Editor’s Note: Timothy Stanley is a historian and columnist for Britain’s Daily Telegraph. He is the author of “Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between L.A. and D.C. Revolutionized American Politics.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. Timothy Stanley: The 2016 election was not rigged by Moscow Stanley: Trump is trying to reset US policy toward Russia to begin a constructive dialogue, and for this, he ought to be applauded The 2016 election was not rigged by Moscow. Rex Tillerson, tipped to be the next secretary of state, is not a KGB agent. Donald Trump is, however, trying to reset US policy toward Russia to begin a constructive dialogue. For this, he ought to be applauded. Instead, he is almost accused of treachery. The situation is surreal. Let’s analyze those two allegations separately. First, the CIA reportedly believes that Russia likes Trump, hacked the Democrats during the election, and leaked information via WikiLeaks to assist their preferred candidate. If the CIA’s claims are true, and doubts exist, then this is very bad news and must be investigated. Related article Trump vs. Trump's Cabinet Trump is wrong to criticize the CIA without having all the facts at his disposal. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is right to lend his support to a congressional hearing into Russian activities. Conservative David Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic and the chairman of Policy Exchange, lays out five critical questions that the public needs answers to: who did they hack, when did it happen, was it coordinated, are there financial ties involved and are the Russians doing this elsewhere, too? But let’s keep the Trump hack story in perspective. Messing about in other people’s elections is – however awful – not unheard of. Trump supporters are sharing a Los Angeles Times article from 1996 in which American political strategists boast about their role in helping re-elect President Yeltsin in the recent Russian presidential election, and foreign governments have had a hand in various aspects of the US electoral process for decades. The question that Frum omits from his list is “did the Russians change the outcome of the 2016 election?” The answer is almost certainty “nyet.” After all, WikiLeaks had a very small role in the campaign; the Trump people complained that its revelations were overshadowed by the infamous “grabbing women” tape. The FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s emails certainly had a much, much bigger impact than anything done by the KGB. Who were they working for? The North Koreans? Related article McConnell, senators unite behind investigation into Russian hacking If I sound cynical then it’s because I am. The core of senators demanding an investigation of Russian involvement – Chuck Schumer, Jack Reed, John McCain and Lindsey Graham – are two Democrats who have votes to win on this issue and two Republicans who are prominent neoconservatives. McCain and Graham opposed Trump throughout the primaries in part because he threatens the hawkish consensus that has dominated Washington for a very long time. A consensus that sees Russia as a perpetual and imminent threat to Western security. Trump’s people see things differently. Peter Beinart of The Atlantic suggests they are informed by a view of history at odds with the Russophobic neocons. For Trumpites, the Cold War was a struggle with an atheist, socialist superpower that had to be won. Once it was over and Russia reverted to its Christian roots, Moscow evolved from an enemy to a cultural ally in the far more relevant conflict with radical Islam. Many Trumpites, it is true, see Vladimir Putin as a champion for traditionalist values. They ask why America pretends to loathe him when he’s fighting on the same side in Syria. The answer, of course, is that he’s not. Putin is fighting with President Bashar al-Assad – not for democracy but to sustain a bloodthirsty dictator who serves Moscow’s strategic interests. Russophiles are just as myopically enthusiastic about Putin as the neoconservatives sometimes seem suicidally hell-bent on war. Between these two positions is a rational third way. There’s evidence that Trump inhabits it. Related article Trump could face Capitol Hill showdown with Tillerson pick Take Rex Tillerson, the subject of the second allegation I noted at the beginning of this article – that Trump is thinking about appointing a Moscow patsy as secretary of state. This is nonsense. Yes, Tillerson knows Putin and has done business with him. Are these not strong qualifications for dealing with Russia? He has received Russia’s Order of Friendship, true. But so have a former archbishop of Canterbury and the former Prime Minister of Canada. If those two are KGB assets then the world really is in trouble. Finally, Tillerson has opposed sanctions on Russia. But that makes sense given that he is the CEO of ExxonMobil, which was hurt by sanctions imposed after the partitioning of Ukraine. He is a statesman of business – that’s what stands out about his appointment. Trump is compiling a Cabinet of mini-Trumps, of largely aging, white, male business leaders who see the world in terms of the bottom line rather than grand theories of international relations. They are not, I suspect, motivated by Slavophilia or a passion for Russian orthodoxy. Rather, they see Putin for what he really is: a strong man in a weak position. Russia’s economy and army are antiquated and not particularly strong – and the country is surrounded by a ring of NATO countries committed to mutual defense. All Putin really has to his advantage is a lot of hackers and an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The latter is why we still have to be very, very careful when dealing with him. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Why not talk to Putin? Why not acknowledge that America cannot run the world and that other nations have legitimate strategic interests? What’s fascinating about Trump is that while he might regard America as an exceptional country, he’s honest about its failings and refuses to pretend it has a right to global domination. He is assembling a team that does contain some hawks, such as, potentially, John Bolton, and that has tough talk for countries like Iran. But it’s also a team of realists. Somewhere between Obama’s retreat from the Middle East and George W. Bush’s invasion of it is an approach based on cautious national self-interest. I sincerely hope Trump adopts it.


President Donald Trump’s recent moves on trade have turned an issue long considered part of the Republican orthodoxy into a political landmine for his own party. Last week, Trump’s administration announced steep tariffs on steel and aluminum from close allies Canada, Mexico and the European Union. In return, all three have promised retaliatory actions of their own. And on Friday, Trump that he “wouldn’t mind” scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement. In Washington, the moves frustrated some GOP lawmakers. Perhaps none slammed Trump’s decision more pointedly than retiring Sen. Bob Corker from Tennessee, who compared the President’s moves to something that would happen in Venezuela. Related article Bob Corker says GOP senators are working on plan to 'push back' on Trump policy “I am working with like-minded Republican senators on ways to push back on the president using authorities in ways never intended and that are damaging to our country and our allies. Will Democrats join us?” Corker tweeted. And in several key races across the country, Republicans find themselves on the defensive over Trump’s trade agenda. Trade politics differ by state. In Ohio, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has long backed protectionist policies and has sided with Trump on tariffs – while his Republican foe, Rep. Jim Renacci, has had to explain his past votes for international trade agreements. In border states that are heavily dependent on international trade and rural states with agriculture exports, however, Democrats are arguing that the tariffs – which put Republicans with a long history of advocating for free trade in an awkward position – will damage the local economy. Related article Republicans in key midterm races caution against Trump's new tariffs In Texas, Rep. Beto O’Rourke – the Democratic congressman challenging Sen. Ted Cruz in this year’s midterms – spent two days blasting Trump and Cruz over new tariffs that O’Rourke says risk devastating the state’s economy. “Texas could be hit harder than any other state by these kinds of tariffs. Trump’s trade policies will devastate our state, businesses, & economy,” he tweeted. “Senator Cruz should have explained that to the president while they were riding together last month.” In North Dakota, where incumbent Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp faces a tough re-election fight this fall, the GOP’s Senate candidate, Rep. Kevin Cramer, finds himself under attack from Heitkamp and local Democrats for dismissing concerns over Trump’s tariffs. In an April radio interview, Cramer accused Democrats of wanting to “pour fuel on the fire of hysteria” over Trump’s Chinese tariffs. In mid-May, Cramer called concerns that the tariffs could kill North Dakota’s soybean industry “a little bit exaggerated hyperbole.” In a statement Thursday after Trump announced new tariffs on Canada, Heitkamp’s campaign again went after Cramer. “North Dakota farmers and ranchers know this new round of tariff threats would deal a devastating blow to our state’s ag economy and to their livelihood. But the louder their warnings have become, the more Congressman Kevin Cramer has belittled their concerns as nothing more than political ‘hysteria,’ championing the growing threat of a global trade war, instead,” said Heitkamp communications director Julia Krieger. She said Cramer is “choosing partisan politics over North Dakota farmers and ranchers – they can count on him for one thing: To turn his back every time.” In Missouri, another Democratic incumbent seeking re-election in a red state, Sen. Claire McCaskill, and her allies have attempted to goad Republican attorney general Josh Hawley into breaking with Trump on tariffs. “If Hawley won’t stand up to President Trump for Missouri farmers now, how can they expect him to stand up to President Trump if elected?” Missouri Democratic Party communications director Brooke Goren said in a Thursday statement. Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, who faces a challenge from GOP Gov. Rick Scott, blasted Trump over the tariffs Friday in Jacksonville and warned that the tariffs could harm a local Budweiser plant, FloridaPolitics.com reported. “Starting a trade war with our closest allies is the last thing we should be doing. No one wins in a trade war, especially hardworking families who may have to pay more for the goods they buy every day,” Nelson said. “If this starts an international trade war,” he said, “Florida’s going to get hurt.”


