The awards were based on votes from more than 300 chefs, restaurateurs and experts in six countries across Asia. A culinary hat trick. A gastronomic threepeat. Amidst literally millions of restaurants in Asia, one reigned supreme against them all, again: Gaggan. At the fifth edition of Asia’s 50 Best Restaurants awards, sponsored by S.Pellegrino & Acqua Panna, for a wholly unprecedented third year running no restaurant could hold a candle to the innovative Indian cuisine it serves – not  in India, but in Bangkok, Thailand. “I wish I could break the award in 50 pieces and share it with every chef in the room,” chef/owner Gaggan Anand said, thanking his family, his team and the award sponsors. “I’m humbled. This is for my country where I came from, India. For Tara my daughter and my family. The 67 people in my restaurant are the best team I’ve ever worked with.” Gaggan’s triumph followed voting by 318 independent experts led by six academy chairs across the region. The victory was sweet, but clearly not without challenges including time apart from his wife and new child. “I just told the organizers that next time we should have a sponsor from a hospital,” he joked. Meet Gaggan Anand, the ‘world’s best’ Indian chef The Thai capital laid out the red carpet as the great and the good of Asia’s food scene came together to celebrate the crowning of Gaggan as the continent’s top restaurant. Being a culinary starfest, the pressure was on to keep the attendees fed and watered, a task more than accomplished with everything from cheeses by Les Frères Marchand to fiery northern Thai curries by Bangkok’s Maan Mueang restaurant. The stunning final result drew audible gasps from hundreds in the room and doubtless thousands more watching live streams from around the world. The countdown of the top 10 was teased out, with three restaurants in the running for the top three spots, but in which order would they appear? When the second place restaurant was announced as Singapore’s Restaurant Andre, there could be no doubt that Gaggan reigned supreme – yet again. To the cranked-up sound of Paul McCartney’s “Live and Let Die,” he took to the stage, by now a familiar sight for those in the room. The bubbles flowed, both water and grape based, as the evening reached a crescendo, continued in the early morning at after-parties for those really in the know. Gaggan said he may even end up with a permanent reminder of his three wins. “If my team gets a tattoo to celebrate, I’ll get one.” The World’s 50 Best Restaurants 2016 – the list of winners 1. Gaggan (Bangkok)68/1 Soi Langsuan, Ploenchit Road, Lumpini, Bangkok; +66 2 652 1700 3. Restaurant Andre (Singapore)41 Bukit Pasoh Road, Singapore; +65 6534 8880 4. Amber (Hong Kong)7/F, The Landmark Mandarin Oriental, The Landmark, 15 Queen’s Road, Central, Hong Kong; +852 2132 0066 6. Waku Ghin (Singapore)Level 2-01, Atrium 2, The Shoppes, Marina Bay Sands, 10 Bayfront Avenue, Singapore; +65 6688 8507 5. Nahm, Bangkok 6. Narisawa, Tokyo 7. Nihonryori Ryugin, Tokyo 7. Ultraviolet (Shanghai) c/o Bund 18, 6/F, 18 Zhongshan Dong Yi Lu, Shanghai; +86 21 6323 9898 9. Indian Accent (New Delhi) 10. Lung King Heen (Hong Kong) 11. Den, Tokyo 12. L’Effervescence, Tokyo 13. Suhring, Bangkok 14. Florilege, Tokyo 15. Mingles, Seoul 16. Les Amis, Singapore 17. Lung King Heen, Hong Kong 18. Quintessence, Tokyo 19. Bo.Lan, Bangkok 20. Waku Ghin, Singapore 21. Issaya Siamese Club, Bangkok, Thailand 22. Locavore, Bali, Indonesia 23. Corner House, Singapore 24. Raw, Taipei 25. Jungsik, Seoul 26. Sushi Saito, Tokyo 27. Tippling Club, Singapore 28. Le Mout, Taichung, Taiwan 29. Ministry of Crab, Colombo, Sri Lanka 30. Indian Accent, New Delhi 31. Eat Me, Bangkok, Thailand 32. Jade Dragon, Macau 33. Ta Vie, Hong Kong 34. Hajime, Osaka, Japan 35. Gallery Vask, Manila, Philippines 36. The Dining Room at The House on Sathorn, Bangkok 37. Le Du, Bangkok 38. La Yeon, Seoul, Korea 39. The Tasting Room by Galliot, Macau 40. L’Atelier de Joel Robuchon, Bangkok 41. L’Atelier de Joel Robuchon, Hong Kong 42. Jaan, Singapore 43. Mume, Taipei 44. Shinji by Kanesaka, Singapore 45. Ronin, Hong Kong 46. Wasabi by Morimoto, Mumbai, India 47. The Chairman, Hong Kong 48. Fu He Hui, Shanghai 49. Nihonbashi, Colombo, Sri Lanka 50. Takazawa, Tokyo For more on the winners, visit the official Asia’s 50 Best Restaurants website. Chris Dwyer is a Hong Kong-based food and travel writer and communications consultant. Follow him on Twitter at @chrismdwyer or visit www.finefooddude.com.


Kenya's police chief calls for an internal investigation of officers' actions at protest Video shows riot police beating protesters at Monday demonstration Police in Kenya’s capital came under fire Tuesday for what critics said was a heavy-handed response to a largely peaceful opposition protest. Video from a demonstration Monday at the offices of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission in Nairobi shows riots officers firing tear gas and beating protesters with batons, including a man who was repeatedly struck and kicked after being taken down by police. Kenya’s police chief has called for an internal investigation, according to Interior Ministry spokesman Mwenda Njoka. Macharia Njeru, chairman of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority, told reporters that a segment of the police force were notorious for “excessive force” and acted outside of the law. Video showed largely peaceful demonstrators chanting, blowing whistles and carrying signs. In another part of the video, men in the crowd are seen breaking slabs of stone into smaller pieces. There were reports of rocks being hurled at officers but that was not captured on video. Later, the video shows plumes of white smoke rising above the crowds. Some officers fired tear gas while other flailed their batons at protestors who appeared to be trying to get away. In a scene widely circulated on social media, a man in a green hooded sweatshirt is chased and taken down by riot officers, who strike him with batons and kick him multiple times as he lay motionless on the ground. The beating has sparked public outrage and the hashtag #StopPoliceBrutality. The man, identified as Benard Ngari Ngatia, later told Capital FM radio that he was applying for a job when he was caught up in the police response. “The police started to beat me,” he told the station. “People thought I had died. Even the police thought I was dead.” Ngatia said he was going to a hospital for a checkup and that he would sue the police if he could afford it. The weekly protests have been organized by the opposition Coalition for Reform and Democracy, led by former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, who lost the 2013 election and unsuccessfully challenged the result in court. The opposition accuses members of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission of bias and has requested that the commissioners be dismissed. Commission members deny the accusations. The U.S. Embassy in Nairobi condemned the police actions, as did Amnesty International. “The brutal beatings by police … amount to arbitrary and abusive use of force, which is illegal under Kenyan, regional and international law,” said Muthoni Wanyeki, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes. “The Independent Police Oversight Authority must quickly launch a thorough investigation into this blatant violation of human rights. Police officers suspected of responsibility for arbitrary or abusive use of force, including those with command responsibility, must be prosecuted in fair proceedings,” Wanyeki said in a statement. In 2013, the Kenyan Supreme Court upheld Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory in the presidential election, dismissing Odinga’s challenge. Kenyatta and Odinga are the sons of the nation’s first president and vice president, respectively, bringing back memories of a political dynasty that dates to the 1960s. Their fathers started out as allies in the quest for Kenyan independence from Britain. But the elder politicians’ relationship ended in bad blood when founding President Jomo Kenyatta forced out his vice president, Jaramogi Odinga, following a series of disputes. Kenya is East Africa’s biggest economy and a crucial trade route into the rest of the continent. It provides an important buffer of stability in a region that includes the fledgling Somali government and the politically tense Sudan and South Sudan. Kenya is also a major U.S. ally in the war against Islamist militants in the region and has remained relatively peaceful amid civil wars in neighboring nations. CNN’s Robyn Kriel and Brent Swails contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: David Pedreira is a science fiction author whose debut novel, “Gunpowder Moon,” envisions a near-future where superpowers go to the brink of war over resource mining on the moon. He is a former newspaper reporter and current business owner. His novel can be found at www.davidpedreira.com. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. One of the first weapons in space was a triple-barreled handgun designed to kill Russian bears. Cosmonauts brought it with them into orbit in case their descent module landed in a Siberian forest. Those were simpler times – at least in terms of celestial firepower. The militarization of space is in full gear today, and it isn’t focused on 800-pound omnivores. People may have understandably snickered at President Donald Trump’s call for a US “space force,” but the laughter masks the fact that too few are noticing the rush by world powers to develop warfighting capabilities in orbit. Rhetoric often outstrips reality in geopolitics, and a lot of experts say fears of a new arms race in space are overblown, but consider these recent headlines: • The Pentagon told Congress this month it is studying a combatant command for space warfare to counter recent efforts by China and Russia to militarize Earth orbit. • US Air Force Chief of Staff General David L. Goldfein warned last month that American forces will find themselves fighting from space “in a matter of years.” • China tested a direct ascent anti-satellite and antiballistic missile system in February that analysts say could destroy most US satellites. • Russian President Vladimir Putin boasted this month of a hypersonic glide vehicle that can be launched into space, navigate on its own into Earth’s atmosphere and avoid radar and antimissile defenses. All three countries, and others including North Korea and India, are testing systems such as lasers that fry or dazzle satellites, space-borne electromagnetic pulse weapons that can knock out power grids, and satellites that maneuver in orbit and target each other. Related article North Korea's space race: Satellite launch imminent, official says Of course, this isn’t entirely new. Concerns about weaponizing the cosmos have been around for decades, and international laws have been written to stave them off. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which laid much of the foundation for space law, prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on the moon or on other celestial bodies. But the treaty doesn’t directly ban conventional weapons in space, or weapons fired from Earth into space. Efforts have been made to strengthen space nonproliferation laws, but none of the major powers seem to be honest brokers in the endeavor. While Russia and China blast the United States for refusing to agree to the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space resolution in the United Nations, they’re also actively testing anti-satellite systems and making no secret about their research and development for space weaponry. Related article US military prepares for the next frontier: Space war And the US military has been flying a secretive, unmanned mini-space shuttle called the X-37B since 2010. It stays in orbit for two years at a time. The Air Force insists it isn’t a potential weapons platform. The Chinese and Russians are dubious. So where does this leave us? Science fiction writers like looking at things from 50,000 feet up – or even 50,000 miles. And the view from that height is chilling. Calling for an outright ban on weaponry buzzing around low or high-Earth orbit feels like tilting at windmills at this point. There’s too much momentum in the wrong direction. And few are talking about the even bigger issue outside of Earth’s gravitational embrace: the future resource mining of the moon, the asteroid belt and other parts of the solar system. Related article Only 117 years till this asteroid (possibly) hits us It’s understandable, because so far there’s been nothing worth fighting for in deep space. It costs thousands of dollars to put one pound of payload into orbit. Mining an asteroid for rare metals just isn’t cost-effective or technically achievable – yet. But the price to launch material into space is dropping, and companies and governments are gearing up for when the tech is ready. Consider that an asteroid with the scientifically dreary name of 2011 UW158 comes within a few million miles of Earth in its eccentric orbit – and it reportedly contains about $5.4 trillion worth of platinum. An economic market that makes the Silk Road look like a five-and-dime will eventually open up in the solar system. And when has humanity ever kept peace in the face of such a mother lode? Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk may have good intentions for space today, but what about the astro-tycoons wrestling over trillion-dollar rocks in the future? Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Even if we take the most cynical approach about the growing arms race in Earth orbit – that it’s a fait accompli – can’t we at least make a push for an absolute weapons ban in those regions of the solar system that haven’t already been compromised? Physicists, astronomers and influencers such as science fiction authors could lend their voices to such an effort. They could argue that we don’t have to take the sins of the Earth with us into the heavens. Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has broached the subject, but the most optimism he could muster about avoiding war in space is the idea that there’s so much wealth in the cosmos, we may not need to fight over it. He didn’t sound convinced of his own argument, and that’s something to think about, before military science fiction becomes reality.


