infected women. A pharmaceutical company and condom manufacturer announced that they would arm the Australian Olympic team with “Zika-proof” condoms and antiviral lubricants as thousands of athletes compete in the Summer Games in Brazil, the epicenter of the latest Zika outbreak. Some health experts have called for the Olympics to be moved to a Zika-free location.


The reverberations from Britain’s fateful choice extend far beyond Europe. The U.K. retains deep ties with many African states, and the turbulence is causing anxiety from the Johannesburg stock exchange to the battlefields of Somalia. More than a third of the flowers sold in the European Union come from Kenya. The U.K. is one of the most valuable export markets for some of the largest African economies. One-third of Kenya’s cut flowers arrive in Europe, where the U.K. is the second-largest buyer behind the Netherlands. Rather than negotiating with the European bloc, Kenya will now need to negotiate new deals with the U.K., as well as absorbing losses as the British economy retracts. It is a similar story for Nigeria, where a projected figure of £20 billion in bilateral trade by 2020 will now be revised downwards, and South Africa, which will need to make up shortfalls in wine exports. The pro-independence message has found an echo in the Eastern Nigerian state of Biafra, where activists have launched a campaign for the majority-Igbo region to secede. The movement has existed on the fringes for decades, following a violent bid for separation in the late 1960s, but in this new era of uncertainty, calls for ‘Biafrexit’ are gaining fresh momentum. If a referendum on Biafra is held today, which of the two will carry the day? Britain is one of the largest contributors to the European Development Fund in both funding and strategic planning, and its exit from the EU has raised fears that Europe will scale back its commitment to development programs. One of the main beneficiaries currently is Tanzania, which is seeing new roads and agricultural upgrades arrive through the fund. Should these grind to a halt, the wider economy will suffer, as will the popularity of new President John Magufuli. The former British colony has the closest financial ties with the U.K. – and the greatest exposure. Many leading South African companies are dual listed on Johannesburg and London stock exchanges, and South African banks lean heavily on British cash reserves. The impact of Brexit was felt immediately with a steep drop in the Rand, and although the currency has climbed since, confidence will remain shaky. Europe-wide sanctions on regimes could be reassessed without British involvement and in some cases this is cause for celebration. Zimbabwean ruler Robert Mugabe is reportedly convinced the U.K. is responsible for restrictions that have cost the slumping economy tens of billions of dollars, and that other member states will be more co-operative. Other sanctioned regimes such as Libya could also seek re-appraisal. The African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) has been key to checking the progress of East African jihadist militant group al-Shabaab in Somalia and beyond. The body is funded through the EU but British efforts have been key, contributing servicemen and logistical support to the struggle. European leaders recently voted through a cut to the Mission’s budget, which could signal a policy of retrenchment as they look closer to home. This would come as a boost to the terror group. Some political African groups in Britain campaigned to leave the EU partly on the basis of the hated Common Agricultural Policy, which allows subsidized European farmers to dump cheap goods on African states and imposes tariffs to prevent trade going the other way. The Policy has been described as neo-colonialism, and a severe hindrance to agricultural development across the continent. A weaker EU may struggle to retain the same grip on the market, and British officials have hinted at a fairer deal for African farmers outside the Union.


