Новини

U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that he “gave up nothing” to Russian President Vladimir Putin at last week’s summit in Helsinki, but details of their one-on-one meeting remained elusive.

“We merely talked about future benefits for both countries,” Trump said on Twitter. “Also, we got along very well, which is a good thing except for the Corrupt Media!”

He blamed the mainstream news media, “Fake News” as he called it again, for “talking negatively” about his meeting with Putin.

Trump and Putin met behind closed doors for more than two hours with only their translators in the room with them. At various times since then, Trump has said that the two leaders talked about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, stopping global terrorism, security for Israel, the need to curb a nuclear arms race between their countries, Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, cyberattacks, trade, Middle East peace, North Korea’s nuclear weapons and more.

But details of what Trump and Putin may have decided have not emerged. Trump late last week invited Putin to visit the White House in a few months for a second summit.

Criticism of Helsinki performance

Back home from the first one, the U.S. leader drew widespread criticism – from Trump’s fellow Republicans and opposition Democrats alike – for his performance at the joint news conference he had with Putin, where Trump embraced Putin’s “extremely strong and powerful” denial that Russia had meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, rather than defending the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Moscow had interfered.

Trump has voiced a mix of comments since Helsinki, saying he accepted the U.S. intelligence finding of Russian election interference, while coupling it with continued denials that his campaign colluded with Russia.

By Sunday night, however, Trump was calling the Russian interference story “all a big hoax,” and blaming former president Barack Obama for not intervening to stop it because Obama thought Democrat Hillary Clinton would defeat Trump in the election two years ago.

“So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election,” Trump tweeted. “Why didn’t he do something about it? Why didn’t he tell our campaign? Because it is all a big hoax, that’s why, and he thought Crooked Hillary was going to win!!!”

​

Mueller probe

On Monday, Trump railed against special counsel Robert Mueller’s 14-month investigation of whether Trump’s campaign worked directly with Moscow to help him win and whether he obstructed justice by firing Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey last year at a time when Comey was leading the agency’s Russia probe before Mueller was appointed to take it over.

The U.S. leader attacked the FBI for four times winning approval from a surveillance court to wiretap Carter Page, one of his former advisers, about his suspected ties to Russia, one of the underpinnings of the Mueller probe. Page has not been charged and on Sunday told CNN the allegations that he was conscripted by Russia are “ridiculous” and not true.

Trump called the Mueller probe “a disgrace to America. They should drop the discredited Mueller Witch Hunt now!”

 
…

The President of Bosnia’s autonomous Serb Republic Milorad Dodik pushed on Monday to reopen debate over the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, less than three months before the country votes in elections.

Dodik launched a procedure demanding that parliament revoke a 2004 report issued by a previous government which established that Bosnian Serb forces killed about 8,000 Muslims in and around the town during the country’s 1992-95 war.

Critics accused Dodik of trying to use the issue of Europe’s worst atrocity since World War Two to win the votes of hardline Bosnian Serbs in the October 7 general election.

Dodik has always rejected rulings by two war crimes courts – The U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and The International Court of Justice – that the atrocity qualified as genocide.

Though acknowledging the crime occurred, Dodik said the numbers of those killed had been exaggerated in the 2004 report.

A special session of parliament to debate the report will be held on August 14, a parliamentary panel, which convened at Dodik’s request, said on Monday.

Dodik said earlier that the report had been manipulated to harm the Serbs and that he wanted it overturned. Before this, Srebrenica survivors sent to German authorities a list of Serbs alleged to have participated in the massacre, many of whom are still at large. Many Bosnians settled in Germany after the war, one of a series of conflicts as Yugoslavia broke up.

Bosnian Serb forces, led by General Ratko Mladic, took over the U.N.-protected enclave of Srebrenica on July 11, 1995. They separated men from women, detained them and killed them en masse in the following days.

Last year, the ICTY convicted Mladic of genocide and crimes against humanity, including at Srebrenica, and jailed him for life.

Bosnian Muslim deputies in the Serb Republic parliament condemned Dodik’s initiative.

“The initiative … is shameful when even the birds in the trees know what happened in Srebrenica. Dodik has no such eraser that can overturn the local and international rulings related to Srebrenica,” one of them, Mujo Hadziomerovic, said.

Dodik, who seeks the secession of the Serb Republic from Bosnia, will run for the Serb seat in the country’s inter-ethnic presidency in October.

Political analyst Tanja Topic said Bosnian parties in general were using such issues to win support. “This is a well-tried political recipe that the ruling parties have been using in their election campaign to mobilize voters around the nationalist agenda on the one side and to discredit their political opponents on the other,” she told Reuters.