The leaders of three major players in Syria – Russia, Iran and Turkey – ended a summit Wednesday with a commitment to achieving a “lasting ceasefire” in Syria, even as the future role of US forces in the country remains in doubt. The meeting in the Turkish capital Ankara brought together two of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s strongest supporters – Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani – with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, which backs some rebel forces. At a joint news conference, the three leaders reiterated the need to drive “terrorists” out of Syria, to find a political solution to the seven-year-old conflict and to aid Syria’s beleaguered civilian population. They also stressed their respect for Syria’s sovereignty. “We should help the future of Syria. No country has the right to decide the future of Syria. The future of Syria belongs to the Syrian people,” said Rouhani. Notably absent from the talks, which followed on from a trilateral summit in Sochi last November, were representatives from Syria itself and from the United States, another important player in the conflict. US President Donald Trump surprised military leaders last week when he said the US would “be coming out of Syria like very soon,” just hours after the Pentagon highlighted the need for US troops to remain in the country for the immediate future. In remarks at the White House on Tuesday, Trump reiterated his desire to pull US troops from Syria, telling reporters that “it’s time” for them to come home. “I want to get out. I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation,” he said. The US President also suggested that if Saudi Arabia wanted US forces to remain in Syria, it should help meet the cost. Tuesday’s remarks came only minutes after Brett McGurk, the special presidential envoy for defeating ISIS, delivered a contrasting message at the US Institute for Peace in Washington. “In terms of our campaign in Syria, we are in Syria to fight ISIS. That is our mission. And our mission isn’t over, and we’re going to complete that mission,” he said. Related article Trump will keep troops in Syria for short-term, but wants exit soon Trump told his national security team in a meeting on Tuesday that he was willing to keep US troops in Syria in the short term, but made it known he wants US troops to exit soon, a senior administration official told CNN on Wednesday. During the meeting, Trump said he wanted to defeat ISIS but that the costs of stabilizing Syria must be borne by regional players. Officials have warned Trump that the likes of Iran, Turkey and Russia could use a US withdrawal to advance their own strategic interests in Syria. As Rouhani, Erdogan and Putin met Wednesday, the UN humanitarian adviser for Syria, Jan Egeland, warned against losing sight of the awful plight of Syria’s civilians as its intractable civil conflict grinds on. More than half a million people have been displaced this year alone in and around Eastern Ghouta, Idlib and Afrin – where the fighting has been focused – Egeland told a news conference Wednesday in Geneva, Switzerland. “This is the very wrong time to turn our back on Syria’s civilians,” he said. The humanitarian operation in Syria is “acutely” underfunded, he added, as he described the “terrible” living conditions faced by some 80,000 people who fled Eastern Ghouta for shelters in government-held areas. The Syrian government has claimed that members of the last remaining and most powerful rebel group in Eastern Ghouta are in the process of leaving, though that account was disputed by an activist on the ground who said those evacuated this week were humanitarian cases. Related article Syrian regime claims last rebel group leaving Ghouta On Monday, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that 20 buses carrying 1,065 Jaish al-Islam fighters and their families had left Douma, the enclave’s largest city, for al-Wafideen crossing.  SANA said the buses were headed to Jarablus in northern Syria. On Tuesday, a CNN crew in Syria witnessed half a dozen buses leaving Douma. The government said the passengers were Jaish al-Islam fighters. The state media reports have not been confirmed by Jaish al-Islam. The group’s representatives previously told CNN they were negotiating with the Russians on a deal that would allow them to stay in Douma. The removal of Jaish al-Islam would be a milestone for the Syrian regime, which has assailed the rebel-held area for weeks to regain control of the battered region. CNN’s Barbara Starr, Sarah Sirgany and Nada Altaher contributed to this report.


Her husband posted the image of her Crawford said she felt conflicted about another viral image There is at least one non-airbrushed photo of which Cindy Crawford approves. The supermodel’s husband, Rande Gerber, posted a pic of his 49-year-old wife in a bikini and no makeup while the pair were in Miami. The accompanying caption read, “Who needs hair and make-up when you look like this after jumping in the ocean. The #becomingcindy tour continues in Miami.” A post shared by Rande Gerber (@randegerber) The couple, who have been married since 1998, have two children. Crawford’s new book, “Becoming,” chronicles her life and career. Cindy Crawford -- Here's What I Really Look Like In A Bikini http://t.co/DhMelLybZi In February, an unflattering “unretouched” photo of Crawford from a 2013 Marie Claire Mexico shoot went viral. The photographer later said the image had been stolen and altered. Crawford told Elle Canada that she “felt blindsided” by the incident but also conflicted because so many women had hailed the picture as proof that models are just like everyone else in their imperfections. “It’s clear that someone manipulated that image to make whatever was there worse,” she said. “It was stolen, and it was malicious, but there was so much positive reaction” to the image.


