політика, бізнес, народ

The sale of one Turkey’s largest media conglomerates to a pro-government businessman is being seen as the ruling AKP party strengthening its control of the media.

The sale came as parliament on Thursday passed legislation widening government control of the internet, one of the last remaining platforms for critical and independent reporting.

Dogan Media Company, owns a chain of prominent newspapers and TV channels. The company was reportedly sold to Demiroren Holding, whose owner, Erdogan Demiroren, has close ties to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“Demiroren will probably do to Dogan media what he did when he bought independent newspapers Milliyet and Vatan, and turn it into a government mouthpiece,” analyst Atilla Yesilada of Global Source Partners predicted. “With this sale, there is nothing left in the mainstream media for a guy or girl out there who is seeking independent information, that period is now over in Turkish media.”

“The process of gathering the Turkish media industry in one hand according to the Putin model is completed,” Kadri Gursel, a leading Turkish journalist, tweeted.

​Bitter struggle ends

The sale of Dogan Media ends a prolonged bitter struggle between owner Aydin Dogan and Erdogan.

For decades, Dogan was Turkey’s most powerful media tycoon. With most of Turkey’s media gradually coming under the direct or indirect control of the ruling AKP party, Dogan media remained one of last sources mainstream independent reporting, observers said.

In 2009, Dogan’s Hurriyet newspaper provoked Erdogan with a report on a German court linking prominent AKP party officials to a charity fraud. Shortly afterward, tax authorities placed a multibillion-dollar fine on the media company, nearly bankrupting it.

A series of court cases have also been launched against the media tycoon and other family members, with prosecutors demanding heavy prison sentences for the alleged crimes.

“The prospect of spending rest of his life in jail is what I think finally forced his decision to sell,” analyst Yesilada said. “It’s symbolic because AKP has this mentality of conquest of its enemies. In the end, Dogan surrendered and this should serve as a lesson as to whatever enemies Erdogan has left, if he has a grudge against you, you should run.”

The government denied such allegations, insisting the judiciary is independent.

Internet gains

There are still a number of critical newspapers and satirical magazines, but Dogan media is the only newspaper distributor outside government control. Observers suggest publications critical of the government could face distribution problems in the future.

In Turkey, the internet is increasingly becoming a platform for independent journalism. Many journalists who’ve been fired for reporting critical of Erdogan have continued working on the growing numbers of web publications.

Some news stations have also begun broadcasting on the internet to maintain independence.

New controls on internet, broadcasting

But Thursday’s action by the Turkish parliament put sweeping new legislation in place to control broadcasting on the internet.

“Now considering Dogan Media is being sold, there is not much of the mainstream media let alone independent media, the only area is left is the internet,” law professor Yaman Akdeniz, an expert on cyber freedom at Istanbul’s Bilgi University, said. “People follow not only local produced news media on (the) internet, but also Turkish broadcasts by the BBC, VOA and DW, as news sources. So the government is trying to take action to control these before the elections, which might be early this summer.”

Among the new reforms: the powers of the state regulator for radio and television have been extended to internet broadcasting.

The regulator is controlled by representatives of the ruling AKP party. Under the new legislation, internet broadcasters will have to apply for a license from the regulator.

“Hypothetically, they (the regulators) could declare these programs incite terrorism, so they could close down the programs or revoke their licenses. They could ask (for) the blocking of the website,” professor Akdeniz said.

Observers point out that a growing number of Turkish reporters working overseas are broadcasting internet programs, particularly Germany. The ability of Turkish authorities to impose controls on these is likely limited, observers said.

Well-informed public

Recent surveys found more than 70 percent of Turks have access to the internet, and 70 percent of Turkish youth rely solely on the internet for news.

“The underlying truth (is) these media takeovers and current internet censorship will be completely ineffective,” analyst Yesilada said. “The Turkish public intends to remain well-informed, and despite these shocks within a few years, different networks and ways will develop for them to remain informed.”

Turkish authorities have already banned more than 170,000 websites, but observers point out that Turks have become increasingly savvy on the internet, using various means to circumvent restrictions, such as by using virtual private networks (VPN).