Five recent deaths heighten suspicions on both side of Ukraine's ethnic divide Ukraine's President orders an investigation of the recent killings The opposition calls the killings "oppression," but the government says Moscow may be to blame The question haunting Kiev is this: Who might be murdering allies of Ukraine’s ousted President Viktor Yanukovych? The idea that this might be happening is not entirely new. But it muscled its way to the fore again this week with two high-profile shooting deaths in the Ukrainian capital – one of a former member of parliament with ties to Yanukovych, the other of a Ukrainian journalist known for his pro-Russian views. Oleg Kalashnikov, the former member of parliament, was shot and killed shortly after 7 p.m. Wednesday at the entrance to his apartment block. Kalashnikov, 52, was a member of the Party of Regions, the former ruling party in Ukraine, and was close to Yanukovych. Police are investigating the death as a murder. A day later, on Thursday, journalist Oles Buzyna, 45, was killed near his home by shots fired from a dark blue Ford Focus, Interior Ministry adviser Anton Herashchenko said. The car’s license plates were reported to have been from either Latvia or Belorussia. The killings renewed speculation, sparked by earlier unusual deaths, about a conspiracy to kill people close to Yanukovych. At least three former members of parliament with the Party of Regions have reportedly committed suicide in the last seven weeks: • On February 28, Mikhail Chechetov reportedly jumped from the window of his 17th-floor apartment in Kiev, having left a suicide note. He was suspected of having falsified the results of a parliamentary vote in early 2014 that essentially prohibited protest just as thousands of people were protesting against the Yanukovych government. • On March 9, Stanislav Melnik, a former member of parliament with the Party of Regions and the manager of several businesses in the separatist-minded eastern city of Donetsk, was found dead in his apartment near Kiev. He, too, reportedly left a suicide note. • And three days later, on March 12, Oleksandr Peklushenko, another former member of parliament, was found in his house in Zaporizhzhya, in southeastern Ukraine, dead of a gunshot wound. Police are investigating various scenarios, including suicide. Interior Ministry adviser Anton Gerashchenko said Peklushenko “might have wanted to avoid punishment for using violence against protesters, which he was suspected of.” Union federations appalled by gunning down of journalist Oles Buzyna in Kiev - https://t.co/Ibk3nogTsC @EFJEurope @IFJGlobal #media #Ukraine Ukraine is deeply divided, and it has been for years. About a third of the population speaks Russian as opposed to Ukrainian. Whether the country should be drawn into the orbit of Russia or the West is a visceral issue, a question for many Ukrainians not of politics but of identity. Recent events have deepened the divide. In 2014, after Yanukovych turned his back on the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia, he was driven from office by mass demonstrations. And with Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea and its support for Russian-speaking separatists in eastern Ukraine, the internecine animosity made the ugly transformation into war. With a government toppled and armed conflict in the east, Ukrainians have reason to want each other dead. But the view of who might be responsible for the series of deaths differs starkly, according to which side of the country’s divide one is on. The Opposition Bloc, the country’s major opposition party, has no doubt the deaths have been politically motivated – “bloody terror against opposition politicians and journalists,” the bloc’s media office called them. “It is clear oppression of those who are not afraid to criticize the government,” it said. The government, unsurprisingly, sees things differently. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who came to office after Yanukovych was ousted, has demanded an investigation of the killings of Kalashnikov and Buzyna, his media office said. “It is evident that these crimes have the same origin,” the media office quoted Poroshenko as saying. “Their nature and political sense are clear. It is a deliberate provocation that plays in favor of our enemies. It is aimed at destabilizing the internal political situation in Ukraine and discrediting the political choice of the Ukrainian people.” And Anton Geraschenko, an adviser to the country’s interior minister, took the theory one step further. “It should not be excluded that the killings of Oleg Kalashnikov and Olez Buzyna were planned and organized from Moscow and are a part of a plan to destabilize Ukraine and further support anti-Ukrainian mood in Russian society,” Geraschenko said.