In his typical colorful language, Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy described FBI Director James Comey’s social standing in Washington as “about as popular as cholera.” “It’s no secret Comey doesn’t get invited to many parties on Capitol Hill,” the Republican senator said on CNN’s “New Day” Thursday morning, a day after Comey testified on Capitol Hill about his agency’s probe into alleged links between the Trump campaign and the Russians. “He’s about as popular as cholera. I respect that about him. The impression I get of Comey is he’s going to do his job and he doesn’t care who gets mad at him.” Comey is set to appear before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday for a second round of testimony, this time behind closed doors – after weeks of wrangling that almost knocked the House Russia investigation off-track. “I appreciated Comey’s candor,” said Kennedy. “He was forthcoming. He wasn’t apologetic.” Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers will brief the panel Thursday in a closed hearing that both Republicans and Democrats  hope will result in more answers. Republicans on the House Russia investigation noted that during Comey’s last visit, there were almost 100 instances when he said he could not answer their questions – something they hope will change in the private setting. Comey has been tight-lipped about the FBI’s ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, but he did divulge some additional information at the hearing before the Senate judiciary committee Wednesday – including telling senators that former acting Attorney General Sally Yates alerted him to former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s lying about calls with the Russian ambassador and the potential for him to be blackmailed. CNN’s Tom LoBianco contributed to this report


More than 400 people have been vaccinated so far in the current outbreak Five experimental drugs to treat Ebola virus disease will be trialed More than 400 people have been vaccinated and more than 800 contacts traced in the city of Mbandaka in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Use of the experimental vaccine, known as rVSV-ZEBOV, will now spread to the more rural regions of Iboko and Bikoro where the majority of cases have occurred. Vaccination began in the urban setting of Mbandaka to “prevent an urban outbreak” as well as further spread along the nearby Congo river, to reduce “risk through the interior of DRC and surrounding countries,” Dr. Peter Salama, the deputy director-general of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program said Tuesday. He confirmed the outbreak spread to Mbandaka after two brothers visited Bikoro to attend a funeral and traveled back to the city. Related article Ebola outbreak 2018: What's different this time? “Mbandaka is relatively safeguarded at the moment,” he said, adding that officials “haven’t seen an explosive increase in cases” and the teams have reason to “cautiously optimistic.” There have been 54 cases of Ebola reported in Congo, including 25 deaths. Thirty-five of those case have been confirmed with laboratory tests. Salama said 47 of the cases were in the more rural regions of Bikoro and Iboko where control efforts will now be focused. “That’s where the next phase of vaccination must go.” The vaccine is proving to be a very acceptable intervention to the community in Mbandaka, Salama said. “There are no reports of refusal of the vaccination.” “Over 90% of eligible people are getting vaccinated,” said Dr. Michael Ryan, WHO assistant director-general for Emergency Preparedness and Response, highlighting that this is a strong coverage rate for any vaccine. More than 900 contacts are being followed in Congo, and the number is likely to increase. The Ebola vaccine being provided has been shown to be safe in humans and highly effective against the Ebola virus, according to the WHO. A 2016 study found it to be 100% effective in trials in Guinea in coordination with the country’s Ministry of Health after the 2014-15 outbreak. Five experimental drugs to treat Ebola virus disease, including ZMapp and Remdesivir, have now arrived in the country and will be trialed under strict experimental research protocols, Salama said. This means they will have to be used as part of a clinical trial, with ethical review and informed patient consent. Officials expect to get formal approval for delivery in the coming days. Related article Ebola 101: Answers to your questions about causes, symptoms, transmission and treatments WHO officials hope to introduce the life-saving therapies to patients, but their use will require sophisticated monitoring. Some of the treatments require IV infusion, while others require daily assessment of liver and kidney function, according to Ryan. In 2014, ZMapp became known when it was used to treat two American missionary workers, Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, who contracted Ebola in Liberia. Prior to that, the experimental drug had been tested only in monkeys. This is “not a simple effort to do this kind of trial in this kind of environment,” said Salama. But “if we don’t learn now we’ll never know which drugs to use in this situation.” Vaccination, therapeutic and control efforts have and will be carried out through partnerships between WHO, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) and many other NGOs on the ground in Congo. Control efforts will expand to four more provinces considered to be at risk, the IFRC confirmed. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. Ebola virus disease, which most commonly affects people and nonhuman primates such as monkeys, gorillas and chimpanzees, is caused by one of five Ebola viruses. On average, about 50% of people who become ill with Ebola die. The first human outbreaks of Ebola occurred in 1976, one in the north of what is now Congo and in the region that is now South Sudan. Humans can be infected by other humans if they come in contact with bodily fluids from an infected person or contaminated objects from infected persons. Humans can also be exposed to the virus, for example, by butchering infected animals. West Africa experienced the largest recorded outbreak of Ebola over a two-year period beginning in March 2014; a total of 28,616 confirmed, probable and suspected cases were reported in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, with 11,310 deaths, according to the WHO. CNN’s Jacqueline Howard contributed to this report.