But authorities are quickly becoming adept, too.

“Fifteen VPN providers are currently blocked by Turkey,” cyber rights expert Akdeniz said. “It’s becoming really, really difficult for standard internet users to access banned content. It’s not a simple but a complex government machinery now seeking to control the internet.”
…

“I brought tea for you — English tea, from Fortnum and Mason, the very best,” chirped the financial adviser in the foyer of a plush Moscow hotel near the Kremlin.  “You have a package for me, I think,” he added before scurrying off with his Russian client.

The adviser, like many of his British colleagues, has been making routine rounds to reassure clients since the poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in Britain, an attempted assassination Britain accuses the Kremlin of orchestrating.

British ministers and their Kremlin counterparts have been threatening further reprisals after retaliatory expulsions of diplomats in response to the Skripal attack.

With Anglo-Russian relations plunging to their lowest point since the Cold War, British financial advisers in Moscow had expected to encounter Russian clients anxious about Britain mounting a retaliatory financial crackdown on Russian money invested in London.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has promised to go after the financial assets in Britain of wealthy Russians connected to the Kremlin.

But it is business as usual in Moscow.

Advisers visiting the Russian capital say oligarchs and other super-wealthy businessmen appear unconcerned, having concluded May is all bark and no bite.  

Part of the reason is Britain has been reluctant in the past to use already existing legislation to probe too deeply the origins of Russian money spent in Britain, fearing it might lead to an exodus of Russian cash out of the country.  Moscow investors also believe Brexit-mired Britain is going to need Russian money even more in the future and chasing it out risks also frightening super-wealthy investors from other countries.

“My clients don’t see it as a threat,” said the adviser who exchanged tea for a package of signed documents.  He asked not to be identified.  “Neither do we.  The new measures being drafted are just repeating legislation that’s already available and will rest largely unused.  What few investigations launched will take forever and then get bogged down in the courts,” he said.

Britain’s past unwillingness to investigate Russian money, and the suspicion Britain isn’t serious this time either, is not helping May convince Britain’s European allies to do more than issue statements of solidarity over the Skripal poisoning.

Norbert Röttgen, chairman of Germany’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, has highlighted the need for Britain “to examine its open stance toward Russian capital of dubious origin” before it starts asking for concrete action by Britain’s allies.

In response to doubts about their determination, British officials say they are likely to ban secretive Scottish limited partnerships that have been used to hide the true ownership of some Russian-origin money. The Scottish-based shell companies have long been a target of transparency campaigners.

May was due to brief  EU leaders Thursday in Brussels on the investigation into the March 4 nerve-agent poisoning of Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury.  Both remain in critical condition.

May will warn Russia is a threat to Western democracy, according to British officials.

“The challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come,” she will say, according to extracts released in advance by her office.  “As a European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with the European Union and with NATO to face these threats together.  United we will succeed,” she will add.

EU leaders are expected to strongly condemn the attack, but fearful of push-back the British government isn’t asking EU partners to agree to fresh sanctions on Russia in addition to the Ukraine-related ones already in effect.

Behind-the-scenes, British officials have sought to persuade their European neighbors to expel undeclared spies among Russian diplomats based in their countries, say European officials.

But it is unclear whether Britain will be successful in persuading other EU countries to agree to point the finger at Moscow.

Several states, including Italy and Greece, appear eager to shield their ties with Russia and are resisting a stark statement of blame.  The United States, France and Germany have said they accept Britain’s assessment Russia is the only plausible culprit.  But Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Austria say the accusation remains to be proven.

They are not alone, even some Putin critics in Russia question whether the Kremlin ordered the attack.  

Outspoken Putin opponent Gennady Gudkov, a former KGB counter-intelligence officer, says he believes Russian intelligence has carried out overseas assassinations in recent years, but he says he “can’t find rational explanations for” the attack on Skripal.

“After the so called ‘umbrella assassination’ of Georgi Markov in London in the late 1970s, the KGB decided to stop all special [assassination] operations abroad.  It seems to me that today the concept has changed and some of the special operations related to the elimination of political opponents has been done with the help of the intelligence,” he told VOA.
…

Time to check that mailbox.