After the war, Bosnia was split into the Serb Republic and a federation of Muslim Bosniaks and Roman Catholic Croats, linked via a weak central government.

 
…

Spanish rescuers have picked up nearly 800 migrants trying the cross the Mediterranean Sea into the European Union over the past two days.

Coast Guard boats pulled people off of dangerously overcrowded vessels from the Straits of Gibraltar and the Alboran Sea – two of the closest points between Spain the coast of North Africa.

The U.N.’s International Organization for Migration said more than 18,000 people have reached Spain from North Africa so far this year.

Spain has replaced Italy as the preferred destination for migrants from Africa, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere trying to escape war and poverty for a better life in the European Union.

Italy had been overwhelmed with migrants and under a deal worked out with Libya, has started returning them home instead of processing asylum requests.

 
…

Professional golfer Francesco Molinari won his first major championship Sunday, defeating an array of the sport’s top stars at the British Open in Carnoustie, Scotland.

The 35-year-old Molinari became the first Italian to capture one of golf’s four major annual titles, shooting a final round 2-under-par 69. He completed a bogey-free round with a 5-foot birdie putt on the 18th hole and then waited to claim the tournament’s Claret Jug trophy as other contenders faltered at the end.

For the tournament, Molinari was 8 under par, two better than a quartet of golfers, Britain’s Justin Rose, Northern Ireland’s Rory McIlroy and two Americans, Xander Schauffele and Kevin Kisner.

The tourney marked the return to prominence for Tiger Woods, the U.S. golfer who has won 14 major championships but none since 2008. With a pair of birdies and eight pars through the first 10 holes Sunday, Woods surged into the lead, but promptly relinquished it with a double bogey on the 11th and a bogey on the 12th.

Woods completed the tourney in sixth place, three shots back of Molinari, his playing partner. It was Woods’ best showing in a major championship since his fourth-place finish at the 2013 Masters in the United States.

 
…

On the heels of President Donald Trump’s widely-criticized Helsinki summit performance, Washington is abuzz yet again after the White House announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit the United States later this year. VOA’s Michael Bowman has this report.
…

Britain will only pay its EU divorce bill if the bloc agrees to the framework for a future trade deal, the new Brexit secretary warned in an interview published Sunday.

Dominic Raab, who replaced David Davis after he quit the role earlier this month in protest over the government’s Brexit strategy, said “some conditionality between the two” was needed.

He added that the Article 50 mechanism used to trigger Britain’s imminent exit from the European Union provided for new deal details.

“Article 50 requires, as we negotiate the withdrawal agreement, that there’s a future framework for our new relationship going forward, so the two are linked,” Raab told the Sunday Telegraph.

“You can’t have one side fulfilling its side of the bargain and the other side not, or going slow, or failing to commit on its side. So I think we do need to make sure that there’s some conditionality between the two,” he said.

Doubt cast

Prime Minister Theresa May agreed in December to a financial settlement totaling £35 to £39 billion ($46-51 billion, 39-44 billion euros) that ministers said depended on agreeing on future trade ties.

But Cabinet members have since cast doubt on the position. 

Finance minister Philip Hammond said shortly afterward that he found it “inconceivable” Britain would not pay its bill, which he described as “not a credible scenario.”

The country is set to leave the bloc on March 30, but the two sides want to strike a divorce agreement by late October in order to give parliament enough time to endorse a deal.

Raab met the EU’s top negotiator Michel Barnier for the first time on Friday, where he heard doubts over May’s new Brexit blueprint for the future relationship.

But Barnier noted the priority in talks should be on finalizing the initial divorce deal.

May’s plan unpopular

A hard-line stance by the British government on the financial settlement could complicate progress, with Raab insisting on the link with the bill and a future agreement.

May’s plans formally unveiled in early July envisions a customs partnership for goods and a common rulebook with the EU.

It has faced severe criticism in Britain, including from within her own Cabinet and Conservative Party.

Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson and Davis both resigned in opposition.
…

An unusual pop-up museum in Lisbon is delighting social media-focused visitors with colorful and dreamy displays of giant ice creams, marshmallow pools and all things sweet. As VOA’s Mariama Diallo reports, the museum’s founders say its an attraction that strives to put a smile on the faces of all its visitors.
…

Fiat Chrysler named on Saturday its Jeep division boss, Mike Manley, to take over immediately for Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne, who is seriously ill after suffering major complications following surgery.

The carmaker said British-born Manley, who also takes responsibility for the North America region, will push ahead with the midterm strategy outlined last month by Marchionne, who had been due to step down next April.

Marchionne, 66, was credited with rescuing Fiat and Chrysler from bankruptcy after taking the Italian carmaker’s wheel in 2004. On Saturday, he was also replaced as chairman and CEO of Ferrari and chairman of tractor maker CNH Industrial — both spun off from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in recent years.