Ukrainian government under President Petro Poroshenko


Trump is facing pile of controversies days ahead of his presidency Historian: 'He is reinventing the modern presidency' Donald Trump is four days away from assuming the presidency after one of the most tumultuous transitions in modern history, setting the stage for a rocky period of dramatic change, partisan acrimony and unpredictable results. Trump will take office with far lower poll ratings than his recent predecessors, with majorities of Americans doubtful of his capacity to handle the job. He’s at war with the nation’s intelligence agencies, has a dysfunctional relationship with the press, is fighting claims that he’s too cozy with Russia and is brushing off conventional ethical standards for an incoming president. China has warned him about changing policy related to Taiwan and Mexico has threatened retaliation if Trump imposes a border tax. John Lewis became one of the most prominent Democrats to call the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency into question, prompting a weekend retort from the President-elect, who tweeted that the civil rights icon is “all talk” and “no action.” For any other incoming president, such a pile of controversies and crises would suggest an early political disaster is imminent for the new White House. But Trump broke the mold in his outsider campaign and has repeatedly shrugged off scandals and controversies that would have downed normal politicians. He appears determined to shake up conventions that have built up around the presidency for two centuries and has little time for those who say he lacks presidential demeanor. In fact, many of the political storms raging as he takes office have been instigated by Trump himself. Inciting chaos and disruption has been the key to his political career, helping him rupture the Republican establishment and win the White House. He seemingly has no plans to change tactics in the White House. “He is reinventing the modern presidency,” said Timothy Naftali, a CNN presidential historian. But as Trump takes office, his signature style, designed to keep everyone off balance, is facing its most significant test. Will his confrontational, brazen approach, the prosecution of personal grudges on social media and tendency to stir disorientation prove to be a workable template for a presidency? And will his method of deliberately picking at societal fault lines work when Trump is president of all Americans? “Only time will tell whether he succeeds as a leader,” said Naftali, who also teaches at New York University and warns that while Trump often plays by different rules, history will not. “We know the metrics for success haven’t changed – public opinion, bills passed, confidence around the world, confidence at home, a strong economy. All these things are the same metrics.” Trump, he continued, “is reinventing the style of the presidency and every president has the right to do that. But he’s going to be tested the same way.” Trump will begin his administration in a deepening hole with public opinion. His approval rating stood at 44% a week before the inauguration, according to Gallup. President Barack Obama was at 83% at the equivalent moment, George W. Bush was at 61% and Bill Clinton at 68%. A Pew Research poll found that 39% of Americans approve of the way Trump has outlined his policies while a Quinnipiac poll put his approval rating at 37% last week. Related gallery In transition: President-elect Trump Gallup also found Trump under 50% on questions about whether he will handle military force wisely, how he would steer an international crisis and on his capacity to avoid major scandals in his administration. He does better over his ability to handle the economy and defend US interests abroad, but he still lags other previous incoming presidents at the equivalent time. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, however, said Trump has a mandate even as Democrats point out he lost the popular vote and question the legitimacy of his victory. “Donald Trump won a landslide election,” Pence said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “The American people spoke decisively, they wanted change and I promise … come noon this coming Friday, change really begins and we are going to make America great again.” Starting from such a low base of approval gives Trump little leeway should things begin to go wrong in his administration. Presidents who get into trouble in the polls generally become less effective in molding public opinion in times of crisis and in exerting leverage on Capitol Hill. It’s also notable that while Trump took care to keep his supporters on his side during his post-election “thank you” tour, he’s done almost nothing to reach out to the millions of Americans who view his inauguration with anxiety. He has instead spent his transition waging personal vendettas on Twitter, castigating CNN and other media organizations while putting more credibility in the statements of Russia and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange than those of US intelligence agencies. Senate probe into election hacking to review possible links between Russia, campaigns But if Trump proves skillful at handling the presidency, it’s possible his approval rating could quickly rise. And for Trump’s supporters, who sent him to Washington to fundamentally dismantle the political class, blasting Meryl Streep on Twitter, slamming journalists, defying the intelligence establishment and ignoring conventions on avoiding conflicts of interests is not troubling at all. Still, the President-elect could be storing up future problems that could return and haunt him later in his administration. Ethics lawyers have condemned his decision to flout the normal practice of presidents by not putting his assets in a blind trust as far short of what is necessary. Trump will hand over the running of his businesses to his sons, Eric and Donald Jr., and has pledged not to discuss them. But he will retain his financial stake, which means he can still boost his own wealth indirectly by decisions he will make as President. The President-elect will also take office beset by looming political challenges in Congress. Trump said at last week’s news conference that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced nearly simultaneously, a sentiment that House Speaker Paul Ryan seemed to endorse at a CNN town hall. But no workable plan has emerged that could pass Congress and insure millions of people who will lose coverage if Obamacare is dismantled. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling for a “stable transition period” between the two moving parts of building a new GOP health care plan and several Republican senators are anxious about moving too quickly. Disagreements are also brewing at the heart of Trump’s own cabinet. While most of his nominees appear to be heading for confirmation, clear differences emerged between the President-elect and his national security team at their hearings on Russia, torture, the Iran nuclear deal and the need to preserve US alliances. Their positions raised questions about how their conventional views would fit with a president who seems intent on disrupting foreign policy traditions. Trump tweeted on Friday that there was no reason to worry. “All of my Cabinet nominee are looking good and doing a great job. I want them to be themselves and express their own thoughts, not mine!” Traditionally, new presidents begin their administrations by using their inaugural address to call on the nation to unite after fractious political campaigns. Trump may do the same, though his scorched earth style leaves him with perhaps a bigger challenge in this area than any recent president. His handling of lingering questions about the extent of Russian interference in the election and the treatment of Hillary Clinton by the FBI could also be crucial to establishing credibility with those who oppose him. For now, however, he remains hyper sensitive to the merest suggestion that his election victory was marred by outside influences, suggesting that corrosive questions about 2016 will linger long into his presidency “What are Hillary Clinton’s people complaining about with respect to the F.B.I. Based on the information they had she should never….. have been allowed to run — guilty as hell,”  Trump said in consecutive tweets on Friday. FBI Director Comey’s political firestorm, explained Former Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said on CNN last week that such comments bode ill for Trump’s presidency. “I think those tweets are just the latest indication that Donald Trump is someone very insecure in his victory,” he said last week. “Every day, there are new developments and new shoes dropping, so to speak, that call into question the legitimacy of his win.”