Kensington Palace said Thursday that invitations for the wedding between Prince Harry and his American fiancée Meghan Markle have been dispatched.

Some 600 people have been invited to the May 19 nuptials at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. All 600 have also been invited to a lunchtime reception given by Queen Elizabeth II at St George’s Hall.

The invitations, which are beveled and gilded in gold along the edges, feature Prince Charles’ three-feather badge. They were made by Barnard & Westwood, which has held the Royal Warrant for printing and bookbinding since 1985.

Harry and Markle will also celebrate with some 200 guests at a private evening reception given by Prince Charles.

The palace declined to comment as to who is on the list.
…

Poland’s government distanced itself Thursday from comments made by the prime minister’s father, who claimed Jews willingly entered ghettos during the German occupation of Poland to get away from their Christian neighbors.

The comment by Kornel Morawiecki, a senior lawmaker and father of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, is the latest episode in weeks of bitterness that have erupted over a controversial new Holocaust speech law.

Kornel Morawiecki claimed in a recent interview that Jews were not forced into ghettos by Germans but went willingly because “they were told there would be an enclave where they could get away from nasty Poles.”

The comment is historically inaccurate. It also seems to minimize the tragedy of the Jews and suggest they partly brought the tragedy upon themselves out of anti-Polish hatred.

The deputy foreign minister, Bartosz Cichocki, said the comment does not reflect the position of the Polish government.

Cichocki has led recent talks in Israel aimed at damage control after an angry dispute triggered by the Polish law, which makes it a crime punishable by up to three years of prison to publicly and falsely blame Poland for German Holocaust atrocities.

The Polish government says it needs a tool to fight cases in which Poland is inaccurately blamed for German crimes that were carried out in occupied Poland during World War II.

Israel and other critics, however, fear that the law – which is in any case unenforceable outside of Poland – is really aimed at trying to stifle research and discussion within Poland into anti-Jewish wartime violence, something that casts a shadow over Polish wartime behavior that was often honorable under conditions of profound suffering.

Amid the heated debates, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has also sparked criticism with comments seen as insensitive and historically wrong.

At a forum of world leaders in Munich last month he listed “Jewish perpetrators” of the Holocaust along with German, Ukrainian, Russian and Polish perpetrators, seeming also to suggest that Jews were partly responsible for their own genocide.
…

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was handed preliminary charges Wednesday over allegations he accepted millions of euros in illegal campaign funding from the late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

A judicial official told The Associated Press that investigating judges overseeing the probe had charged the ex-president with illegally funding his successful 2007 campaign, passive corruption and receiving money from Libyan embezzlement.

The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

The charges involving illegal campaign funding from a foreign dictator are the most serious faced by a former French president in recent history. They were presented after Sarkozy was questioned for two days by anti-corruption police at a station in Nanterre, northwest of the French capital.

Investigators are examining allegations that Gadhafi’s regime secretly gave Sarkozy 50 million euros (about $62 million) overall for his presidential election bid.

The sum would be more than double the legal campaign funding limit at the time — 21 million euros. In addition, the alleged payments would violate French rules barring foreign financing and requiring that the source of campaign funds be declared.

​Innocence proclaimed

Sarkozy, 63, who was France’s president from 2007 to 2012, has repeatedly and vehemently denied any wrongdoing. According to the same source, he again proclaimed his innocence during his questioning by police.

The former president was released Wednesday night but placed under judicial supervision. Details of the restrictions he was ordered to obey have not been revealed.

In the French judicial system, preliminary charges mean Sarkozy is personally under formal investigation in a criminal case. The judges will keep investigating the case in the next weeks and months. 

At the end of their investigation, they can decide either to drop the preliminary charges or to send Sarkozy to trial on formal charges.

Sarkozy had a complex relationship with Gadhafi. Soon after winning the French presidency, he invited the Libyan leader for a state visit and welcomed him to France with high honors. 