“FCA communicates with profound sorrow that during the course of this week unexpected complications arose while Mr. Marchionne was recovering from surgery and that these have worsened significantly in recent hours,” the statement said.

FCA disclosed earlier this month that Marchionne, a renowned dealmaker and workaholic, was recovering from a shoulder operation. But his condition deteriorated sharply in recent days when he suffered massive complications that were not divulged.

Ferrari named FCA Chairman and Agnelli family scion John Elkann as new chairman, while board member Louis Camilleri becomes chief executive. CNH appointed Suzanna Heywood to replace Marchionne as chairman. All three companies remain controlled by the Agnellis.

Marchionne had previously said he planned to stay on as Ferrari chairman and CEO until 2021.

Deal focus

One of the auto industry’s longest-serving CEOs, Marchionne has advocated tie-ups to share the growing cost burden of developing cleaner, electrified and autonomous vehicles.

He resisted the comparatively easy option of selling off coveted brands such as Jeep, saying that would leave too big a problem with Fiat as “the stump that is left behind.”

But after being rejected by his preferred partner General Motors, he turned back to the task of cutting FCA’s debt — a goal he achieved last month — while maintaining that a merger for FCA was “ultimately inevitable.”

Investor hopes for a transformative deal had largely dwindled and are unlikely to hit the shares on Marchionne’s departure, according to Evercore analyst George Galliers.

“The valuation doesn’t suggest expectations of a buyout are high,” Galliers said.

Even without Marchionne, FCA will remain “culturally more open to dealmaking and savvy to potential capital market opportunities than much of the competition,” he added.

“A lot of that’s now ingrained, so I don’t think you lose everything he’s brought to the company overnight.”

Yet, Manley will have a tough act to follow.

Marchionne resurrected one of Italy’s biggest corporate names and revitalized Chrysler, succeeding where the U.S. company’s two previous owners — Mercedes parent Daimler and private equity group Carberus — both failed.

He has multiplied Fiat’s value 11 times since taking charge, helped by moves such as the spinoffs of CNH Industrial and Ferrari. The planned separation of parts maker Magneti Marelli, due this year, should further increase that value-generation.

He also flattened an inflexible hierarchy, replacing layers of middle management with a meritocratic leadership style. He slashed costs by reducing the number of vehicle architectures and creating joint ventures to pool development and plant costs.
…

Revelations that one of the most respected U.S. cardinals allegedly sexually abused both boys and adult seminarians have raised questions about who in the Catholic Church hierarchy knew — and what Pope Francis is going to do about it.

If the accusations against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick bear out — including a new case reported Friday involving an 11-year-old boy — will Francis revoke his title as cardinal? Sanction him to a lifetime of penance and prayer? Or even defrock him, the expected sanction if McCarrick were a mere priest?

And will Francis, who has already denounced a “culture of cover-up” in the church, take the investigation all the way to the top, where it will inevitably lead? McCarrick’s alleged sexual misdeeds with adults were reportedly brought to the Vatican’s attention years ago.

The matter is now on the desk of the pope, who has already spent the better part of 2018 dealing with a spiraling child sex abuse, adult gay priest sex and cover-up scandal in Chile that was so vast the entire bishops’ conference offered to resign in May.

And on Friday, Francis accepted the resignation of the Honduran deputy to Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, who is one of Francis’ top advisers. Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda Fasquelle, 57, was accused of sexual misconduct with seminarians and lavish spending on his lovers that was so obvious to Honduras’ poverty-wracked faithful that Maradiaga is now under pressure to reveal what he knew of Pineda’s misdeeds and why he tolerated a sexually active gay bishop in his ranks.

The McCarrick scandal poses the same questions. It was apparently an open secret in some U.S. church circles that “Uncle Ted” invited seminarians to his beach house, and into his bed.

While such an abuse of power may have been quietly tolerated for decades, it doesn’t fly in the #MeToo era. And there has been a deafening silence from McCarrick’s brother bishops about what they might have known and when.

Fraternal solidarity is common among clerics, but some observers point to it as possible evidence of the so-called “gay lobby” or “lavender mafia” at work. These euphemisms — frequently denounced as politically incorrect displays of homophobia in the church — are used by some to describe a perceived protection and promotion network of gay Catholic clergy.

“There is going to be so much clamor for the Holy Father to remove the red hat, to formally un-cardinalize him,” said the Rev. Thomas Berg, vice rector and director of admissions at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, the seminary of the archdiocese of New York.

Berg said the church needs to ensure that men with deep-seated same-sex attraction simply don’t enter seminaries — a position recently reinforced by the Vatican at large and by Francis in comments to Chilean and Italian bishops.