Editor’s Note: Andrew Roberts is the author of “Napoleon: A Life.” The views expressed are his own. June 18 marks the bicentennial of Battle of Waterloo, where Napoleon was defeated Andrew Roberts: There's much for Britons to commemorate The bicentennial of the Battle of Waterloo on Thursday is being commemorated across Britain this month, with hundreds of receptions, speeches, bonfires, museum exhibitions, TV and radio programs, university lecture series, church services, auctions, book publications and all the other paraphernalia of massive public celebration. What has struck me most powerfully, though, is how many people are hosting private dinners at their own houses for friends, at which they will be toasting the Duke of Wellington’s victories. Related gallery Elba Island reenacts Napoleon's exile Across the country, people are digging out their family memorabilia and showing it off to neighbors with pride. Only this week, I gave a speech in Oxford about the Duchess of Richmond’s famous pre-Waterloo ball. There, a lady who is descended from Wellington’s mistress Lady Frances Wedderburn-Webster brought along the shawl that she wore to the ball that fateful night. Wellington was right to say that the battle was “the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.” And although he only won it because of Britain’s Belgian, Dutch and especially Prussian allies, there was a huge price to pay. Waterloo lit the slow fuse of the horrifying force of German hypernationalism, the defeat of which required the sacrifice of the British Empire 130 years later. Although at the time the battle seemed merely like the last of a series of traditional dynastic and territorial struggles, in fact Waterloo ushered in the modern world. And as Winston Churchill predicted at the end of the 19th century: “The wars of peoples will be more terrible than the wars of kings.” The Vienna Treaty that followed Waterloo gave Britain Cape Colony, Trinidad, Ceylon and various African and Asian possessions, the nodal points for what was swiftly to become a huge oceanic empire. With the Union Jack flying over the castle at Cape Town, the Royal Navy would always be able to keep the trade routes to British India open. After Waterloo, France was returned to much her same borders as before the Revolution and was later in the century only permitted to occupy minor and tangential colonies, often with more sand than raw materials. With low birthrates, lackluster industrialization vis a vis Britain, small navies, generally unproductive colonies, endemic political crises (often prompted by people with Napoleonic fantasies) and regular military defeats – most spectacularly in 1870-71, 1940 and 1954 – France was set on a downward trajectory ever since Napoleon’s Imperial Guard broke  at Waterloo. Even her victory in World War I was only won after the hecatomb of Ypres; in all, 1.4 million Frenchmen died in the conflict, against 880,000 Britons. Britain has stayed on generally very good terms with France since 1815, having that year secured everything she needed for her future greatness. The Entente Cordiale works, as the Libyan and Mali expeditions and the joint use of France’s aircraft carrier shows. Instead, France’s true nemesis turned out to be Britain’s co-victor at Waterloo: Prussia. However, although we often look at Waterloo from the British perspective, and occasionally from the French, we almost never view it through the prism of Prussia. Indeed, without the Prussians, Wellington would not have fought the battle – and probably could not have won it if he had. The Prussian contribution to the destruction of Napoleon soon entered the mythology of the Prussian state and, along with the contributions of Prussian Field Marshal August Graf Niedhardt von Gneisenau and Prussian General Gerhard von Scharnhorst in the War of Liberation of 1813, it became an integral part of the foundation myth of Otto von Bismarck’s mighty new German empire after 1870. The Kaiser was to recall the Prussian victory at Waterloo before World War I, and the two Iron Crosses won by Adolf Hitler in that war, for example, were both stamped with the talismanic date “1813.” First Prussian nationalism, then its successor German nationalism, and ultimately their bastard child hypernationalism, were to leave scars on the 20th century far worse than anything left by Napoleon in the 19th century. Indeed, if the allies had merely left Napoleon alone in 1815 and contained him instead of destroying him, his already much-weakened France could not have posed any threat to the peace of the continent before his death from stomach cancer at 51 less than six years later. For the British, the battle of Waterloo both gave them their empire, but also, in the long run, created the geostrategic conditions that eventually ensured that the sun would set on it. For the Prussians, the battle fomented dreams of continental domination that it took two world wars to eviscerate. For the French, it extinguished those same dreams, never to be rekindled. There is therefore much for Britons to commemorate about that extraordinary battle just south of Brussels 200 years ago. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine.


Trump, in his most forceful terms to date, reaffirmed the United States support for NATO Trump also pledged energy cooperation with Poland in a not-so-subtle knock against Russia President Donald Trump on Thursday visibly enjoyed the praise showered on him by large crowds of flag-waving Poles in sun-splashed Krasinski Square. And the President, outside the United States for his second foreign trip, reciprocated by giving Polish leaders what they wanted: Public validation of their leadership and concerns over Russia. Trump, in his most forceful terms to date, reaffirmed the United States support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In a nod to Poland’s long-held fears of Russia to the east and Germany to the west, Trump spoke about the need for an independent Poland to be able to rely allies like the United States to deter Russian aggression and of the right of Poland to control its own borders. Trump, speaking behind thick panes of bulletproof glass, stood firmly behind NATO and Article 5, the alliance’s commitment to mutual defense, yet chided other European countries for not spending more money. “To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would point out that the United States has demonstrated not merely with words but with its actions that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment,” Trump said. “Words are easy but actions are what matter and for its own protection, and you know this, everybody has to know this, Europe must do more.” With controversial words that will reverberate around Europe, Trump cast Poland as the “soul of Europe,” aligning the United States with the Eastern European nation as it stands up to Russia and looks to buck aspects of the European Union. “The story of Poland is the story of a people who have never lost hope, who have never been broken and who have never, ever forgotten who they are,” Trump said to cheers. “Your nation,” Trump said, “is great because your spirit is great and your spirit is strong. For two centuries Poland suffered constant and brutal attack but while Poland could be invaded and occupied and its borders even erased from the map, it could never be erased from history or from your hearts.” Trump said his message to Poland was simple: “America loves Poland and America loves the Polish people.” Thousands of Poles crowded among the Baroque buildings to hear Trump in his first outdoor address on foreign soil, a major presidential moment that past commanders in chief have used to explain or promote their policy agendas. Trump – who to took the stage as the audience chanted “Donald Trump, Donald Trump” – was greeted with an array of pro-American signs, including flags from his 2016 campaign. Melania Trump, Trump’s Slovenian-born wife, drew loud applause introducing the President, her Slavic-accented greeting – “Hello Poland!” – prompting a round of approving cheers. As spectators – some bused into the Polish capital from far-flung provinces by civic committees – streamed into the square, government officials handed out pairs of American and Polish flags. The bronze columns of the Warsaw Uprising Monument were decorated with red-white-and-blue banners as military police patrolled the crowd from atop nearby buildings. The location was significant to those Trump aides who planned Trump’s speech: Krasinski Square is dominated by a large memorial that remembers the Poles who fought, but failed, to free Warsaw from Nazi control in 1944. Calling Trump’s speech a “defense of Western civilization,” a senior Trump administration official said “the setting of Warsaw uprising is poignant because it demonstrates vividly just how much has been sacrificed to preserve our civilization and society.” Warsaw was razed after the uprising and thousands of Polish resistance fighters were killed or taken prisoner. The city, especially the Old Town area, is now dotted with monuments and remembrances to the resistance fighters. Trump heralded the “courage and strength deep in the Polish character that no one could destroy.” “Through it all,” Trump said, “you never lost that spirit. … Poland could not be broken.” Looking beyond Polish history, Trump pledged energy cooperation with Poland in a not-so-subtle knock against Russia’s use of energy as a coercive power. “We are committed to securing your access to alternative sources of energy so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy,” Trump said. And in a win for the Duda and his Law and Justice Party, Trump stressed the right of a country to restrict migration into its country. Duda has bucked European Union regulations on refugees and ran, in part, on an anti-immigrant platform since 2015. “There are dire threats to our security and to our way of life. You see what is happening out there, they are threats. We will confront then, we will win, but they are threats,” Trump said. “Our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.” Young Poles who traveled hours into Warsaw on Thursday said they hoped to hear Trump affirm the United States’ commitment to countering Russia’s aggressions in Europe. Thousands of US troops are currently deployed as part of a NATO mission to protect against Russian incursions. “We are afraid of Russia,” said Michael Andrzejak, a 31-year-old farmer from Bobolice, who rode on a bus three hours to view Trump’s remarks. He said he expected Trump to discuss the military efforts in Poland to counter Russia, but also address issues of US visas, which young Poles rely upon to find work. Gabi Siwniuch, 16, said she hoped Trump would address ways the US could help young Poles’ job prospects. “I love the US culture,” she said, standing in an orderly crowd that had been waiting more than two hours to hear Trump. Siwniuch said Trump was well-known in Poland — and largely admired for his candid style. More than 1,000 were seated and standing in or near the square, but the crowd stretched down several streets. Government officials in suits and members of the military in their uniforms had the best seats. But young people and others casually dressed in T-shirts made up the rest of crowd in a large set of bleachers and on nearby streets. Trump’s jovial visit to Poland will stand in stark contrast to his visit to Hamburg, Germany, where contentious meetings with leaders skeptical of his leadership await.