But Sarkozy then put France in the forefront of the NATO-led airstrikes against Gadhafi’s troops that helped rebel fighters topple Gadhafi’s regime in 2011.

Sarkozy has faced other campaign-related legal troubles in the past. In February 2017, he was ordered to stand trial after being handed preliminary charges for suspected illegal overspending on his failed 2012 re-election campaign. Sarkozy has appealed the decision.

In 2013, he was cleared of allegations that he illegally took donations from France’s richest woman, L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, on the way to his 2007 election victory.

His attorney, Thierry Herzog, did not respond to requests for comment from AP.

Former aide questioned

Sarkozy’s former top aide, the ex-minister Brice Hortefeux, was also questioned Tuesday but was not detained. He said on Twitter that the details he gave investigators “should help put an end to a series of mistakes and lies.”

The investigation got a boost when French-Lebanese businessman Ziad Takieddine told the online investigative site Mediapart in 2016 that he delivered suitcases from Libya containing 5 million euros ($6.2 million) in cash to Sarkozy and his former chief of staff, Claude Gueant.

Takieddine repeated his allegations during a live interview with France’s BFM TV on Wednesday night. 

He said he personally handed a suitcase containing 2 million euros (about $2.5 million) in cash to Sarkozy at the then-candidate’s apartment and another suitcase with 1.5 million euros (about $1.9 million) to Sarkozy and a close aide at the French Interior Ministry. Sarkozy was interior minister at the time.

Takieddine alleged he gave a third suitcase with 1.5 million euros in cash to the aide alone. He said the money was not meant to finance Sarkozy’s presidential campaign in 2007, but to honor contracts between France and Libya.
…

Tear gas was thrown into the Kosovo parliament Wednesday, but it failed to stop lawmakers from approving a major border agreement that is key to eventual membership in the European Union.

Police arrested several opposition politicians who tossed tear gas several times just before voting was to take place, forcing lawmakers to evacuate the chamber.

Despite the tactic, parliament passed the measure 80 to 11.

The deal was hammered out in 2015. It sets Kosovo’s borders with neighboring Montenegro and fulfills a key requirement for Kosovars to enjoy visa-free travel throughout the European Union. It also moves Kosovo one step closer towards EU membership.

Opponents of the deal say it forces Kosovo to give up some of its territory — a claim supporters deny.

Montenegro has already approved the agreement. 
…

Russia’s top election official has lashed out at U.S. State Department criticism that in the recent presidential election, Russia’s Central Election Commission (CEC) denied observer status to 4,500 monitors linked to anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, along with 850 others with ties to Golos, the independent Moscow-based election watchdog.

“This is an absolutely illiterate lie,” CEC Chairwoman Ella Pamfilova was quoted Tuesday as saying to Russia’s state-run TASS news organization. She was responding to a comment by U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, who on Friday tweeted about widespread news reports of election monitoring violations.

“The #Russian Central Election Commission’s decision to deny observer status to over 5,000 independent media observers shows Kremlin authorities fear transparency ahead of the March 18 #elections,” Nauert had tweeted, referring to accounts of Russian police seizing some observer permits and revoking the office lease of Golos’ headquarters.

Pamfilova followed up her charges of “illiterate lies” by saying accreditation had been denied only to monitoring groups that “incorrectly filled out their applications,” and that as of Election Day, “everyone who wanted to, monitored at the polling stations.”

OSCE preliminary report

Nauert discussed the issue of monitors during the daily briefing Tuesday, noting that “the gold standard of monitors,” from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, had issued a preliminary report on the election.

She read an excerpt of the report from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. It said the “team noted that the election in Russia took place in an overly controlled legal and political environment marked by continued pressure on critical voices. Restrictions on fundamental freedoms resulted in a lack of genuine competition and an uneven playing field.”

“We saw in the news over the weekend that some people were paid to turn out to vote,” Nauert added. “We’ve seen that opposition leaders have been intimidated, jailed, and other things of the sort. So I would just draw ourselves back to the OSCE preliminary report.”