Berg said the church also needs to take action when celibacy vows are violated.

“We can’t effectively prevent the sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable adults by clergy while habitual and widespread failures in celibacy are quietly tolerated,” he said.

McCarrick, the 88-year-old retired archbishop of Washington and confidante to three popes, was ultimately undone when the U.S. church announced June 20 that Francis had ordered him removed from public ministry. The sanction was issued pending a full investigation into a “credible” allegation that he fondled a teenager more than 40 years ago in New York City.

The dioceses of Newark and Metuchen, New Jersey, simultaneously revealed that they had received three complaints of misconduct by McCarrick against adults and had settled two of them.

Another alleged victim, the son of a McCarrick family friend identified as James, came forward in a report in The New York Times and subsequently in an interview with The Associated Press. James said he was 11 when McCarrick first exposed himself to him. From there, McCarrick began a sexually abusive relationship that continued for another two decades, James told AP.

“I was the first guy he baptized,” James told AP. “I was his little boy. I was his special kid.”

McCarrick has denied the initial allegation of abuse against a minor and accepted the pope’s decision to remove him from public ministry.

Asked Friday about James, a spokeswoman said McCarrick hadn’t received formal notice of any new allegation but would follow the civil and church processes in place to investigate them.

Even now, Francis could take immediate action to remove McCarrick from the College of Cardinals, said Kurt Martens, a canon lawyer at the Catholic University of America.

He recalled the case of the late Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who recused himself from the 2013 conclave that elected Francis pope after unidentified priests alleged in newspapers that he engaged in sexual misconduct. In 2015, after a Vatican investigation, Francis accepted O’Brien’s resignation after he relinquished the rights and privileges of being a cardinal.

O’Brien was, however, allowed to retain the cardinal’s title and he died a member of the college.

“I think that is totally unsatisfactory,” Martens said, noting that just as the pope can grant the title of cardinal, he can also take it away. “O’Brien resigned, the pope accepted it. Isn’t that the world upside down that someone picks his own penalty?”

O’Brien was never accused of sexually abusing a minor, however, as McCarrick now stands.

The stiffest punishment that an ordinary priest would face if such an accusation is proven would be dismissal from the clerical state, or laicization.

The Vatican rarely if ever, however, imposes such a penalty on elderly prelates. It also is loath to do so for bishops, because theologically speaking, defrocked bishops can still validly ordain priests and bishops.

Not even the serial rapist Rev. Marcial Maciel was defrocked after the Vatican finally convicted him of abusing Legion of Christ seminarians. Maciel was sentenced to a lifetime of penance and prayer — the likely canonical sanction for McCarrick if he is found guilty of abusing a minor in a church trial.
…

For the past several months, intelligence and security officials in the U.S. government and private sector have cautiously marveled at the seemingly slow pace of Russian cyberattacks and influence operations using social media.

Unlike in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, officials say so far there has been no frenzy of hacks, phishing attacks or use of ads and false news stories to penetrate voting systems, alter voter rolls or influence voters ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

Some have suggested the slowdown is the result of better preparation and better cyber tools that have allowed social media companies to thwart Russian efforts. But among Western intelligence agencies, there is also concern that Russia may not be relying on bots and trolls because they have real people who can do the work instead.

“We [Estonian intelligence] have detected a network of politicians, journalists, diplomats, business people who are actually Russian influence agents and who are doing what they are told to do,” Mikk Marran, the director general of Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service said Friday, speaking of Moscow’s efforts in the West.

“We see clearly that those people are pushing Russia’s agenda,” Marran told an audience at the annual Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colorado.

Marran’s comments come during a week that saw U.S. President Donald Trump casting doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, while standing alongside his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, following their meeting in Helsinki. 

Since returning from Europe, Trump has backtracked on his initial statement, reading a prepared statement during Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting and in an interview Wednesday with CBS News.

Still, senior U.S. intelligence and security officials remain concerned, publicly asserting Russia did indeed meddle with the 2016 election. 

A U.S. special counsel, Robert Mueller, appointed to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election and possible collusion by members of the Trump campaign, on July 13 indicted 12 Russian intelligence officials for hacking the computer networks belonging to the Democratic party, and has previously secured indictments against Trump campaign staffers, including campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Yet despite the publicity from the U.S. investigation and greater awareness across the West of Russia’s influence operations, Estonian intelligence officials assert Moscow has not been deterred. Instead they say the Kremlin has ratcheted up efforts to make use of “influence agents,” many of whom Moscow has been cultivating for years.

“Politicians that have been in the margins of local politics some years ago are actually right now in national parliaments or national governments,” Marran said. “They have made some bad investments but they have also made some very good investments.”