"This is a President who to me is very much a mensch," Santorum said Trump left many people wondering what took him so long President Donald Trump finally delivered an unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitism Tuesday in the wake of bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers, winning him praise even from critics. But scores of people still took issue with how long the statement took. It left many wondering just why he delayed taking a seemingly obvious moral course for a president in the face of bomb threats at 48 JCCs in 26 states in January and rising fears of widening nationwide anti-Semitism after additional incidents this month. Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a CNN senior political commentator, said he was “befuddled” over why Trump had not spoken out before. Related article Vandals damage 100 headstones at Jewish cemetery, police say “This is a President who to me is very much a mensch,” Santorum told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday, using the Yiddish term for a person of decency and integrity. He also noted Trump’s support for Israel and his three Jewish grandchildren. Trump’s missing voice on the issue effectively created a vacuum that allowed critics to lay fresh charges of bigotry against him and had even his defenders wondering why the President seemed unwilling to address the issue. Trump had several opportunities in news conferences last week to speak out against threats that are causing deep anxiety within Jewish communities and failed to do so. Moreover, he brusquely shut down an Orthodox Jewish journalist on the issue in one of the most jarring encounters of his presidency. That confrontation, the new spate of threats against JCCs, the desecration of a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis and growing political pressure for Trump to speak out – including from his defeated presidential rival Hillary Clinton – help explain the timing of his remarks. It was fast becoming politically damaging for Trump not to adopt a stern, public line against the incidents. Related video Trump: UN treats Israel 'very, very unfairly' “The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil,” Trump said Tuesday during a visit to the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The President said that his tour was “a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance and hatred in all of its very ugly forms.” Trump won kudos for his remarks. “What he said just recently is what I would hope the President of the United States would do,” Democratic Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin said on CNN on Tuesday. But he added, “He was slow to getting to this issue.” Indeed, Trump’s clear words were also a reminder of what had been missing – and are unlikely to satisfy Trump’s opponents. Particularly after his missteps exacerbated their concerns about his true interest in stamping out anti-Semitism. For one thing, Trump’s extreme sensitivity to criticism has led him to equate questions about racial and religious prejudice in general as a suggestion that he might somehow be personally guilty of such sins, obscuring the larger issue and the depth of his opposition to expressions of prejudice. When Jake Turx of Brooklyn-based Ami magazine asked Trump last week about the rise in anti-Semitic acts, the President immediately jumped to the conclusion he was being accused of bigotry, despite the fact the reporter took steps to assure him that was not the case. “Quiet, quiet, quiet,” Trump said as the reporter tried to explain his question. “I hate the charge, I find it repulsive,” Trump said. The exchange was a fresh indication of how the President tends to personalize many issues, ranging from Russia or questions about the legitimacy of his election win and see them as a reflection of his own reputation. It’s not as if he needed to wait for his visit to the museum to make his feelings clear. No president in modern times has kept up such a torrent of condemnation on the long list of people, events and issues that irk him, often on Twitter but also in frequent photo ops with journalists. So his failure to speak out forcefully about anti-Semitism had perplexed Washington. Trump critics suggested that the delay was in keeping with what they see as the President’s consistent failure to condemn bigotry, especially among extremist groups attracted by his campaign rhetoric. He was hit with criticism last year for not promptly repudiating key Ku Klux Klan figure David Duke, though Trump did later do so. More recently, Trump critics pointed to the administration’s immigration ban on the citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries that was stayed by a federal court as evidence of prejudice in the West Wing. The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect said Trump’s statement was merely “a Band-Aid on the cancer of anti-Semitism that has infected his own administration.” “His statement today is a pathetic asterisk of condescension after weeks in which he and his staff have committed grotesque acts and omissions reflecting anti-Semitism, yet day after day have refused to apologize and correct the record,” said Steven Goldstein, the center’s executive director. The anti-Semitism controversy also appears to reflect the growing pains of a new administration and the struggles evident in Trump’s transition from rabble-rousing candidate to president. Trump and his team – many of whom are outsiders in his own image – lack deep governing experience, and already seem to betray a bunker mentality that hurts their ability to navigate fast-growing political challenges. “He took way too long” to respond, said former Democratic congressman Steve Israel, now a CNN commentator, who stressed he was not accusing Trump of anti-Semitism but wanted him to speak out more prominently against it. “The President not only has the bully pulpit, he has the moral high ground,” Israel said, and cast doubt on the political savvy of the White House. “This is an administration that seems to be good about denying itself its own lay-ups. This should have been said earlier. It should have been easy.” Related article Netanyahu, Trump rekindle US-Israel bond as Mideast tensions loom Israel and others called on Trump to take real steps to reinforce his remarks. The Simon Wiesenthal Center urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to establish a special task force to apprehend those behind the bomb threats and for Trump to “outline his administration’s plan to combat surging anti-Semitism.” At the White House, spokesman Sean Spicer did not offer specifics about what Trump would do policy-wise. But he promised the President would “speak very, very forcefully against those who are seeking to do hate or to tear people down.” He also complained about those continuing to criticize the President on this front. “It’s ironic that no matter how many times he talks about this, that it’s never good enough. Today I think was an unbelievably forceful comment by the President … but I think that he’s been very clear previous to this that he wants to be someone that brings this country together and not divides people,” Spicer said. CNN’s Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” Peter Bergen: Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn wants aggressive stance against "radical Islam" Bergen says Flynn is willing to do business with Russia They are an unlikely pair. One is the son of a multimillionaire real estate developer from New York City who avoided service in Vietnam and whose experience and knowledge of the military and the national security realm are close to zero. The other is a retired three-star general – one of nine children who grew up in a small house in Middletown, Rhode Island. He went on to run intelligence for the US Joint Special Operations Command, which includes SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force. Later he commanded the Defense Intelligence Agency, the US military’s overall intelligence organization. But riding on a wave of ultranationalistic rhetoric, Donald Trump and his top adviser on national security, retired US Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, have now catapulted from political outsiders to the White House. Last Friday, Trump appointed Flynn as one of five vice chairs of his transition team. On Thursday, Trump offered Flynn the role of national security advisor, a transition official told CNN. Flynn’s advice to the President-elect is all the more important because he is the only person on Trump’s team with any significant experience in America’s post-9/11 wars that continue to grind on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Compounding Flynn’s importance to the Trump national security team, more than 100 top Republican national security insiders earlier this year publicly signed two separate letters that warned that Trump would be “the most reckless president in American history” and charging that he lacked “the character, values, and experience to be president.” Related video US general counters Trump claims The Republican insiders who took a public stand against Trump included Gen. Michael Hayden, the CIA director under President George W. Bush; Fran Townsend, Bush’s top counterterrorism adviser, Michael Chertoff, Bush’s secretary of homeland security; and Meghan O’Sullivan, Bush’s top Iraq adviser. Since Trump is not quick to forgive the merest of slights it’s hard to imagine him calling on any of the officials who have publicly taken a stand against him to serve in key national security slots. To be sure, earlier this year, Trump did receive the endorsement of 88 retired general and admirals. But according to CNN military analyst, retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who was one of the top American generals in Iraq from 2007 to 2008, the flag officers who signed the letter of support for Trump were largely those without any experience of the war against al Qaeda and its allies. “I didn’t recognize many of those names as being there in the fight with me over the last 16 years,” Hertling told CNN when the flag officers endorsed Trump in September. Which bring us back to Flynn, who not only is an enthusiastic public booster of Trump, but also has serious credentials in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq – the parent organization of ISIS – because he ran the intelligence operations that helped put al Qaeda on the run in that country in 2007. Related video Potential Trump VP: I will vote for him no matter what Half a decade later, Flynn was the general in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). When Flynn was the DIA director he warned of the rise of what would become ISIS. Flynn debuted on the public stage when he made a fiery speech of support for Trump at the Republican convention in July charging that President Obama and Hillary Clinton had betrayed the ideals of their country and even led the crowd in chants of “Lock her up!” Generals who had served with Flynn were puzzled at this performance, which went against their code to not take such clearly partisan positions, even in retirement. So too had retired Gen. John Allen, who gave his own stem-winding speech in support of Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, went public with his critique of Flynn and Allen in a letter to the Washington Post in July. Related video Lt. General: Trump foreign policy all about "winning" A registered Democrat, Flynn became a vocal critic of the Obama administration after he was forced out of his DIA post in 2014. Flynn had pushed for more DIA personnel to serve in the war zones rather than at DIA headquarters in Washington. This was an excellent idea but it ruffled bureaucratic feathers at DIA, which may have played a part in being Flynn ousted. In his book, Flynn says his removal came because he testified in 2014 before a congressional committee that the jihadist terrorist threat was growing, not declining, as was the official Obama administration line at the time. Flynn, of course, was right about the growing threat. Given the key role that Flynn has already played for Trump and the role going forward that he will likely play during the Trump presidency, what are his views on national security and foreign policy in general? Democrats need to start over Langston Hughes might save usTrump’s shocking victory: What it meansWomen leaders on Clinton lossThe 2016 election: A cartoon viewIs Obama coalition finished?Michael D’Antonio: Trump broke all the rulesEd Lucas: Victory for Russia’s Putin Trump started a feminist revolutionJane Merrick: Brexit-style win bad for UKAna Navarro: I’m voting for Hillary ClintonJulian Zelizer: What Trump did rightLeslie Vinjamuri: Trump leads free world?Peter Bergen: President-elect Trump’s inbox Trump himself has not laid out a clear agenda on the national security issues that are the most pressing for the United States, from the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan; to the deepening Syrian civil war; to the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the flexing of Russian muscles under President Vladimir Putin. Luckily, there are some answers to Flynn’s views in a book he published in July, “Field of Fight: How We Can Win the War Against Radical Islam.” Flynn claims that the United States is in a “world war” with radical Islam, a war that “we’re losing” that could last ‘several generations.” He also asserts that “political correctness forbids us to denounce radical Islamists.” American Islamists, Flynn claims, are trying to create “an Islamic state right here at home” by pushing to “gain legal standing for Sharia.” Flynn cited no evidence for this claim. In particular, Flynn portrays Iran as the source of many of America’s national security problems. Flynn co-wrote his book with Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative academic who has long been a bitter critic of the Iranian regime. Flynn advocates the American overthrow of regimes that are “Islamic republics” which could include not only Iran, but also American allies such as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Flynn’s views, in short, align closely with Trump’s and in some cases are more extreme, since not even Trump is advocating regime change in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Related video Trump: 'Inarguable' that Putin is stronger leader Flynn advocates going after the “violent Islamists wherever they are,” which doesn’t sound much different than what the Obama administration is already doing, given that it is conducting various forms of warfare in seven Muslim countries. The campaign against ISIS has resulted in the deaths of scores of ISIS leaders in Iraq and Syria and 45,000 ISIS fighters, according to US military officials. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Meanwhile, the Iraqi army backed by US airstrikes is fighting in the streets of Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, where ISIS declared its so-called caliphate two years ago. Flynn, like Trump, sees Russian president Vladimir Putin as someone the US can do business with. In December, Flynn attended a banquet in Moscow where he sat next to Putin. He also has appeared on the Kremlin TV mouthpiece, Russia Today (which Flynn has compared to CNN). If Flynn is Trump’s national security advisor, we can expect him to push for a closer relationship with the Russians; a punitive policy on Iran – and a more aggressive war on Islamist militants around the world. These views mesh well with what we have heard from Donald Trump on the campaign trail. Such new policies, however, come with real risks: Warmer relations with the Russians might encourage Putin’s adventurism in Eastern Europe; getting tough with the Iranians might derail the deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons – and widening the war against Islamist militants could be expensive in blood and treasure.