James Comey thinks Donald Trump is empty, desperate for affirmation and lacks the confidence to be humble – but he still wants him to succeed. In a CNN town hall event Wednesday, Comey built on the devastating character sketch he has created over 10 days promoting his new book, which is evolving into one of the most damning portrayals of a sitting president in living memory. The fired former FBI director has had 11 months to get his story straight – and it shows. He’s unflappable, never contradicts himself and has a clear narrative about his role in the 2016 election and dismissal by the President last May. His account of his interactions with Trump adds up to a case that the former real estate magnate is morally unfit to be President – but is also an unusually needy person – a depiction that is staggering in its frankness. Comey argues that Trump does not make decisions on the basis of philosophical, religious or logical considerations, but simply to assuage the deficiencies of his own character and emotional makeup. Related article James Comey on Trump's assertion that releasing memos was illegal: 'I think he's just making stuff up' “His only reference point is internal – ‘what will bring me what I need, what will fill this hole in me – get me the affirmation I crave’ – that is deeply concerning,” Comey told CNN’s Anderson Cooper at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. The former FBI director’s damning assessments will have no material impact on special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation or Trump’s political fortunes. But they might help him move more copies of the book “A Higher Loyalty.” And for Trump’s supporters, the assessments are sure to be viewed as inappropriate and inaccurate and proof that the fired former FBI director is – as the White House says – simply whipping up controversy for profit. Comey’s depiction of the President is likely to further anger his critics who see a holier-than-thou streak in his character and believe that he is nursing his own substantial ego, even as he goes after Trump. But his account does pry open the closed doors of the most unconventional White House in decades, and along with other insider accounts is certain to play a role in how this unusual President is remembered by posterity. And to hear someone talking about a sitting President is such personal, derogatory terms is still remarkable. Comey portrays Trump as someone who can never think about anything but himself, how he feels. “His style of conversation was a series of assertions about great things he had done,” Comey said, describing one of his private meetings with Trump, in which he said the President made inappropriate demands for loyalty. “The challenge I found was that they wash over you like a wave and even if you disagree, the waves keep coming.” “But that is the style, it’s ‘I’m great, I’m great, I’m great,’” Comey said. The fired former FBI director says that great leaders have enough confidence to be humble and are confident in their own skin – qualities are needed to be a great leader and which he says the President does not possess. Instead, he said that Trump is insecure and cannot laugh. Related article Comey on his nickname for Trump: 'I call him the President of the United States' “I saw Presidents (George W.) Bush and (Barack) Obama both use humor effectively to relax, to put at ease, to try and get to the truth. I never saw President Trump laugh even in an almost hour-and-a-half hour long private dinner,” he said. The former FBI director said that he did not have a nickname for Trump despite the derogatory monikers thrown his way by the President, like “slime ball” “Slippery Comey” and “liar” and “leaker.” “Honestly, I call him the President of the United States, because I respect the office,” Comey said. Related article Concealing the Clinton email probe status would have been 'catastrophic,' Comey says “No matter my concerns about him, I want him to be successful. I would be so happy if there is a way to peace on the Korean peninsula. We should root for our President – that also doesn’t mean we should fail to hold him accountable – especially when he threatens our core values.” Trump’s defenders, as well as arguing that Comey is grinding a personal ax because he lost his job, often also make the point that the President’s critics just don’t understand what makes him different and attractive to voters. But Comey argued that the “concern is not unconventional leadership,” but maintains that the way the President threatens US values. And he justifies his focus on the President’s character is because it contains the roots of what he refers to a “forest fire” presidency that endangers American institutions. Related article Comey 'ashamed' of his role in bullying a classmate in college “To me, what matters most, and what the American people did not vote for and would not vote for is the derogation of the norms, the touchstone of truth, which is the heart of this country,” he said. Throughout his book, Comey keeps returning to his distaste for bullies of various kinds – in a clear hint that he also views Trump’s behavior as bullying. On Wednesday night, he gave a glimpse into an episode in his own past while he was a college student that he finds troubling. “There was a boy that the group found irritating, and I participated in picking on him,” Comey said. “Some things I did. Some things I watched. Some things I just laughed at. And I’m, 40 years later, ashamed of myself, and it taught me a lot about myself and about people in groups.”