Anti-whaling activist group announce the launch of a new ship The activists group's new campaign in the Southern Ocean comes in the wake of a court loss Though Japan is often in the media spotlight for its whaling operations, Norway is actually the global leader in whale hunting Anti-whaling activist group Sea Shepherd announced its 11th whale defense campaign Tuesday with the launch of a custom-built vessel, which it claims will have the requisite muscle to take on Japanese whaling fleets. “For the first time we will have the speed to catch and outrun the Japanese harpoon ships, knowing speed can be the deciding factor when saving the lives of whales in the Southern Ocean,” Alex Cornelissen, Sea Shepherd Global CEO, said in a statement. Sea Shepherd told CNN that its new ship – dubbed “Ocean Warrior” – is 54 meters (177 feet) long, displaces 439 tons and can reach speeds of 25 knots and higher. Japanese whaling ships are estimated to reach speeds of up to 22 knots, and Sea Shepherd’s previous ships could only reach 15 knots. A deck area also enables ship operators to dispatch small boat operations and support a helicopter. The ship was built in Turkey by Dutch shipbuilder Damen from an 8.3 million euro ($9 million) fund awarded to Sea Shepherd by the Dutch, UK and Swedish lotteries. Ocean Warrior is expected to arrive in Australia at the end of 2016 so it can be prepared for the activist group’s 11th whale defense campaign in the Southern Ocean. Sea Shepherd’s efforts to strengthen their campaign in the Southern Ocean comes a week after a court-mediated settlement between their US arm and a Japanese whaling institution. On August 23, a preliminary injunction – which prevents Sea Shepherd’s US branch from disrupting Japanese whaling operations in the Southern Ocean – became permanent, ending a legal dispute that has been raging between the two groups since 2011. In a statement released on the same day, the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), a Japanese nonprofit, said that under the injunction, Sea Shepherd USA would be barred from “physically attacking” their research vessels and crew and from sailing within 500 yards of their whaling ships. Though Sea Shepherd USA confirmed that the organization would comply with the legal restrictions of the injunction, the Australian branch of Sea Shepherd asserted that the injunction over their US arm would not affect conservation operations. “The US court settlement doesn’t have an affect on Australian law,” Adam Burling, a spokesperson from the Australian-based Sea Shepherd, told CNN. “This decision does not impact our mission to protect the whales of the Southern Ocean in any way,” he added. The ICR is a government-backed research institution established in 1987 to study the “biological and social sciences related to whales.” Their research methods include killing a quota of whales each year to study them. Anti-whaling activists oppose the ICR, claiming the institute is a cover for Japan to kill whales for commercial profit. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission – an intergovernmental body dedicated to conserving whales – proposed an international moratorium on commercial whaling. The moratorium has been in effect since 1986, however, Japanese fleets still sail to the Antarctic every year in autumn or winter to catch whales. The government asserts the hunts are for scientific purposes and therefore legal. Related video Japan whaling rulling called definitive In 2016, Japan’s whaling fleets killed 333 minke whales. According to the Japanese Ministry of Fisheries, the research was conducted to manage and understand minke whale populations in the Antarctic Ocean. Anti-whaling organizations, however, insist the hunts are illegal, inhumane and detrimental to whale populations. In 2014, the United Nations’ International Court of Justice ordered Japan to stop its whaling program over concerns of the legitimacy of its scientific activities in the Antarctic region. Japan is not the only country that engages in whaling. Since the establishment of the international moratorium, Iceland and Norway have continued to hunt whales commercially. In 2014, Norway caught 746 minke whales and Iceland caught 137 fin whales and 24 minke whales. According to the International Whaling Commission, these countries establish their own catch limits, but provide all information and scientific data on their catches to the commission. A report from 2015, co-written by three animal rights NGOs, found that Norway killed more whales each year than some of the most prominent whaling countries combined. But Japan still continues to receive the most criticism for its whaling missions. Related video 1800s whaling ships found in the Arctic Claire Perry, a ocean campaign leader at the Environmental Investigation Agency said that Japan’s decision to continue whaling under scientific precepts wasn’t the only reason why they garnered more international scrutiny than Iceland or Norway. “Iceland and Norway whale in northern European waters so it’s seen as a European problem,” Perry told CNN. She explained that Japan, however, was the only country to whale in international waters of the Southern Ocean, which was  declared a sanctuary for whales in 1994. This, she said, made the country a more visible target for NGOs.