Editor’s Note: Nic Robertson is CNN’s international diplomatic editor. The opinions in this article belong to the author. Over the last 10 years, I’ve interviewed Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal four times. I interviewed him again this week as he announced Hamas’ new policy document. One thing you always notice when interviewing Meshaal is that he doesn’t give short answers. He doesn’t often speak publicly, but when he does, his sentences are laden with context – and, some might say, excuses. The reasons why, for example, Hamas shells Israeli civilians, builds military tunnels around Gaza and refuses to recognize the state of Israel. Israel allegedly nearly succeeded in assassinating him 20 years ago by jabbing deadly poison into his ear. Since then, he has learned that silence and secrecy can be more powerful than words. Related article Hamas says it accepts '67 borders, but doesn't recognize Israel It’s been about a decade since Hamas last claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Israel, yet it has never denounced the tactic. It keeps both Israelis and Meshaal’s grass roots guessing. Talking to me off-camera this week, he gave an unexpected insight into the limitations he faces in communicating with his followers in Gaza. We were discussing the Palestinian prisoners who had begun a hunger strike two weeks ago. Meshaal told me he understood that the Irish Republican Army made a success out of hunger strikes by putting prisoners on fast sequentially, so one died, then another, then another, then another. Meshaal admitted his biggest problem with the prisoners right now is coordinating their hunger strikes. He didn’t say how he was getting around the problem, but he left me in no doubt he’d make sure his message got through. Hearing of these difficulties off-camera made watching him up close as he spoke with Hamas’ rising cadre of leaders hugely revealing. It wasn’t the half-dozen Hamas heavies flanking him at the long table in a fancy hotel in Doha, Qatar, that caught my attention, but the Hamas activists and honchos in Gaza, who were beamed in by satellite and staring down from jumbo TV screens. They weren’t just an oversize reminder of the hardships of life in Gaza – particularly when the electricity there went out during the event – but a clear pointer to Hamas’ future. Lined up on the front row in Gaza was new Prime Minister Yahya al-Sinwar, a former Hamas military commander who spent more than 20 years in Israeli jails. After a serving for the maximum two terms as Hamas chief, Meshaal is stepping down. Related video Trump: Israelis and Palenstinians need peace The event was orchestrated to roll out Hamas’ plan for the future: a 42-point “political document” updating its 1988 founding charter. “This is not mine,” Meshaal announced. “It’s Hamas’ document,” he told the Doha and Gaza crowds simultaneously. Later, he told me it’s what he hopes the current grass roots of Hamas will teach their kids. But what became abundantly clear once Meshaal wrapped up his monologue was the worry and concern in Gaza. “Who have you been talking to?” “Where are you taking us?” “Have you forgotten about suffering or loss?” In response, Meshaal’s cadence rose from charismatic crescendos to authoritarian insistence. When challenged, he was up to it. But on the jumbo screens, Sinwar and some around him smirked. It seemed they took pleasure in Meshaal’s discomfort. He wasn’t squirming, but he was feeling the heat. He’s never lived in Gaza. And in that room, no amount of pre-spin could hide the gulf between Hamas’ leadership in exile and its roots in Gaza. Over the decades, I’ve watched other terror groups soften their image and move into the political mainstream. The IRA’s political leaders in Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams and the late Martin McGuinness, slowly limped their campaign of terror off the battlefield into retirement. It was a glacial process, but their personal credibility allowed them to drag their associates toward a peace agreement with the British. I was reminded of this watching Meshaal in the lavish Qatar hotel, more than 1,000 miles from the suffering in Gaza, as he tried to bring his group en masse to a new political place. He is softening Hamas’ image by reframing the fight with Israel as one not about religion, but politics, and by glossing over its Islamist roots. But no leader, no matter how charismatic – and Meshaal appears to be well above average – can move faster than his or her base. Look at the speed at which Hamas is moving now. Much has been made of the document announcing that Hamas is recognizing the 1967 borders: “a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th June 1967.” But he told me the same thing when I met him in hiding in Damascus in August 2007: “Our wish (is) to have a Palestinian state based on the borders before June 4, 1967.” Related article Trump vows to work as 'mediator' for Israeli-Palestinian peace It’s not the only item in the new document that has been so long in the works that the whole thing feels more like a recap of Hamas history than a new vision. Meshaal appears to have been spending much of his final term in office getting political buy-in from his replacements so that his vision becomes legacy. That it has taken so long speaks volumes about his determination and strongly hints at the resistance he has faced. When delivering the new document, Meshaal let Donald Trump know he has a window to do something: “This is a plea from me to the Trump administration, the new American administration, to wake up from the wrong approaches of the past.” Just as Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah II of Jordan did when they met with Trump, Meshaal praised the US leader and framed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as at the root of the ISIS issue. “Some extremists have exploited this to wage open battles, and this is the extremism that the entire world suffers from. This is an opportunity to prune the roots of the problem and for us to build a real peace.” These words reminded me of something said by the most famous modern-day Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, when talking to my colleague Christiane Amanpour almost 20 years ago. He said if the world won’t work with him to help the Palestinians, then “if not, another will come to liberate it,” with a grin. Related article The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: What you need to know Whichever leaders comes after Meshaal, it is likely they were staring at him from Gaza through a huge TV monitor in that plush Doha ballroom. They seemed hungry for the power he is relinquishing. After our interview, I tried to joke with Meshaal that soon he’ll be retired and can leave the pressures of Hamas behind. He fixed me with one of his serious stares and started a mini-lecture about his past. “I helped found Hamas when I was at university in Kuwait,” he told me, “I can’t let go. I will stay involved. (It is) partly my baby.” I put it to him that there comes a point for all parents when they must wave their baby goodbye; all they can do is ask their teenager to be home by 10 p.m. He laughed out loud and nodded. We both understand for all his careful messaging about Hamas’ evolution, and years of internal struggle for a softer image, the day is coming where his comments will count little more than chiding to a recalcitrant child and less the commandments they once were.


Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Iran “the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world,” during a joint press conference with his Saudi counterpart in Riyadh on Sunday, in a further signal the United States intends to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. “We are determined to make sure it never possesses a nuclear weapon,” Pompeo said of Iran during his first visit to the Middle East since being sworn in as secretary of state last week. “The Iran deal in its current form does not provide that assurance,” Pompeo continued at the briefing alongside Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. “We will continue to work with our European allies to fix that deal. But if a deal cannot be reached, the (US) President has said that he will leave that deal.” It is the latest indication in recent days that the United States would not recertify the Iran nuclear deal in May, its current deadline. US President Donald Trump has until May 12 to decide whether to continue waiving sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the Iran deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Under US law, the President has to recertify the agreement every few months. As part of the 2015 pact – agreed by Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, some European countries and Russia and China – Iran must reduce its uranium stockpile in return for international sanctions being lifted. But Trump has long been critical of the accord, just last week calling it “insane” and “ridiculous” during a state visit with French President and deal supporter Emmanuel Macron. Speaking later Sunday in Tel Aviv alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Pompeo said the two had discussed Iran and reiterated US support for Israel. “We remain deeply concerned about Iran’s dangerous escalation of threats to Israel and the region, and Iran’s ambition to dominate the Middle East remains,” Pompeo said. “The United States is with Israel in this fight, and we strongly support Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself.” He called the Iran deal “flawed” and said the US will withdraw from the agreement unless it can be fixed to Trump’s liking. “It’s pretty straightforward,” Pompeo said. The newly minted US secretary of state also outlined what he called the President’s comprehensive strategy for Iran, which includes efforts to counter a broad array of non-nuclear threats, including Iran’s missile systems, support for Hezbollah, importation of thousands of proxy fighters into Syria, and assistance to Houthi rebels in Yemen. “We look forward to working closely with strong allies like Israel in countering these threats and rolling back the full range of Iranian malign influence,” Pompeo said. Last week, during a press conference at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, Pompeo again reiterated Trump’s displeasure with the Iran nuclear deal. “The President has been clear – absent a substantial fix, absent overcoming the shortcomings, the flaws of the deal – he is unlikely to stay in that deal past this May,” former CIA chief Pompeo told reporters, during his first diplomatic trip since Trump fired former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a dramatic series of tweets last month. Related article How the 'insane' Iranian nuclear deal might survive Pompeo said, “Iran has only behaved worse since the deal was approved,” accusing it of carrying out cyberhacking campaigns, arming Houthi rebels in Yemen, and supporting what he described as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s “murderous regime.” Pompeo said the United States would continue to assist its ally Saudi Arabia “with its defense needs,” adding there needed to be a political solution to end the current war with Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen. Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has been leading a coalition of Gulf states against the Houthi rebels in Northern Yemen, after the rebels drove out the US-backed and pro-Saudi government. Iran, in turn, has been accused of backing the rebels. The war in Yemen is now the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said earlier this month, with more than 22 million people in desperate need of aid and protection. Pompeo also urged unity between the Gulf states, after Saudi Arabia – who along with Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – has severed ties with neighboring Qatar. CNN’s Mohammed Tawfeeq, Aaron Pellish and Eli Watkins contributed to this report