Financial Times Moscow correspondent Max Seddon on Sunday reported that observers were “beaten up by a mobile gang of toughs at polling stations.” Golos said more than 1,500 violations at polling stations were reported nationwide.

Golos also recorded several cases of people stuffing ballot boxes. Navalny, the onetime opposition candidate who was disqualified from the race because of a conviction for embezzlement, which the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as politically motivated, said data compiled by his observers at polling stations showed that the official turnout of 67.5 percent was inflated by 10 percentage points.

Video monitored

Although Navalny’s thousands of supporters were barred from physically observing polling stations, they were each assigned to monitor streaming public access video footage of individual polling stations that anyone in Russia can access online. While watching, they documented the number of voters and conduct of polling station officials.

The OSCE, which requested 420 short-term observers to monitor polling stations, voting, ballot counts and results, said the election was conducted in an orderly fashion but lacked real choice.

“After intense efforts to promote turnout, citizens voted in significant numbers, yet restrictions on the fundamental freedoms, as well as on candidate registration, have limited the space for political engagement and resulted in a lack of genuine competition,” said OSCE, which was slated to issue its final report on Russia’s electoral process in two months.

On Thursday, Leonid Slutsky, the head of the State Duma’s foreign affairs committee, released the names of 1,300 Kremlin-friendly foreign observers invited to monitor the elections. As expected, they unanimously gave the election their stamp of approval.

The Kremlin-backed observers included Italy’s representative to the European Parliament, Stefano Maullu of the center-right European Peoples Party, who said that the election displayed a good result for democracy in Russia.

Spanish Senator Pedro Argamunt, who was ousted from Europe’s parliamentary assembly after meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, also attended, along with France’s Thierry Mariani, widely perceived as the head of Western European nation’s pro-Russia lobby and a regular visitor to the territorially disputed Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, where, in protest, OSCE refused to send observers.

‘Big national team’

After claiming a resounding, and expected, victory in the election, Putin addressed thousands on Manezhnaya Square near the Kremlin late Sunday, hailing those who voted for him as a “big national team” and adding that “we are bound for success.”

Asked whether he would seek the presidency again when next eligible to run, in 2030, the 65-year-old Russian leader snapped, “It’s ridiculous. Do you think I will sit here until I turn 100?” 

This story originated in VOA’s Russian Service. Some information came from Reuters.
…

A British parliamentary committee on Tuesday summoned Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to answer questions as authorities stepped up efforts to determine if the personal data of social-media users has been used improperly to influence elections.

The request comes amid allegations that a data-mining firm based in the U.K. used information from more than 50 million Facebook accounts to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. The company, Cambridge Analytica, has denied wrongdoing.

However, the firm’s board of directions announced Tuesday evening that it had suspended CEO Alexander Nix pending an independent investigation of his actions. Nix made comments to an undercover reporter for Britain’s Channel 4 News about various unsavory services Cambridge Analytica provided its clients.

“In the view of the board, Mr. Nix’s recent comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 and other allegations do not represent the values or operations of the firm and his suspension reflects the seriousness with which we view this violation,” the board said in a statement.

Facebook also drew continued criticism for its alleged inaction to protect users’ privacy. Earlier Tuesday, the chairman of the U.K. parliamentary media committee, Damian Collins, said his group has repeatedly asked Facebook how it uses data and that Facebook officials “have been misleading to the committee.”

“It is now time to hear from a senior Facebook executive with the sufficient authority to give an accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process,” Collins wrote in a note addressed directly to Zuckerberg. “Given your commitment at the start of the New Year to ‘fixing’ Facebook, I hope that this representative will be you.”

Facebook sidestepped questions on whether Zuckerberg would appear, saying instead that it’s currently focused on conducting its own reviews.

​Personal data

The request to appear comes as Britain’s information commissioner said she was using all her legal powers to investigate the social-media giant and Cambridge Analytica.

Commissioner Elizabeth Denham is pursuing a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica’s servers. She has also asked Facebook to cease its own audit of Cambridge Analytica’s data use.

“Our advice to Facebook is to back away and let us go in and do our work,” she said.