Trump and conservative show host Hugh Hewitt went back and forth over Trump's statement In 2007, Trump supported a rapid exit from Iraq Donald Trump said Thursday that he meant exactly what he said when he called President Barack Obama the “founder of ISIS” and objected when a conservative radio show host tried to clarify the GOP nominee’s position. Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean “that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace.” Trump objected. “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” Trump said. “I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.” Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is “not sympathetic” to ISIS and “hates” and is “trying to kill them.” “I don’t care,” Trump said, according to a show transcript. “He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?” Collins: Trump will make the world ‘more dangerous’ Hewitt and Trump went back and forth after that, with Hewitt warning Trump that his critics would seize on his use of “founder” as more example of Trump being loose with words. Clinton later hit back on Thursday on Twitter, saying it was Trump who was unfit to be president. “It can be difficult to muster outrage as frequently as Donald Trump should cause it, but his smear against President Obama requires it,” Clinton tweeted. “No, Barack Obama is not the founder of ISIS. … Anyone willing to sink so low, so often should never be allowed to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.” Anyone willing to sink so low, so often should never be allowed to serve as our Commander-in-Chief. Trump has been under near-constant scrutiny for his discussion of sensitive world events, with his opponents using favorable comments he’s made toward Vladimir Putin and other dictators as evidence of misplaced priorities. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the most senior Republicans to oppose Trump, said her decision came down to Trump making the world a “more dangerous” place, in her estimation. While Trump remains around 40% in national polling, Obama’s approval rating was at 54% after the Democratic convention, according to CNN polling. But the GOP nominee remained steadfast, saying it was “no mistake” what he said, standing by his labeling of the Democratic opponent as a “co-founder.” “Do you not like that?” Trump asked Hewitt. “I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say,” Hewitt said. “Well, I disagree,” Trump replied, and Hewitt moved on. In 2007, however, Trump actually supported a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, despite hitting Obama for his drawdown years later. “You know how they get out? They get out,” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in 2007. “That’s how they get out. Declare victory and leave, because I’ll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.” The comments from 2007 were resurfaced Thursday by Buzzfeed. On Wednesday night, former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul hit Trump on the comments, saying they mimicked Russian talking points designed to sow anger toward the US and the West. “BTW, Trumps line that Obama founded ISIS echoes exactly a myth propagated by Russian state-controlled media and bloggers,” McFaul tweeted. BTW, Trumps line that Obama founded ISIS echoes exactly a myth propagated by Russian state-controlled media and bloggers. Clinton’s campaign also ripped Trump’s comments as damaging to the country, in a statement from policy adviser Jake Sullivan. “This is another example of Donald Trump trash-talking the United States,” Sullivan said. “It goes without saying that this is a false claim from a presidential candidate with an aversion to the truth and an unprecedented lack of knowledge. What’s remarkable about Trump’s comments is that once again, he’s echoing the talking points of Putin and our adversaries to attack American leaders and American interests, while failing to offer any serious plans to confront terrorism or make this country more secure.”


Journalist Cyril Almeida was placed on Pakistan's Exit Control List for a column he wrote His placement on the list caused a social media storm, with people tweeting under the hashtag #StandWithCyril A leading Pakistani journalist has been banned from leaving the country after writing a column that exposed significant rifts between the civilian government and the military. The report, written by journalist Cyril Almeida for the ‘The Daily Dawn’ – one of Pakistan’s leading English language papers – on October 6, said the civilian government had clashed with military chiefs over the issue of homegrown militancy in Pakistan. Almeida, who was attempting to fly out on a holiday on Monday evening was informed that he had been placed on the Pakistan’s Exit Control List, which prevented him from leaving the country. The Exit Control List is a border control system that is maintained under ordinance by the government of Pakistan. It allows the government to ban people whose names appear on the system from exiting Pakistan. Almeida tweeted that he had been placed on the list Monday night, causing a social media storm with journalist, analysts and supporters tweeting under the hashtag #StandWithCyril. Almeida’s column was published amid a backdrop of increasing tensions between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. It highlights tensions between senior members of Pakistan’s civilian government and the director of ISI, the country’s military intelligence organization. The Pakistani government responded swiftly to Almeida’s column, dismissing it as “an amalgamation of fiction and fabrication” in a statement. The Daily Dawn’s editor Zafar Abbas issued a statement Tuesday, asserting that Almeida’s column was “verified, cross checked and fact checked.” He also said the government should refrain from “targeting the messenger and scapegoating the country’s most respected newspaper in a malicious campaign.” In a statement released Monday, the Pakistani prime minister’s office stated that a high level meeting on the report had taken place between the prime minister, the chief army staff, interior minister and the director general of the ISI, with calls for “stern action” against “those responsible for speculative reporting.” Yet the public response to the story has caused some to question if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s democratically-elected government is losing support in Pakistan. Analyst and author of Military Inc, Ayesha Siddiqa, told CNN that Almeida’s placement on the Exit Control List is “against the norms of democracy.” Amnesty International called the travel ban on Almeida “a crude intimidation tactic designed to silence journalists and stop them from doing their jobs,” in a statement released Tuesday. Columnist Mosharraf Zaidi told CNN that Almeida’s report had confirmed what was already widely known in Pakistan. He asserted, however, that the significance of Almeida’s report lay in how forcefully he had “disrupted the national conversation” by placing the issue of tensions between civilian government and military into the public arena.