Financial technology - FinTech - holds great potential for the future of African economies. Mobile payments have revolutionized the financial industry in Sub-Saharan Africa, where more than two thirds of people have a cellphone, but only around one-third have bank accounts. Cash is still king in the region, and the financial architecture of bank branches, payment cards and transfer services that are ubiquitous in the West are lacking. Yet, people still need to buy, sell and get paid, while the large remittance market means moving money internationally is a huge business. Related video Vodacom: Investing in Africa's mobile communications Stand-out success stories, such as M-Pesa – the Kenyan money transfer system now used across Africa – have changed the way that consumers, banks and investors see the growth of banking and finance on the continent. Now an increasing number of homegrown companies are trying to build on the opportunities that this mobile revolution has created. FinTech Africa, which connects start-ups with investors, is holding a conference this week in Cape Town, for which it has longlisted a number of companies which it believes are particularly innovative. Here are, among them, 5 that might contribute to changing the financial landscape in Africa. 1) 22Seven Cape Town-based 22Seven aims to help people get smarter about their money. The mobile app links to users’ bank accounts and allows them to track their spending, create a personal budget – and even make investments. “People are blind to what they are doing with their money,” says CEO Christo Davel. “We’re trying to solve the blindness and trying to curb the impulse people have when they make decisions.  If you can solve that I think you’ve cracked a huge problem.” While many impulsive spenders believe it is in their nature to splurge, Davel thinks otherwise: “An awareness can change habits, but it’s not easy.  It’s not a question of trying to change the DNA, but an awareness has been proven that people can change their behavior.” 2) Nomanini On the surface, Nomanini’s main product looks like a child’s toy. However, the small, colorful box is a wireless device that links to a cloud software service, allowing informal vendors to perform and process small transactions. The device has been rigorously tested to ensure it can stand up to the rough conditions of informal markets. “It’s rugged as a brick, but has stable connections to the mobile network,” says Kudah Mushambi, chief commercial officer. Informal markets are a major part of African economies, but they are poorly served by mainstream banks, and still mainly operate on cash. Creating solutions for them – and better understanding how they work – could be a lucrative business. “We are a platform for making affordable payments within an informal market,” says Mushambi. “We were founded as a technology company but very core to our existence is the idea of providing access to under-served communities.” 3) Zoona Zoona, meaning ‘It’s real’ in Nyanja, one of Zambia’s main languages, operates a cellphone-based money transfer service, similar to M-Pesa. Many areas of Zambia and Malawi, where Zoona operates, lack traditional money transfer infrastructure.  Furthermore, the majority of people are unbanked. “It was not uncommon for people to send money to their relatives with a bus driver or trucker going in the same direction,” says Karim Amade, Zoona’s communications manager. “This has obvious implications for reliability and security. “ The company has built a network of 1,350 independent agents, who process the transactions in cash at either end of the transfer. Zoona and the agent each take a cut of the fees. Suited to remote places, “Zoona can work on the oldest, most old school phone imaginable,” Amade says. 4) GetBucks South African start-up GetBuck also sees the value in pushing financial inclusion. “We see ourselves becoming the private bank of the underbanked,” says CEO Dave van Niekerk. GetBucks’ online system gives customers access to short term loans and other financial products, without having to travel to a bank branch. “We provide our customers a convenient, safe and reliable way to gain access to these products without having to travel, or visit a physical location,” van Niekerk says. “This in Africa is particularly important as travel is time consuming and difficult” The company manages the credit risk of low income consumers using a combination of traditional credit scoring and artificial intelligence. “We ensure that we do not allow our customers to over commit themselves, and we actively interact with them on the importance of lending responsibly, and managing their financial affairs,” van Niekerk says. 5) Cellulant Kenya-based Cellulant is already well-established in Africa, with operations in 10 countries. They employ over 300 people, and claim to have connected 40 million customers Africa-wide. The company offers mobile payments and banking services, including bill payment, allowing businesses to interact with their customers via cellphones. The company has worked with the Nigerian government on an agricultural development initiative, the Growth Enhancement Support Scheme, under which it distributed fertiliser subsidies to farmers. “Our business is based on direct connection to local needs and service solutions in each market. We allow all consumers across Africa to get the best possible value from their money,” says CEO Ken Njoroge.