NEW: Expert: Results of trial indicate a "unique breakthrough" in combating Ebola "This is an extremely promising development," says head of World Health Organization The vaccine has been tested in Guinea since March A newly developed vaccine against the deadly Ebola virus is “highly effective” and could help prevent its spread in the current and future outbreaks, the World Health Organization said Friday. Trials of the single-dose VSV-EBOV vaccine began in March in Guinea – one of three West African nations at the center of the recent outbreak – and have shown such promise that this week it was decided to extend immediate vaccination to “all people at risk” after close contact with an infected person, a WHO statement said. “This is an extremely promising development,” said Dr. Margaret Chan, the body’s director-general. “The credit goes to the Guinean government, the people living in the communities and our partners in this project. An effective vaccine will be another very important tool for both current and future Ebola outbreaks.” More research is needed, but the results so far on this trial show 100% efficacy. It will take weeks at the least, and possibly a couple of months, for more supply to be made, according to Chan. Researchers have been using a “ring” strategy – based on that used in smallpox eradication in the 1970s – to test the vaccine’s effectiveness. “The premise is that by vaccinating all people who have come into contact with an infected person you create a protective ‘ring’ and stop the virus from spreading further,” said John-Arne Rottingen of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which has been involved in implementing the trial. To date, more than 4,000 close contacts of almost 100 Ebola patients, including family members, neighbors and co-workers, have voluntarily participated in the trial, the WHO statement said. Until this week, half were vaccinated three weeks after the identification of an infected patient and others straight away, to allow for comparison of the results. The randomization was stopped on Sunday “to allow for all people at risk to receive the vaccine immediately, and to minimize the time necessary to gather more conclusive evidence needed for eventual licensure of the product,” the WHO said. The trial will now include 13- to 17-year-olds, and possibly children from age 6, on the basis of new evidence of the vaccine’s safety, it added. Related video WHO: New Ebola vaccine 'highly effective' The vaccine has also been given to 1,200 front-line health workers, laboratory staff, cleaning staff and burial teams, Doctors Without Borders said. The VSV-EBOV vaccine was developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada and licensed to Merck and NewLink. The Guinea trial is being implemented by the Guinean authorities, the WHO, Doctors Without Borders and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, with support from international and national organizations. Medical journal The Lancet published the phase three trial’s interim results Friday. Dr. Bertrand Draguez, who’s been leading Doctors Without Borders efforts to find new tools to combat Ebola, said more data was needed – for example, on how soon protection kicks in after vaccination and how long it lasts – but that the results suggest a “unique breakthrough” in fighting the disease. “Even if the sample size is quite small and more research and analysis is needed, the enormity of the public health emergency should lead us to continue using this vaccine right now to protect those who might get exposed to the disease: contacts of infected patients and front-line workers,” he said. Because the virus is concentrated in “hot spots” across the region, it makes more sense to focus on vaccinating those close to infected patients and front-line workers than to embark on a mass vaccination campaign, he said. Ebola virus: Nine things to know about the killer disease Jesse L. Goodman, professor of medicine at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, said the results published in The Lancet provided “exciting preliminary evidence” that the vaccine is likely to be effective but also cautioned that further analysis was needed. “Nonetheless, the degree of protection reported seems convincing,” he said. The concerted effort to find a vaccine reflects the severity of the crisis presented by Ebola, spread through contact with body fluids from an infected person or contaminated objects from infected persons. Other vaccines are also being tested. Fighting Ebola with HIV drugs gets big boost There have been more than 11,000 reported deaths in the three worst-affected countries – Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia – since the epidemic took hold last year. The number of new Ebola cases is now far below that of the outbreak’s peak, but it has remained stubbornly difficult to eradicate. In pictures: The Ebola epidemic Related video This is the messy truth about Ebola On Sunday, the WHO reported seven Ebola cases were confirmed in the preceding week – four in Guinea and three in Sierra Leone. “This is the lowest weekly total for over a year, and comes after 8 consecutive weeks during which case incidence had plateaued at between 20 and 30 cases per week,” the WHO said. Two people in Liberia, including a 17-year-old in Nidonwin, have died of Ebola since the end of June, weeks after the WHO declared the nation free of the disease. At the time, though, officials warned outbreaks in Guinea and Sierra Leone ran the risk of bringing the virus back to Liberia, where more than 4,000 people died after contracting it. All 33 contacts in Liberia who have been followed up since the latest infections there are two days from completing the 21-day period to be declared free of the disease. 9 things to know about Ebola CNN’s Debra Goldschmidt contributed to this report.


Navy Seal William Ryan Owens 36, was shot and killed in action in January in Yemen Kyle Milliken, 38, was shot and killed in Somalia in May Hollywood films and thrilling novels have been written for years about America’s special operations forces, for example, following the the SEAL Team Six mission that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. Related gallery Rare glimpse into careers of two US Navy SEALS However, the reality of the risks these troops take in the field is rarely discussed openly, even though President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama have increasingly relied on them to carry out high-risk missions around the world to fight ISIS, al Qaeda and their affiliates. But now, CNN has obtained a rare glimpse into the careers of two Navy SEALs who spent years overseas working on secret, dangerous and high-risk missions that have never before been disclosed in detail. Both were killed in action earlier this year – one in Yemen and one in Somalia. The Pentagon had to openly acknowledge the details because they died in combat. Navy Seal William Ryan Owens, 36, was shot and killed in action in January in Yemen during a nighttime raid when a gunfight broke out with al Qaeda operatives. Related article Trump on generals in Yemen raid: They 'lost' Navy SEAL Navy Seal Kyle Milliken, 38, was shot and killed in Somalia in May. He was on a raid serving as an adviser to Somali forces as he and his team approached a compound alongside local troops. Their deaths underscore the fact that from Somalia to Yemen, as well as in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the war against ISIS, al Qaeda and their affiliates has largely fallen on special operations forces to fight. With the political reluctance in recent years to send large numbers of conventional forces to the front lines, small teams of special operations forces have become increasingly the force of choice for commanders in battling terrorist networks. And these highly trained troops are increasingly paying with their lives. Five have been killed in action so far this year, and a total of 22 have died since June 2014 when the war against ISIS began. CNN has obtained the battlefield citations for both Owens and Milliken – both of whom served for years on high-risk classified combat missions – revealing new details of their extraordinary service. For his actions in one battle, Owens was posthumously awarded the Silver Star, the nation’s third highest medal for valor. His citation contains astonishing details of the never-disclosed battle against 400 al Qaeda militants deep inside war-torn Somalia in 2015. Related article Navy SEAL killed in action in Somalia This secret battle raged for three days in July 2015, with Owens leading a 12-man team alongside African forces, targeting 400 enemy militants. He was  ambushed and attacked with “small arms, machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and improvised explosive devices,” according to his citation. Owens “repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire” the citation says, eventually securing a town that had been in enemy hands for 10 years. On earlier tours, he helped rescue buddies who were pinned down and wounded, and guided in Medevac choppers while under fire. Virginia Rep. Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL sniper, knew both men. Of Owens, he said: “From everything I knew about him, he was a great guy – highly committed, highly talented.” On Milliken’s final mission last month, he was an adviser to Somali forces, and was in the line of fire under considerable risk, according to the battlefield citation. He was shot and killed as his unit approached a compound west of Mogadishu. Taylor, like many who have served on front lines, rejects the controversial Pentagon view that when troops are military advisers they must stay out of the direct line of fire. “‘There are no boots on the ground, they are just advisers,’ well we know that’s BS. Of course they are all boots on the ground,” Taylor said. “I think you need to get back to using conventional forces.” Taylor added: “You certainly can’t fault the operator for wanting to get into the fight. They are there, they are there on the ground with the force they are helping.” Related article US officials: Navy SEALs kill 7 militants in Yemen raid Since Obama began sending special operations forces into war zones with local forces on counterterrorism missions, the basic military policy has been that US troops should try to stay behind a ‘covered” or “concealed’ position in order to not draw fire to themselves. It’s a policy that most troops say simply doesn’t work on the battlefield but that the Pentagon under President Trump still appears to be bound to. But Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently made clear that no changes to that policy are expected. “The fundamental rule that applies to all of our forces that are conducting partnered ops that – that they would be at the last cover and conceal position, and not actually the ones closing with the enemy, because fundamentally we conduct partnered operations,” he said at a news conference on May 22. “It is the partners who are actually closing with and destroying the enemy.” However, at a Capitol Hill hearing on Tuesday, Dunford did concede that special operations forces are stretched, stating that he had been asked by Secretary of Defense, James Mattis to examine all special operations missions to determine where conventional forces can be substituted. Taylor recalled his own first mission in Iraq, which was alongside Milliken. “Everyone loved Kyle, everyone loved him,” he said. Milliken also served for years in combat as part of a heavily relied-upon special operations force. In 2007 alone, he conducted 48 combat missions in Iraq. During one mission, he helped evacuate three wounded SEALs under fire. In 2009, his team was spotted as they approached a compound they were raiding. Milliken went in, killing enemy forces from less than 20 feet away. The citations released to CNN remain heavily blacked out, shielding classified details. But there is one clue on how secret their work was. In 2015, Milliken was awarded the Navy achievement medal for developing “ground-breaking procedures” for “future national mission taskings.” In the world of special operations, “national missions” are the most classified, requiring presidential approval and often remaining secret for decades. CNN’s Zachary Cohen contributed to this report.