Cambridge Analytica said it is committed to helping the U.K. investigation. However, Denham’s office said the firm failed to meet a deadline to produce the information requested.

Denham said the prime allegation against Cambridge Analytica is that it acquired personal data in an unauthorized way, adding that the data provisions act requires services like Facebook to have strong safeguards against misuse of data.

Chris Wylie, who once worked for Cambridge Analytica, was quoted as saying the company used the data to build psychological profiles so voters could be targeted with ads and stories.

Undercover investigation

The firm found itself in further allegations of wrongdoing. Britain’s Channel 4 used an undercover investigation to record Nix saying that the company could use unorthodox methods to wage successful political campaigns for clients.

He said the company could “send some girls” around to a rival candidate’s house, suggesting that girls from Ukraine are beautiful and effective in this role.

He also said the company could “offer a large amount of money” to a rival candidate and have the whole exchange recorded so it could be posted on the internet to show that the candidate was corrupt.

Nix says in a statement that he deeply regrets his role in the meeting and has apologized to staff.

“I am aware how this looks, but it is simply not the case,” he said. “I must emphatically state that Cambridge Analytica does not condone or engage in entrapment, bribes or so-called ‘honeytraps,’ and nor does it use untrue material for any purposes.”

Nix told the BBC the Channel 4 sting was “intended to embarrass us.”

“We see this as a coordinated attack by the media that’s been going on for very, very many months in order to damage the company that had some involvement with the election of Donald Trump,” he said.

The data harvesting used by Cambridge Analytica has also triggered calls for further investigation from the European Union, as well as federal and state officials in the United States.
…

Despite tensions, sanctions and recriminations between the United States and Russia, two American astronauts will join a Russian cosmonaut blasting off Wednesday from Kazakhstan for the International Space Station.

Even when things get nasty between the two countries, experts say the space program rarely suffers.

The United States has depended entirely on Russia to deliver astronauts to the ISS since the end of the space shuttle program in 2011.

After President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia in 2014 for annexing Crimea, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin suggested U.S. astronauts could get to the International Space Station by trampoline.

But the launches continued.

“The politicians can be very cute and make their statements. But that doesn’t seem to have had an impact on day-to-day work on the International Space Station,” said Cathleen Lewis, a curator in the Space History Department at the National Air and Space Museum.

Cold War collaborators

U.S.-Russia cooperation in space dates back to the mid-1970s, during the Cold War.

In the race to the moon, both sides suffered losses. Three U.S. astronauts died in the first Apollo mission in a fire on the launchpad in 1967; the Soviet Union lost a cosmonaut in a crash later that year.

The two sides agreed to cooperate on a space project. In 1975, an American Apollo spacecraft and a Russian Soyuz spacecraft met in orbit, where cosmonauts and astronauts shook hands.

In addition to the political achievement, it was a major engineering feat to make the two crafts compatible.

“That created a bond, but also the knowledge that we could do this, even in the height of the Cold War, and probably one of the worst periods of the Cold War,” Lewis said. “Both sides could get together and do this, unperturbed by the politics around them.”

Reaching beyond Earth

Today, the United States, Russia and 13 other countries collaborate on the International Space Station.

Lewis says that kind of cooperation will likely be essential as humans reach beyond Earth.

“It’s going to take a lot of resources to make either the moon or Mars habitable for humans,” she said.

For now, collaboration is the only option for ISS crews. However, SpaceX and Boeing expect to bring human launch capability back to U.S. soil in a year or so.
…

European officials said this week that significant obstacles remain to a long-delayed trade deal between the European Union and South American trade bloc Mercosur, even as South American officials expressed optimism a deal would be finalized soon.

On the sidelines of a gathering among the finance ministers and central bank governors of the G-20 countries in Buenos Aires, an Argentine Treasury Ministry official said the talks would finish in the first half of this year. An initial target of December 2017 was pushed back after EU countries said they needed more time.

“There are very few points left,” the official said, adding that Argentine Treasury Minister Nicolas Dujovne would meet with French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire on Tuesday.