“What they [the Russians] have provided to those people is media support, political support. They have proposed or provided some exclusive business opportunities,” he added. “In some occasions we have also seen that they have provided financial aid.”

Marran declined to name any politicians, diplomats or journalists suspected of being in Moscow’s pocket. And while it is not the first time that Estonia, a U.S. ally and a NATO member, has warned of Russia’s cultivation of “influence agents” in Western Europe, there are growing concerns that such operations have taken hold in the United States.

Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggested Thursday that Russian efforts may even have reached into the White House.

“I’ve been trying my best to give the president the benefit of the doubt and always expressed potential other theories as to why he behaves as he does with respect to Russia generally and Putin specifically,” Clapper told CNN when asked about Trump’s refusal to back the findings of the U.S. intelligence community during his joint news conference with Putin Monday in Helsinki.

“But more and more I come to a conclusion after the Helsinki performance and since, that I really do wonder if the Russians have something on him,” Clapper said.

There have also been persistent rumors that some members of Congress could also be doing Russia’s bidding  a notion reinforced Thursday by Bill Browder, the chief executive officer of Hermitage Capital and a driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which allows Washington to withhold visas and freeze financial assets of Russian officials thought to be corrupt or human rights abusers.

“There’s one member of the U.S. Congress who I believe is on the payroll of Russia — it’s a Republican Congressmen from Orange County [California] named Dana Rohrabacher who is running around trying to overturn the Magnitsky Act,” Browder said at the Aspen Security Forum.

“I don’t have the bank transfers to prove it, but I believe that that’s the case,” Browder said when he was pressed on the accusation, citing Rohrabacher’s behavior.

VOA contacted Rohrabacher’s office regarding the accusation, but has not yet gotten any response.

U.S. intelligence and security agencies also declined comment on the allegations that Russian influence agents have infiltrated the U.S. government, though The New York Times reported in May that intelligence agents had warned Rohrabacher, long been considered to be one of the most Russia-friendly members of Congress, as far back as 2012 that Kremlin agents were actively trying to recruit him.

And during a private meeting in June 2016, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told fellow Republican lawmakers, “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” according to a recording obtained by The Washington Post.

“It was a bad joke,” McCarthy told reporters after the tape emerged. “That was all there was to it. Nobody believes it.”

Katherine Gypson contributed to this report.
…

The sudden thaw between longtime enemies Eritrea and Ethiopia is opening up a world of possibilities for the neighboring countries’ residents: new economic and diplomatic ties, telephone and transport links and the end to one of Africa’s most bitter feuds.

But the fledgling peace is raising new questions for Eritrea’s diaspora, tens of thousands who fled their government’s tight grip, rigid system of compulsory military conscription and endemic poverty.

Now they are cautiously waiting to see how the truce will shape their homeland and perhaps offer them a chance to return.

“I want to go to my country,” said Salamwit Willedo, a 29-year-old Eritrean living in Israel. “Everywhere I am a refugee. But my country is my homeland. I feel home there. So I hope, I wish, that (peace) will happen.”

​Suddenly, peace

Tiny Eritrea, with 5 million people, gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after years of rebel warfare. It has been ruled by President Isaias Afwerki since then and has become one of the world’s most reclusive nations. The state of war with Ethiopia has kept the Red Sea country in a constant state of military readiness, with a harsh, indefinite conscription system that has drawn criticism from rights groups and sent thousands fleeing to Europe, Israel and other African nations.

The Horn of Africa arch-foes fought a bloody border war from 1998 to 2000 that killed tens of thousands and left families separated. But the antagonism faded abruptly last month when reformist Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced that Ethiopia was fully accepting a peace deal signed in 2000 that hands key disputed border areas to Eritrea.

The hostility between the nations has evaporated dramatically since. The leaders have visited each other’s countries to jubilant receptions, diplomatic and other ties have been restored, and the flagship Ethiopian Airlines resumed flights to Eritrea this week.

Ethiopia’s embrace of the peace deal was the boldest change yet by Abiy as the country moves away from years of anti-government protests demanding wider freedoms in Africa’s second-most populous nation of more than 100 million people. Now eyes are turned to Eritrea and how peace might prompt it to loosen up and drop its long defensive stance.

Diaspora’s divided opinions

“Hate, discrimination and conspiracy is now over,” the 72-year-old Eritrean leader said this week to cheers and people chanting his name during his first visit to Ethiopia in 22 years.

While the diaspora is split into government supporters and critics, many Eritreans abroad are skeptical of change so long as the current government remains in power.

“I think it’s not going to bring a solution inside the country, because we still have thousands of prisoners in the country, we don’t have a constitution, we don’t have internal peace,” said Bluts Iyassu, who came to Tel Aviv in 2010 and is a member of United Eritreans for Justice, a group of Eritrean expatriates who are working to promote democracy in their home country.