Survey suggests girls have better social skills than boys Students who play video games scored lower than those who did not Singapore’s teens can add another feather to their caps. Not only are they the best in the world when it comes to science, math and reading, a new international education assessment suggests they have the best social skills. The findings on students’ collaborative problem-solving skills were released Tuesday and are part of the Program of International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The survey, which assessed half a million 15-year olds, also found that girls have better social skills than boys and the United States ranks better on this measure than the country’s academic standings would suggest. What’s more, the survey indicated, after school activities matter – students who played video games scored lower in social skills than those who did not. The report is the first international assessment of students’ social skills, according to Andreas Schleicher, the OECD’s director of education and skills, who says that the report addresses a growing demand in the workforce for individuals with strong social skills and an ability to work in groups. “In today’s schools, students typically learn individually, and at the end of the school year, we certify their individual achievements. But the more interdependent the world becomes, the more it needs great collaborators and orchestrators,” he said. Broadly speaking, students who have stronger reading, science and mathematics skills also tend to be better at collaborative problem solving. Singapore, long considered an education superpower, came top, matching its performance in PISA’s individual academic rankings released in December last year.  But it’s not necessarily always a direct correlation. Japan ranked second while four other East Asian economies scored above average: South Korea, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. However, Chinese students did far less well in social skills, coming 26th, compared with 10th in individual academic performance. “The results are really interesting, and for some countries they tell a very different story than what we see from individual academic skills. And it is more than culture: Japanese students do well in individual skills but they do even better in social skills,” Schleicher said. The United States was just outside the top 10 – much better than its average performance in reading and science and below average math ranking. Other countries where students performed above the average were Canada, Estonia, Finland, New Zealand, Australia and Germany, Denmark, UK, Netherlands, Sweden and Austria. Despite the high value placed on social skills by employers, the report noted that these skills aren’t usually explicitly taught in schools. Yet, workplaces are beginning to place a premium on sociability, and the increase in the number of jobs requiring a high level of social skills has been paralleled with an increase in wages for such jobs, it added. PISA assessed students in a number of ways. These included jigsaw tasks where each group member is given different information or skills; consensus building tasks, where groups must come to a decision after considering everybody’s opinion and negotiation tasks, where not all group members share the same individual goals. In every country and economy that participated in the survey, girls scored far better than boys in collaborative problem solving. These differences were most exaggerated in Australia, Finland, Latvia, New Zealand and Sweden, where girls score over 40 points higher than boys, on average. Girls also reported more positive attitudes towards relationships, suggesting that they were more interested in other people’s opinions, and wanted others to succeed. Boys, on the other hand, were more concerned with the instrumental benefits of teamwork, and the ways in which collaboration could work to their advantage, Schleicher said. “It is all very well for boys to understand that teamwork can bring benefits, but in order to work effectively in a team and achieve something in a collaborative fashion, boys must be able to listen to others and take their viewpoints into account,” he said. The report also found that students who played video games typically scored lower than students who didn’t play them, even after accounting for social and economic factors. However, students who used the internet, and communicated via chat rooms or social networks demonstrated higher collaborative problem solving. Students in every country and economy seemed to have a generally positive attitude towards collaboration. On average, 85% of students surveyed agreed with statements such as “I am a good listener,” “I enjoy seeing my classmates be successful,” “I take into account what others are interested in,” “I enjoy considering different perspectives,” and “I enjoy co-operating with peers”. All countries need to invest far more resources towards equipping their students for the jobs of the future, the report said. “In world that places a growing premium on social skills, a lot more needs to be done to foster those skills across the school curriculum,” said Schleicher. “Strong academic skills will not automatically also lead to strong social skills.”


Queen Elizabeth II is the official head of state in Jamaica and several other countries Her appointee urges legislators to replace her with a "non-executive president" He also calls for further loosening marijuana laws in Jamaica Queen Elizabeth II could be out of a job. In Jamaica, at least. In a speech to legislators Thursday, Jamaican Governor-General Patrick Allen proposed a constitutional amendment “to replace Her Majesty The Queen with a Non-Executive President as Head of State” in the Caribbean nation. While Elizabeth II isn’t involved much at all in the day-to-day functioning of Jamaica’s government, she’s officially head of state in 15 nations in what’s called the Commonwealth, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Like Jamaica, all have longstanding ties to the United Kingdom and British monarchy, even if they are independent otherwise. READ: New Zealand rejects changing flags One irony if this plan goes through: Allen was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II, just like other Jamaican governor-generals. In fact, the King’s House official website notes that his title is “Her Majesty’s representative in Jamaica,” suggesting that Allen is effectively pushing to push himself out. This isn’t the only proposal laid out in Allen’s speech to legislators, which comes weeks after a narrow election win for the once-opposition Jamaica Labour Party. He also talked about a host of other legislative priorities in the so-called throne speech, which was posted on a government website. READ: Will Australia ditch the Queen? These touch on subjects like health care, housing, education and tourism. There was also a focus on justice, which Allen called “integral for the improvement of the general well-being and to create a prosperous society.” One element of this relates to the Dangerous Drugs Act. In his speech, Allen called for an amendment “to give legalization for marijuana to be used for specific purposes.” Already, this legislation has been tweaked to allow the “use of ganja by persons of the Rastafarian faith and use for medical, therapeutic and scientific purposes.” It also states that possession of 2 or fewer ounces of ganja – another word for marijuana – is no longer a criminal offense. In his speech Thursday, Allen did not specify how he wants to change the portions of the law related to marijuana, a drug long associated with Jamaica.

Jamaican Governor-General Patrick Allen's proposal to replace Queen Elizabeth II with a non-executive president


Thousands of Rohingya enter Bangladesh following clashes between military and suspected insurgents Camps for displaced civilians are overcrowded and conditions worsening Thousands of ethnic Rohingya are attempting to flee violence in Myanmar’s western Rakhine state, braving hostile border guards, treacherous territory and high waters to cross into neighboring Bangladesh. It’s unclear how many refugees have crossed the border, but community leaders in different camps in Bangladesh said at least 3,500 new refugees have entered the country in the last five days. Violence erupted over the weekend in the impoverished Rakhine state, leaving nearly 80 suspected Rohingya insurgents, 12 security officers and six civilians dead, according to state media. The alleged insurgents carried out a series of coordinated attacks against police outposts and an army base Friday. It followed a renewed wave of government security operations in the region. The Rohingya, a Muslim minority in the predominantly Buddhist Myanmar, are considered some of the most persecuted people in the world. Myanmar, also known as Burma, considers them Bangladeshi interlopers and Bangladesh says they’re Burmese. Police killed in new violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine state Sayra Begum, a 28-year-old Rohingya woman from Tomru village in Rakhine, spoke to CNN from an overcrowded, under-supplied refugee camp on the border. She said her husband and brothers had taken a group of 26 people, including children, to the Naf river which separates Bangladesh and Myanmar. The men stayed in Rakhine, while the others crossed the river to safety. “We waited till nightfall and later entered in Bangladesh, escaping the eyes of Bangladeshi border guards. We arrived at the (Balukhali refugee camp) but don’t know where will we stay and what we will eat.” The camp was set up in October last year when an earlier influx of as many as 85,000 Rohingya crossed the border. It’s the closest refugee camp to Myanmar and a common staging post for those who have fled. One refugee, Amena Khatun, 31, told CNN that the Myanmar army had shot at her and her companions as they made their escape Sunday. Initially, troops, along with Buddhist civilians “went mad after they found three Buddhists’ bodies near a Rohingya village,” she said. “They then came in midnight and started setting fire to our straw made huts. We ran to the hills for our lives.” Khatun said the soldiers shot at them with mortars and machine guns from their border posts, but she and her family clambered over barbed wire fences to enter the no man’s land in between the two countries. “Bangladesh border guards didn’t let us in. Since then we are sitting in this marshy land with my entire family,” she said tearfully, speaking through the fence that divides her from relative sanctuary. “We want to go and take shelter inside Bangladesh and don’t want to go back with my innocent children in the lion’s mouth again. I don’t see any light of hope.” Khatun, along with her family, were eventually allowed to cross the border and enter the camp. Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB) commanding officer Mozural Hassan Khan told media that he and his soldiers had heard a “huge number” of shots and explosions on the Myanmar side of the border. “They crossed their fences inside Myanmar border and they came near to the zero line (the border between the two nations). Right now all of them are waiting at zero line. They are looking scared, looks like they are running out of the fear for their life.” The unwanted: Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh Matthew Smith, a founder and Chief Executive Officer of human rights group Fortify Rights told CNN from Bangkok the reports are consistent with his previous understanding of the military’s treatment of civilians. The Rohingya are a stateless Muslim minority in Myanmar’s Rakhine state thought to number about 1 million people.Myanmar does not recognize them as citizens or one of the 135 recognized ethnic groups in the country.Myanmar regards them as illegal immigrants, a view rooted in their heritage in East Bengal, now called Bangladesh. Though many Rohingya have only known life in Myanmar, they are widely viewed as intruders from across the border.According to Human Rights Watch, laws discriminate against the Rohingya, infringing on their freedom of movement, education and employment.They are denied land and property rights and ownership, and the land on which they live can be taken away at any given time. The Rohingya are a stateless Muslim minority in Myanmar’s Rakhine state thought to number about 1 million people.Myanmar does not recognize them as citizens or one of the 135 recognized ethnic groups in the country.Myanmar regards them as illegal immigrants, a view rooted in their heritage in East Bengal, now called Bangladesh. Though many Rohingya have only known life in Myanmar, they are widely viewed as intruders from across the border.According to Human Rights Watch, laws discriminate against the Rohingya, infringing on their freedom of movement, education and employment.They are denied land and property rights and ownership, and the land on which they live can be taken away at any given time. “Based on the (Myanmar) army’s consistent response in the last couple of months, we know that they have committed mass killings, mass gang rape, (and) razed (Rohingya) villages. Reports of them opening fire on civilians is certainly plausible.” A long-awaited report into the treatment of Rohingya by the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, led by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, warned Friday that unrest in the state could spiral out of control unless concrete action is taken soon. “Tensions remain high and they risk becoming worse,” Annan said. “The status quo cannot continue.” Myanmar’s de facto leader, Aung San Suu Kyi has been criticized for her government’s response to the crisis. “Aung San Suu Kyi has been putting out consistently disturbing statements,” Smith says. “Her office is generating anti-Rohingya, anti-aid worker propaganda (and) fueling tensions in the country. As the de facto head of state Aung San Suu Kyi needs to be calling for calm, calling for military to use restraint. “(Her) messaging could not be more irresponsible right now.” The Vatican on Monday confirmed Monday Pope Francis will travel to the region later in the year – he’ll visit Myanmar from November 27 to 30, and Bangladesh from November 30 to December 2. During Sunday prayers, the pontiff expressed solidarity with Myanmar’s persecuted Rohingya Muslim community, calling for them to have “full rights.” “We received sad news of the persecutions of the religious minority, our brother Rohingya,” he said. “I want to express all my closeness to them and we ask the Lord to save them and (we ask) for the help of all men and women of good will to give them full rights. We pray for the Rohingya brothers.” The weekend’s flashpoints could be the beginning of another mass exodus of Rohingya, a group which rights groups say have been persecuted by Myanmar authorities for decades. “We’re only a few days into” the latest crisis, Smith said, saying that he expected tens of thousands to flood across the border in the coming days and weeks. The existing camps on the Bangladesh border, already full of Rohingya refugees who are languishing in poor conditions and stuck in legal limbo, are subject to immediate, further overcrowding, Smith says. According to the Rohingya residents of the Balukhali camp, Bangladesh law enforcers have threatened them not to provide shelter to any newcomers or else they would be “evicted, fined and deported”. A community leader in the camp, seeking anonymity, said: “We are refugees ourselves. Despite broken hearts for our fellow Rohingya, we cannot let them stay here or else we might be driven back to (the) border.” The UNHCR has seen at least 3,000 new arrivals to their official camps in the last 72 hours, UNHCR Bangladesh’s Joseph Surjamoni said. Amongst the intake are mostly women and children, he said, including a significant number of unaccompanied minors. He added that the nature of the movement of people is “fluid at the moment.” He added that people from the community are there, “extending aid” to the refugees. The “humanitarian needs on the Bangladesh side are great,” says Fortify Rights’ Smith. Bangladeshi border guards are turning people away in an attempt to discourage refugees from seeking safe havens in Bangladesh, he said, but many people are waiting near the border before attempting another crossing. However, “the Bangladeshi authorities need to provide protection – they have a legal obligation not to send people back,” he said. In a statement Friday, Bangladesh’s Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mahbub Uz Zaman expressed “serious concern at the possibility of recurrence of such a situation” and urged Myanmar to protect its civilian population. CNN’s Livia Borghese contributed from Rome