Farmers in France and some other EU members are resistant to an expected increase in beef and biofuel imports from Mercosur, which also includes Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Le Maire said European producers were concerned about unfair competition.

“For the time [being], the negotiation on the Mercosur [deal] for different reasons is blocked,” Le Maire told reporters. “You cannot explain to a producer that he has to stick to very constraining rules in Germany, France, Spain or Italy, and we’ll [import] exactly the same good that will not be produced in the same manner on another continent.”

Spain’s Economy Minister Roman Escolano, however, said Tuesday that talks were advancing toward a conclusion in “weeks or months.”

“There is growing consensus that the recent difficulties can be overcome and we can reach a deal,” Escolano told reporters.

An EU diplomat said Mercosur resistance to European proposals on automobile exports and geographic product indicators were also sticking points. Europe has also pushed for its companies to gain better access to government procurement contracts within Mercosur.

“I blame the Mercosur side more for this as they spent all of their energy moaning about the lack of ambition, only to find that they hadn’t cleared their lines with their domestic producers,” the source said, adding that the issue was “not beef.”

An official in Brazil’s Foreign Ministry disputed Le Maire’s characterization of the negotiations as “blocked,” noting that France was not a party to the negotiations, led by the European Commission.

Trade issues have overshadowed the G-20 meeting weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, with the world’s financial leaders seeking to endorse free trade and the United States saying it could not sacrifice its national interests.

The EU, Argentina and Brazil have said they plan to seek exemptions from those tariffs, which are expected to take effect Friday.
…

Russian diplomats ordered expelled by Britain over a nerve agent attack on British soil are preparing to leave the country.

Russian media are reporting a moving van was seen outside the Russian Embassy in London on Tuesday.

Britain ordered the expulsion of the diplomats last week, blaming Russia for the poisoning ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British city of Salisbury earlier this month.

Russia retaliated by expelling 23 British diplomats, who are expected to leave Moscow in the coming days.

Russia denies involvement in the poisoning.

British officials say father and daughter remain in critical condition. A policemen who was among the first to try to help the pair is still in hospital but is now in stable condition.

As the dispute between Britain and Russia continues to mount over the poisoning of Skripal, Russia’s Foreign Ministry came up with yet another theory about the origin of the toxin used.

Russia’s foreign ministry listed four European countries as the most likely source for the Novichok nerve agent British officials say was used. Topping the list was Britain itself — the other three, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Sweden.

British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson told his European Union counterparts at a meeting in Brussels Monday that Russia’s denial of its involvement in the poisoning on British soil is “a classic Russian strategy of trying to conceal the needle of truth in a haystack of lies and obfuscation.”
…

Two days before President George W. Bush gave the go-ahead for the U.S.-led invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — a ‘shock and awe’ assault that would topple the Iraqi autocrat — U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice called the Kremlin.

Russian government officials raised objections, offering eleventh-hour arguments against the invasion. “But even though we disapproved, we didn’t leak what Rice told us, or what was planned,” a Kremlin insider recalled.

He cited the conversation to illustrate how perilous relations are now in the wake of the British allegations that the Kremlin approved the nerve agent poisoning on British soil of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, saying Russian leader Vladimir Putin now believes there’s a permanent fracture between Russia and the West, which can’t be repaired.

“Back then in 2003 even though relations between us were strained there remained a level of trust. There is none now — there is zero trust between Russia and the West,” he said. He flatly rejects British allegations of the Kremlin sanctioning a nerve-agent attack, saying “Putin is rational and had no reason to approve such a thing.”

The insider, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, occupied a senior position in Boris Yeltsin’s government and went on to become a core member of Vladimir Putin’s team. He remains connected but no longer fills an official position. His assessment of future relations between Russia and the West is bleak and reflects Putin’s own appraisal, auguring badly for any reset bid during Putin’s next term in office.

“He doesn’t think it is possible and he has given up trying.” The Kremlin insider pointed to the expansion of NATO eastwards to take in the former Communist Baltic states as a key moment in the fraying of relations.