Water drawn from wells at a hazardous waste site in hurricane-hit Puerto Rico meets federal drinking water standards and is fit for consumption, the US Environmental Protection Agency said in a news release on Tuesday. The water being pulled from wells at the Dorado Groundwater Contamination Site, which is part of the Superfund program for hazardous waste cleanup, meets federal drinking water standards for certain industrial chemicals, as well as for bacteria, Elias Rodriguez, an EPA spokesman, told CNN. The water is “OK to consume based on the analysis that we’ve done,” Rodriguez said. CNN previously reported that desperate locals had been breaking into wells on the Dorado hazardous waste site in search of water. Following Hurricane Maria, which ravaged the island about six weeks ago, 18% of households in Puerto Rico remain without working taps. Bottled water has been scarce on parts of the Caribbean island, which is a US territory. The EPA listed the area as a hazardous waste site in 2016. “Sampling at the site has found chemical contamination that is impacting wells used to supply drinking water to the local communities,” the agency said at the time. “Drinking water with the solvents, which include tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene, can have serious health impacts including damage to the liver and increasing the risk of cancer.” Those chemicals were not present at unsafe levels in the water sampled, Rodriguez said. Bacteria, which are also a concern in drinking water supplies after storms like Hurricane Maria, were also found to be at safe levels, he said. The Puerto Rican government has confirmed multiple deaths linked to waterborne illness since the hurricane. To the surprise of some people at the EPA, Rodriguez said, some of the wells located on the Superfund site actually were collecting water from an aqueduct system that is not sourced from groundwater at the contaminated site. At two other wells – Santa Rosa and Nevarez – the water was a mix of aqueduct water and groundwater pulled from the Superfund site, he said. The Puerto Rican water authority has been distributing water from the Santa Rosa well. The EPA did find between about 1 and 1.5 micrograms per liter of tetrachloroethylene, a chemical linked to risk of cancer, in water sampled from the Santa Rosa well. That falls within the federal drinking water standard of 5 micrograms per liter. That chemical “is considered a likely carcinogen and there’s no fully safe level,” said Erik Olson, director of the health program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, an environmental group. That level of contamination “poses some long-term cancer and health risk,” he said, “but as a short-term exposure issue the risk is fairly limited.” Overall, Olson said he considers the EPA results “somewhat reassuring.” More tests are forthcoming, Rodriguez said, but the test results released on Tuesday covered the chemicals of concern at the Superfund site, as well as bacteria that tend to cause illness following hurricanes and floods, he said. The EPA results are consistent with earlier results from a Virginia Tech lab. On October 19, CNN published the results of those university water tests, which also found the water to meet safe drinking water standards for certain industrial chemicals. The Virginia Tech lab conducted those tests on samples collected by CNN using somewhat crude field methods. “I would drink” the water based on those test results, Professor Marc Edwards said at the time. The EPA will decide as it moves forward with its Superfund assessment process whether to keep the water wells open indefinitely or whether some eventually would be closed because of potential risks, Rodriguez said. The wells that do contain a mix of water from wells on the hazardous waste site are located away from an area that is thought to have more-problematic levels of chemical contamination, he said. That distance is not especially comforting given the karst geology of the area, which allows contaminants to move more rapidly than through some other soil types, said Olson, from NRDC. “If you pump heavily you can see contaminants move over very long distance pretty quickly,” he said. “If this is truly next to a large plume of contaminants, that’s something I would be worried about – that the contaminants could move into that area.” Edwards, the Virginia Tech professor, said it is “very unfortunate” that anyone would have to drink from a well located on a Superfund site, “but in the scheme of bad water available in Puerto Rico now, this at least is microbiologically pure” and shows low levels of chemicals with possible long-term health consequences. CNN’s Ed Lavandera contributed to this report.