Editor’s Note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review, and a former CNN producer and correspondent. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. Frida Ghitis: US vote declining to oppose LGBT executions is dark day for human rights Washington's decision on the UN resolution shocked human rights groups, she says The past week saw two remarkable developments at the United Nations, and the world took notice of both. One was the passage of a resolution condemning the use of the death penalty as punishment for consensual gay relations. LGBT groups viewed the moment as a major milestone, what the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association called a “historic first.” Celebrations, however, were muted. That’s because of the other occurrence: The United States, until recently a leader in the global effort to advance human rights, voted against the resolution. Even though the UN Human Rights Council’s measure does not outlaw the use of the death penalty,  Washington’s decision to vote no on the resolution still sent shockwaves among human rights groups and their supporters. And the shock was not limited to the United States. Headlines in other countries noted that America sided with the nations that refused to condemn the medieval – but still practiced – policy of killing people simply because they are gay. They noted, correctly, that the US vote was dictated by fear of undercutting the death penalty itself. In 2014, the Obama administration abstained from a resolution from the Human Rights Council on the death penalty, though that resolution notably lacked any provision related to its specific use against gay or transgender individuals. The fact is that we live in a world where even today gay people are being arrested, tortured and killed because of their sexual orientation. And the United States didn’t just let an opportunity to condemn those atrocities pass by – it did much worse. It took a stand against that condemnation. Related article On transgender ban, Trump, listen to your generals This latest vote came as a stark reminder that under the current administration, the United States hasn’t just given up its commitment to advancing human rights. It has, instead, changed sides in that struggle. We initially heard from the US State Department that the human rights agenda would be sidelined, and we’ve watched President Donald Trump repeatedly praise some of the world’s most repressive rulers, at times seeming to praise them precisely for their ruthlessness. The resolution, to be clear, was not solely focused on LGBT executions. It urged countries that have still not abolished the practice to make sure it is not imposed as punishment for “apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations.” The final vote at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, was 27 in favor of condemning abuse of the death penalty, 13 against and seven abstentions. We should all celebrate passage of the resolution in a UN body with a dismal track record. But the fact that the United States, the birthplace of the modern human rights movement, opposed a measure supported by every single Western and Eastern European country in the body, and every Latin American country (only Cuba abstained), and instead sided with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and other countries with troubling human rights records, made it a dark day for human rights. The Trump administration, via State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, called the media coverage “misleading,” explaining that the United States voted against the resolution “because of broader concerns with the resolution’s approach in condemning the death penalty. …” She added that the United States “unequivocally condemns” the use of the death penalty “for conduct such as homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery and apostasy.” The statement came in a State Department briefing, not in a recognized global platform such as the United Nations, where it might have had an impact. Related article America, don't abandon gay Chechens Ambassador Nikki Haley, who has been until now the more reasonable face to the world of a volatile US administration, also tweeted: “There was NO vote by USUN that supported the death penalty for gay people. We have always fought for justice for the LGBT community.” This is not the first administration to face the dilemma of how to oppose human rights abuses without undercutting America’s continuing use of the death penalty. But the Trump administration could have abstained again. No one expects, at this juncture, that this administration will become a world leader, a champion of human rights, much less LGBT rights. Trump promised to defend LGBT rights during the campaign, vowing he would do a better job than Hillary Clinton. By now, that’s a laughable claim, following Trump’s pronouncements on transgender Americans in the military, and his outspoken support for virulently homophobic politicians. In the meantime, the death penalty is still the official punishment for gay relations in several countries. Iran, in particular, inflicts it with regularity. Photos of gay teenagers about to be publicly hanged surfaced in 2005, and Amnesty International has reported on and condemned other executions. In Saudi Arabia, the penalty is stoning to death for married men or for non-Muslims who engage in same-sex conduct with Muslims. At least 10 countries allow execution for LGBT behavior, according to The Washington Post. In countries where homosexuality does not qualify for the death penalty, being gay or transgender can put people at risk for harassment, arrest or even murder. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Ever since a gay rainbow flag was waved by someone during a concert last month in Cairo, Human Rights Watch reports that dozens of LGBT Egyptians and their supporters have been arrested on charges such as “inciting sexual deviancy” and “disrupting societal cohesion.”  According to Mada Masr, an independent Egyptian media organization, one of those under arrest, Sarah Hegazy, told the prosecutor that she is not gay but believes “that every person is free, as long as they don’t harm others.” The argument is being made by brave people facing prison terms, and by activists risking horrifying punishment. One can only hope that one day the US government, instead of siding with human rights abusers, will again become a leading voice in defense of human rights, including LGBT rights.