Israel has become a prime destination for fleeing Eritreans and is home to about 26,000. Most live in downtrodden neighborhoods in south Tel Aviv and work in menial jobs in restaurants or hotels.

While many say their lives are better than in Eritrea, they have not received a warm welcome in Israel, which has struggled to cope with an influx of migrants from Eritrea and Sudan.

Israel sees the migrants as job-seekers who threaten the Jewish character of the state. It has detained migrants and sent them to third countries in a bid to lessen their numbers.

Rights groups say that Israel may use the reconciliation between Eritrea and Ethiopia as an excuse to encourage the migrants to leave.

Gamut of emotions

For the roughly 170,000 Eritrean refugees and asylum seekers living in Ethiopia, the peace in the short term means a newfound ability to communicate by telephone with their loved ones back home.

“I can’t put my joy into words. I have already talked to my sisters in (the port city of) Massawa since the phone line was restored,” said Alemnesh Woldegiorgis, 64, an Eritrean living in Ethiopia. He said he hopes to be issued a passport to visit family he hadn’t seen for 20 years.

In Germany, where nearly 70,000 Eritreans have settled, most are refugees who came to the country over the past five years, according to Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.

Hintsa Amine lives with other Eritreans in temporary migrant housing near Berlin’s former airport. The 22-year-old arrived in Germany a year and a half ago, and while he supports the peace deal, he said it hasn’t changed his plans because he still doesn’t feel safe in his home country.

“I want to stay here in Germany,” he said.

For Mohammed Lumumba Ibrahim, 61, who has been living in Germany for 45 years, the truce has sparked hope that he might take his children to see his homeland.

“I would love to go with the whole family. But I need to make sure myself that we have peace, that there is no war so that I can take my children and show them their fatherland,” he said.

​Defending the government

Some diaspora members defended Eritrea’s government, saying it wasn’t to blame for all the country’s ills.

Essey Asbu, 47, who came to the United States in the 1980s as a refugee, returned to Eritrea for the 10th anniversary of independence and again about two years ago for the 25th anniversary. Eritreans mark their independence from 1991, when they captured their future capital, Asmara.

He said he doesn’t believe the current regime would have a problem letting any members of the diaspora return, unless they have committed a crime.

“I don’t know why anybody would not be very comfortable to return,” he said, adding that Eritreans who are professionals or have been educated in other countries could be the country’s greatest resource if they return.

According to the most recent data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey, there are roughly 34,000 people born in Eritrea now living in the U.S. California has the largest number, about 6,200. About 1,150 live in Minnesota, according to the survey.

Mohamed Salih Idris, 49, of Minneapolis, left in the 1970s and came to the U.S. in 1999. Idris has not tried to return to Eritrea, citing danger for himself and his family and the threat of not being allowed to leave.

He said the peace agreement is bringing some optimism, but that feeling is laced with mistrust.

“There is no trust in the current regime at all. The hope is that now with this peace agreement, there is no excuse for them to continue doing what they have been doing,” he said.

He said fear of imprisonment is very real. 

“That fear is making it very difficult for anyone to think about going back right now,” he said.
…

The White House said Friday it “is not considering supporting” a Vladimir-Putin-backed call for a referendum in eastern Ukraine in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s meeting with the Russian president.

Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, revealed Friday that the two leaders had discussed the possibility of a referendum in separatist-leaning eastern Ukraine during their Helsinki summit.

National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said agreements between Russia and the Ukrainian government for resolving the conflict in the Donbas region “do not include any option for referendum.” He added any effort to organize a “so-called referendum” would have “no legitimacy.”

The White House announcement comes as it laid out the agenda for an autumn summit between Trump and Putin in Washington that would focus on national security. Moscow signaled openness to a second formal meeting between the two leaders, as criticism of Trump over his first session with his Russian counterpart continued to swirl.

A White House official said the next Trump-Putin meeting would address national security concerns discussed in Helsinki, including Russian meddling. The official did not specify if that meant Russia’s interference in U.S. elections. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning, said the talks would also cover nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran and Syria.

Trump asked National Security Adviser John Bolton to invite Putin to Washington in the fall to follow up on issues they discussed this week in Helsinki, Finland, the official said.

A White House meeting would be a dramatic extension of legitimacy to the Russian leader, who has long been isolated by the West for activities in Ukraine, Syria and beyond and is believed to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election that sent Trump to the presidency. No Russian leader has visited the White House in nearly a decade.

The announcement of a second summit comes as U.S. officials have been mum on what, if anything, the two leaders agreed to in Helsinki during their more than two-hour one-on-one meeting, in which only translators were present. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats revealed Thursday he has yet to be briefed on the private session.