France is about to pick a new president. C’est bien, you say, but you’re still recovering from the tectonic shifts of 2016. (Brexit! Trump!) You really should pay attention, though. One of Europe’s most important countries will end up being run either by a far-right leader, Marine Le Pen, or someone who’s never held elected office, centrist Emmanuel Macron. Either way, the result will ripple across the globe. Here’s everything you need to know about the upcoming vote. If you’re in the EU: The EU already has its hands full dealing with its impending divorce from the UK. Le Pen has vowed to pull France out of the EU too. Could the 28-nation group survive the loss of two of its richest and most populous members? Probably not. “A French government that abandons the euro would be a far greater political shock than Britain leaving the EU,” two analysts say. If you’re in the US: There’s a real feeling brewing that this presidential election, just like America’s, could bring instability. One political observer says the French “have had enough of the left and right” and that “they want to throw the table over.” In fact, voters have already done that – a first round of votes in April whittled down 11 candidates to two, and the pair left standing comes from outside the political establishment. No matter who wins, a new style of governance is on the way. Americans who have been watching the French election may have noticed a whole host of truly frightening similarities with the US poll: underwhelming and alarming candidates, allegations of corruption, and gaffes. So many gaffes. If you’re anywhere else in the world: See above how everyone hates too much change in the world.  Also, anyone in a war-torn country in the Mideast or Africa casting a glance to France as a haven might find the door slamming shut. Immigration, especially from Islamic countries, has been a hot-button issue in this election, and Le Pen wants to temporarily ban even legal immigration. If you’re into the markets: The two leading candidates have very different economic visions. Le Pen wants France to dump the euro and protect French jobs, while Macron is a champion of closer European integration. Markets hate, hate, hate volatility. Look at how they reacted after the Greek elections in 2012. With the UK leaving the EU, France is the No. 2 economic powerhouse. And a change there will affect markets. Voters went to the polls on April 23 for round one, sending Le Pen and Macron to face-off in the second and final round Sunday. Yes, it’s a two-step process. That’s different from the US where a presidential candidate’s fate ultimately rests on one day. (But it sure drags on and on to get there). And it’s very different from, say, Indian state elections that are staggered over five weeks. Who she is: She’s the leader of the far-right National Front party. She’s controversial, mainly because of her party’s history of xenophobia and anti-Semitism. She’s tried to soften the party’s image, to middling success. In April, for instance, she said France was not responsible for the wartime roundup of Jews who were sent to Nazi death camps. That didn’t go over well. What she wants: She wants France out of both the EU and NATO. She wants to slash immigration to just 10,000 “entries” per year. She decries globalization and has vowed to fight “radical Islam.” Sounds familiar? If she wins, she becomes the first far-right president elected in the EU’s history. Fun fact: After law school, Le Pen worked as a public defender and sometimes defended … illegal immigrants. Shocking fact: At age 8, Le Pen survived a bombing that destroyed her family’s apartment. The attackers were trying to get her dad, who founded the National Front. Who he is: He’s the biggest surprise in this election. He’s a centrist whom no one really took seriously at first. He didn’t have the backing of any of the major political parties, so he formed his own, En Marche! movement. And – surprise – he made it past round one as well. What he wants: He backs liberal, yet business-friendly measures, to boost the economy. He wants to increase defense and police spending. He wants better pay for teachers and unity at a time where France is riven with fractures. Fun fact: As a 17 year old, he told his high school teacher that he’d marry her one day. And he did. France is in the economic doldrums. Unemployment’s at 10% and GDP growth is weak. Both candidates agree that France needs a shock to the system. Macron, a former banker who served as economy minister, has argued that France can become more competitive if it embraces globalization and doubles down on free trade. Le Pen, meanwhile, represents a radical departure from the status quo in France. She advocates a strident brand of economic nationalism that could mean new trade barriers and the country’s exit from the eurozone. This is the biggie. It’s what’s driving everything else in this election. Many voters think current immigration policies have worsened France’s unemployment problems and contributed to the deadly terror attacks over the past couple of years. And, as in many parts of Europe, the far right is riding the issue to popularity in the polls. SO MANY. In the first round, the wife and two adult children of Republican candidate Francois Fillon were accused of earning more than $1 million for parliamentary assistant jobs they allegedly never showed up for. Le Pen posted violent images of killings by ISIS on Twitter (a no-no in France). The European Parliament said she could be prosecuted for her actions. Macron had to apologize for condemning France’s colonial past in Algeria and dismiss talk of an alleged affair. In a final televised debate Wednesday, Le Pen claimed Macron may have an offshore account in the Bahamas. The Paris prosecutor has opened a preliminary investigation after Macron filed a complaint against Le Pen over the comments. A number of polls released this month suggest that Macron, a pro-European centrist, leads the far-right Le Pen by about 20 points. Analysts predict left-wing and conservative voters – repulsed by the thought of the leader of the National Front running the country – will rally to him. But remember, right up to election night in the US last year, no one gave Donald Trump much of a chance either, and now we call him Mr. President. For France We look forward to June when the country holds parliamentary elections. A recent poll by OpinionWay-SLPV Analytics for the Les Echos newspaper shows that Macron’s En Marche! would win the largest share of Parliament’s 577 seats. The survey – the only poll so far – looked at 535 of the seats, so an outright majority could also be on the cards. That would mark a meteoric rise for the fledgling party that launched less than a year ago. In France, a lot of the heavy lifting in government is done by the prime minister, and the prime minister comes from the party that holds the majority in parliament. So, no matter who’s president, he or she can’t accomplish squat if their party doesn’t win a chunk of seats in the parliament. In other words, the high-stakes drama doesn’t end when this election does. For the rest of Europe We look forward to September when Germany holds elections. Chancellor Angela Merkel – who many now consider the most powerful woman in the world – faces the real possibility of defeat, hit hard for her open-door policy on refugees. She’s been in power for an astonishing 11 years, and she herself has admitted that her immigration policy has hurt her party. CNN’s Melissa Bell, James Masters and Bryony Jones contributed to this report.