Trump informed Chinese President Xi Jinping about the Syria airstrikes over dinner Thursday night The President said the discussion occurred over the "most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen." When you’re president, apparently you can have your cake and strike Syria, too. President Donald Trump, in an interview with Fox Business, said he informed Chinese President Xi Jinping about the air strikes he authorized in Syria over the “most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen” at his ocean-side club and that the communist leader was “enjoying it.” “I was sitting at the table. We had finished dinner. We’re now having dessert. And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it,” Trump said, before telling interviewer Maria Bartiromo he was told the strike was ready to go. Trump added that he told Xi that the United States had “just fired 59 missiles … heading to Iraq,” incorrectly identifying the country he was striking when relaying the story to Bartiromo. Of Xi, Trump said, “And he was eating his cake. And he was silent.” Related article Russia's Lavrov warns US over Syria in heated start to talks “We were almost finished. It was a full day in Palm Beach. We’re almost finished and I, what does he do, finish his dessert and go home,” Trump asked rhetorically. Xi, the President said, paused for 10 seconds before telling Trump – via a interpreter – that “anybody that was so brutal and uses gases to do that young children and babies, it’s OK” to respond with force. Trump, in one of his biggest foreign policy tests to date, struck Syria with a series of tomahawk missiles last week while he also met with the Chinese president at Mar-A-Lago, his private club in Florida. The strike, which was in response a chemical attack on a rebel-held town that the United States has blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has been widely praised by the international community, but denied by Russia, a close Assad ally. Trump, later in the interview, said he “immediately” called Defense Secretary James Mattis after he saw the images of children dying from the chemical attack and asked, “What can we do?” “We hit them very hard,” Trump said. “Now, are we going to get involved with Syria? No. But if I see them using gas and using things that, I mean even some of the worst tyrants in the world didn’t use the kind of gases that they used.”


“Adrift” is a two-tiered throwback – a stirring, at times grueling portrait of survival, and an old-fashioned showcase for star-producer Shailene Woodley. It mostly works on both levels, although more casual film-goers might understandably opt to catch this TV-movie-style true story after it’s sailed out of theaters. Director Baltasar Kormakur previously helmed “Everest,” so he has some experience with the man-(or woman)-against-nature genre. Moreover, the producers chose to do most of the shooting on location in Fiji, which brings a sense of authenticity to the ordeal. “Adrift” is based on events that took place in 1983, later chronicled in a book by Tami Oldham. What gives the movie momentum, though, is a dual narrative structure, beginning with the aftermath of the hurricane that left Woodley’s Tami stranded, then flashing back to her meeting Richard (“The Hunger Games’” Sam Claflin), her partner on the journey. That approach both creates an element of suspense about the moment when the crisis happened, as well as the prospect of being rescued. It also turns “Adrift” into a reasonably effective love story, with the free-spirited Tami landing in Tahiti and being wooed by Richard, who fatefully agrees to sail a wealthy couple’s boat to California for them. “We’re gonna die out here,” Tami mutters more than once, which only makes her courage and resilience all the more stirring. The key scenes are harrowing, and the shifts in time help break up a story that could easily become claustrophobic as the wait to be discovered drags on. It’s worth noting, too, that while the particulars are easily found via a Google search, given the slim nature of the story, the less one knows going into the movie – other than the fact that Tami lived to write a book about it – the better. Because this is largely a two-character piece, there’s considerable pressure on Woodley and Claflin, and they deliver admirably. The actress, in particular, continues to demonstrate her versatility after the “Divergent” series and HBO’s “Big Little Lies.” “Adrift” might be about a boat floating into the unknown, but seen that way, the movie and its star, at least, seem to know exactly where they’re going. “Adrift” opens June 1 in the U.S. It’s rated PG-13.