The Russian government has proven to be more forthcoming.

“This issue [of a referendum] was discussed,” Antonov said, adding that Putin made “concrete proposals” to Trump on solutions for the four-year, Russian-backed insurgency in eastern Ukraine, which has killed more than 10,000 people. He did not elaborate on what Putin’s solutions would be.

The move may be seen as an effort to sidestep European peace efforts for Ukraine and increase the pressure on the Ukrainian government in its protracted conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass region.

Trump tweeted Thursday that he looked forward a “second meeting” with Putin and defended his performance at Monday’s summit, in which the two leaders conferred on a range of issues including terrorism, Israeli security, nuclear proliferation and North Korea.

“There are many answers, some easy and some hard, to these problems … but they can ALL be solved!” Trump tweeted.

In Moscow, Antonov said it is important to “deal with the results” of their first summit before jumping too fast into a new one. But he said, “Russia was always open to such proposals. We are ready for discussions on this subject.”

News of Trump’s invitation to Putin appeared to catch even the president’s top intelligence official by surprise.

“Say that again,” Coats responded, when informed of the invitation during an appearance at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

“OK,” he continued, pausing for a deep breath. “That’s going to be special.”

The announcement came as the White House sought to clean up days of confounding post-summit Trump statements on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump’s public doubting of Russia’s responsibility in a joint news conference with Putin on Monday provoked withering criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats and forced the president to make a rare public admission of error.

Then on Thursday, the White House said Trump “disagrees” with Putin’s offer to allow U.S. questioning of 12 Russians who have been indicted for election interference in exchange for Russian interviews with the former U.S. ambassador to Russia and other Americans the Kremlin accuses of unspecified crimes. Trump initially had described the idea as an “incredible offer.”

The White House backtrack came just before the Senate voted overwhelmingly against the proposal. It was Congress’ first formal rebuke of Trump’s actions from the summit and its aftermath.

Asked about the Putin invitation, Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan said “I wouldn’t do it, that’s for damn sure.”

“If the Russians want a better relationship, trips to the White House aren’t going to help,” he added. “They should stop invading their neighbors.”

Mixed messages from Trump have increased worries in Congress that the White House is not taking seriously the threat that senior officials say Russia now poses to the upcoming 2018 midterm elections.

Democrats in the House sought Thursday to extend a state grant program for election security but were blocked by Republicans. There is $380 million approved in the current budget for the program, which is intended to help states strengthen election systems from hacking and other cyberattacks.

Democratic lawmakers erupted into chants of “USA! USA!” during the debate,

While Trump and Putin had met privately on three occasions in 2017, Trump opened the door to a potential White House meeting with him earlier this year. The Kremlin had said in April that the president had invited the Russian leader to the White House when they spoke by telephone in March. At the time, White House officials worked to convince a skeptical president that the Nordic capital would serve as a more effective backdrop — and warned of a firestorm should a West Wing meeting go through.

Still, Trump has expressed a preference for the White House setting for major meetings, including floating an invitation to Washington for North Korea’s Kim Jong Un after their meeting in Singapore last month.

Putin would be setting foot inside the building for the first time in more than a decade.

He last visited the White House in 2005, when he met President George W. Bush, who welcomed the Russian leader in the East Room as “my friend.”

President Barack Obama welcomed then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the White House in 2010, and took him on a burger run at a joint just outside the capital.

Putin, in his first public comments about the summit, told Russian diplomats that U.S.-Russian relations are “in some ways worse than during the Cold War,” but that the meeting with Trump allowed a start on “the path to positive change.”
…

After hosting the World Cup, President Vladimir Putin says the country could bid for a future Summer Olympics.

Asked about hosting a Summer Olympics in Russia for the first time since 1980, Putin says feasibility studies need to be conducted “but obviously we will organize major international competitions here,” in comments reported by state news agency RIA Novosti.

Russia held the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi but its legacy was tainted by allegations of widespread doping which led to Russian athletes being forced to compete as neutrals at this year’s Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang.

The next summer games Russia could host would be in 2032, because Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles are already confirmed as hosting the 2020, 2024 and 2028 editions respectively.
…

An autumn summit between President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin would focus on national security, the White House said Friday, and Moscow signaled an openness to a second meeting between the two leaders. Yet criticism of Trump over his first session with his Russian counterpart continued to swirl.

A White House official said the next Trump-Putin meeting would address national security concerns discussed in Helsinki, including Russian meddling. The official did not specify if that meant Russia’s interference in U.S. elections. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning, said the talks would also cover nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran and Syria.