Burkina Faso President: More than 50 people are wounded "They ... kept shooting at people that seemed alive," survivor says One American died, the U.S. State Department says Attackers raided a luxury hotel in Burkina Faso overnight, shooting some and taking others hostage in a siege that lasted hours and ended with 29 people dead. An al Qaeda-linked terrorist group claimed responsibility for the assault at Splendid Hotel – a popular meeting place for Western diplomats in the capital, Ouagadougou. The attack began Friday night and dragged on under the cover of darkness. Security forces circled the perimeter to assess the situation before they stormed in hours later. Related gallery Burkina Faso hotel attack “Everyone was panicked and was lying down on the floor. There was blood everywhere, they were shooting at people at point blank,” said Yannick Sawadogo, who survived the siege. Security forces entered the hotel early Saturday and freed 126 hostages, half of whom were hospitalized, according to Burkina Faso’s foreign minister, Alpha Barry. Attack demonstrates al Qaeda revival in Africa Of the 29 people who died, 22 have been identified, Ouagadougou prosecutor Maïza Sereme said, according to state broadcaster RTB. President Roch Marc Christian Kabore told the nation more than 50 people were wounded. The injured included two Burkinabe police officers, one soldier and one service member from France. It was unclear whether the death toll included the three attackers that Kabore said were killed. Survivors described horrific scenes as the attackers paced and fired in the hotel Friday night. “We could hear them talking and they were walking around and kept shooting at people who seemed alive,”  Sawadogo told CNN affiliate BFMTV. Sawadogo said he escaped through a broken window, and could barely see because of smoke. The West African nation’s forces received logistical support from American and French troops. Shortly after the forces stormed the hotel, the sounds of gunshots faded. The assault appeared well-planned, with some of the attackers coming to the hotel during the day and mingling with guests, authorities said. When darkness fell, more attackers joined them. Before the hotel assault, they attacked the Cappuccino café across the street, which had about 100 people, according to the state broadcaster. They then took off to the Splendid Hotel, where they seized hostages. Witnesses said the attackers wore turbans and spoke a language not native to Burkina Faso, a former French colony. Two French nationals were among the dead, BFMTV reported. Canada said six of its citizens were killed. Four of the dead came from the same Ukrainian family and included a 9-year-old girl. Two of the deceased were from Switzerland, that nation’s Foreign Ministry said. The United States said one American died. “We extend our condolences to the family of Michael James Riddering. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time, as they are with all those affected by this brutality,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said. Other victims included seven Burkinabe, four Canadians, two Swiss, one Dutch, one Libyan and one Portuguese, Sereme said, according to RTB. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility for the assault, local media reported. CNN could not independently confirm that claim. Al Qaeda-linked Al-Mourabitoun said it conducted the attack, which had similarities to the one in neighboring Mali in November. Al-Mourabitoun had claimed responsibility for the November attack at the Radisson Blu Hotel in Mali, which left 22 people dead. The group’s leader is veteran al Qaeda figure Mokhtar Belmokhtar, according to the Mauritania-based Al Akhbar news agency. In June, Libya’s interim government reported that he died in an American airstrike. The attack comes a few months after Burkina Faso marked a turning point following a historic presidential election. Burkina Faso elected a new president in November after nearly three decades of autocratic rule followed by a civil uprising. Kabore, the nation’s former prime minister, won more than 53% of votes in that election. Elections were postponed the month before because of a failed coup against the transitional government. The West, particularly France, considers Burkina Faso a key ally in the fight against al Qaeda. French President Francois Hollande said he stands with the nation against the “odious and cowardly attack.” The U.S. Embassy condemned the attack, describing it as a ” senseless assault on innocent people.” Abductors have seized two Australian doctors, who are married,  Kabore said. The couple was taken in the town of Djibo near the border with Mali early Saturday. They worked in a clinic there. Australian authorities did not immediately comment on the kidnapping. CNN’s Elena Sandyrev, Radina Gigova, Pierre Meilhan, Brian Walker and Barbara Starr contributed to this report.