Trump asked National Security Adviser John Bolton to invite Putin to Washington in the fall to follow up on issues they discussed this week in Helsinki, Finland, the official said.

A White House meeting would be a dramatic extension of legitimacy to the Russian leader, who has long been isolated by the West for activities in Ukraine, Syria and beyond and is believed to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election that sent Trump to the presidency. No Russian leader has visited the White House in nearly a decade.

Trump tweeted Thursday that he looked forward a “second meeting” with Putin and defended his performance at Monday’s summit, in which the two leaders conferred on a range of issues including terrorism, Israeli security, nuclear proliferation and North Korea.

“There are many answers, some easy and some hard, to these problems … but they can ALL be solved!” Trump tweeted.

In Moscow, Anatoly Antonov, Russian ambassador to the U.S., said it is important to “deal with the results” of their first summit before jumping too fast into a new one. But he said, “Russia was always open to such proposals. We are ready for discussions on this subject.”

News of Trump’s invitation to Putin appeared to catch even the president’s top intelligence official by surprise.

“Say that again,” National Intelligence Director Dan Coats responded, when informed of the invitation during an appearance at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

“OK,” he continued, pausing for a deep breath. “That’s going to be special.”

The announcement came as the White House sought to clean up days of confounding post-summit Trump statements on Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump’s public doubting of Russia’s responsibility in a joint news conference with Putin on Monday provoked withering criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats and forced the president to make a rare public admission of error.

Then on Thursday, the White House said Trump “disagrees” with Putin’s offer to allow U.S. questioning of 12 Russians who have been indicted for election interference in exchange for Russian interviews with the former U.S. ambassador to Russia and other Americans the Kremlin accuses of unspecified crimes. Trump initially had described the idea as an “incredible offer.”

The White House backtrack came just before the Senate voted overwhelmingly against the proposal. It was Congress’ first formal rebuke of Trump’s actions from the summit and its aftermath.

Asked about the Putin invitation, Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan said “I wouldn’t do it, that’s for damn sure.”

“If the Russians want a better relationship, trips to the White House aren’t going to help,” he added. “They should stop invading their neighbors.”

Mixed messages from Trump have increased worries in Congress that the White House is not taking seriously the threat that senior officials say Russia now poses to the upcoming 2018 midterm elections.

Democrats in the House sought Thursday to extend a state grant program for election security but were blocked by Republicans. There is $380 million approved in the current budget for the program, which is intended to help states strengthen election systems from hacking and other cyberattacks.

Democratic lawmakers erupted into chants of “USA! USA!” during the debate,

As for Putin’s offer on investigations, Sanders it was “made in sincerity” and the U.S. hopes he will have the indicted Russians “come to the United States to prove their innocence or guilt.”

Just a day earlier, the White House had said the offer was under consideration, even though the State Department called Russia’s allegations against the Americans, including former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, “absurd.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday of the proposed Russian questioning, “That’s not going to happen.”

“The administration is not going to send, force Americans to travel to Russia to be interrogated by Vladimir Putin and his team,” Pompeo said in an interview with The Christian Broadcasting Network.

Senate Republicans joined Democrats in swiftly passing a resolution, 98-0, that put the Senate on record against the questioning of American officials by a foreign government.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell hastily arranged the vote as lawmakers unleashed an avalanche of resolutions and other proposed actions expressing alarm over Trump’s meeting with Putin and the White House’s shifting response.

Coats said Thursday he wished the president hadn’t undermined the conclusions of American intelligence agencies while standing next to Putin and felt it was his duty to correct the record. He restated the U.S. intelligence assessment about Russian meddling and Moscow’s “ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.”

While they had met privately on three occasions in 2017, Trump opened the door to a potential White House meeting with Putin earlier this year. The Kremlin had said in April that the president had invited the Russian leader to the White House when they spoke by telephone in March. At the time, White House officials worked to convince a skeptical president that the Nordic capital would serve as a more effective backdrop — and warned of a firestorm should a West Wing meeting go through.

Still, Trump has expressed a preference for the White House setting for major meetings, including floating an invitation to Washington for North Korea’s Kim Jong Un after their meeting in Singapore last month.

Putin would be setting foot inside the building for the first time in more than a decade.

He last visited the White House in 2005, when he met President George W. Bush, who welcomed the Russian leader in the East Room as “my friend.”

President Barack Obama welcomed then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the White House in 2010, and took him on a burger run at a joint just outside the capital.

Putin, in his first public comments about the summit, told Russian diplomats U.S.-Russian relations are “in some ways worse than during the Cold War,” but that the meeting with Trump allowed a start on “the path to positive change.”

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said she still has not seen evidence that Moscow tried to help elect Trump. She said at the Aspen Forum that Russia is attempting to “cause chaos on both sides.”
…