Another flashpoint he said came with Western objections to Russia “establishing closer ties” with its former Soviet republics, which triggered a screaming argument face-to-face between Putin and Rice during a meeting in Sochi, in which the then U.S. Secretary of State insisted the former Soviet republics were now independent states and should determine their own future without what she saw as Russian intimidation.

The final blow came with the 2013-14 Maidan unrest that led to the ouster of a Putin ally, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych. The Kremlin remains adamant that the Maidan protests were Western-fomented and not a popular uprising. “Now what? The Ukraine problem won’t be solved for a century, the conflict in the Donbas region will remain frozen and Crimea [the Ukrainian peninsula annexed four years ago by Moscow] will remain Russian. And so are we going to remain hostile to each other — two nuclear-armed nations with their missiles pointed at each other? That is very dangerous,” said the Kremlin insider.

The blaming of the West for the return of Cold War-like enmity, and the sense of pessimism, illustrates how difficult it will be to bridge a rift that’s widening rapidly and suggests relations with the United States and Europe are likely to remain sharply antagonistic as the Kremlin reacts unpredictably to what it perceives as a U.S.-led conspiracy to curb its influence, which has seen Russia re-emerge as a power broker in the Middle East.

Writing in Britain’s Daily Telegraph Tuesday about the Skripal poisoning British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson accused Russia of “resorting to its usual strategy of trying to conceal the needle of truth in a haystack of lies,” placing the nerve-agent attack on Sergei Skripal in the English town of Salisbury in a long line of hostile Russian acts towards the West.

“When I met my European counterparts in Brussels yesterday, what struck me most is that no one is fooled,” he wrote.”Just about every country represented around the table had been affected by malign or disruptive behavior.” On Monday, at the meeting referenced by Johnson, European Union foreign ministers expressed “unqualified solidarity” with Britain over the nerve-gas attack and called on Russia to provide urgent answers to questions raised by London. The ministers stopped short of endorsing Britain’s assessment that Moscow was responsible for the attack, but said they took the British conclusion “extremely seriously.”

Among other aggressive behavior, say Western officials, is meddling in Western elections and politics, notably the 2016 U.S. presidential race, and the funding and encouragement of disruptive far-right and far-left populist parties and mounting of social media campaigns as part of an effort to destabilize the European Union.

On March 15, the Trump administration blamed Russia for carrying out a series of cyberattacks targeting U.S. and European nuclear power plants and other utility infrastructure, including water, aviation, and critical manufacturing sectors. A security warning issued by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI characterized the cyber-attacks as a “multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks.”

On Monday, the head of NATO warned Russia is increasingly prepared to use nuclear weapons, urging the alliance to strengthen its defensive capabilities and willingness to act in the face of what he argued was Moscow’s aggressiveness and unpredictable actions. Jens Stoltenberg said the Russian military was giving more weight again to nuclear weapons in its doctrines and exercises to accompany its development of hybrid warfare, such as the use of non-uniformed troops such as in Ukraine’s region of the Donbas.

The Kremlin insider, though, argues the escalating tension is coming deliberately from the West, and he warns both sides are becoming locked in confrontation. “Maybe all that can be done is to do smaller things together to try to re-create trust,” he says. “If we can’t do that maybe we will wake up one day and someone will have launched nuclear missiles,” he added.

Analysts and officials here also see little chance of a sharp reversal in the unfolding confrontation, arguing Kremlin officials see no trusted Western interlocutor to help de-escalate tensions. “It can’t be [German Chancellor] Merkel,” said a Russian official. “Putin and Merkel set each other’s teeth on edge,” he added. Some officials point to French President Emmanuel Macron as the most likely interlocutor.

The French president was the only Western leader to call Putin to congratulate him on his presidential election win Sunday and despite what both Russian and French officials characterized as “tough talk” between the two leaders over the Skripal affair, Macron escaped denunciation by the Kremlin for urging Putin in the words of French officials “to clarify the circumstances of the unacceptable attack in Salisbury.”
…

For the first time in history, hamburger sales in France have soared higher than the classic baguette jambon-beurre sandwich as French diners surrender to the American fast-food favourite.

Burgers were on the menu at 85 percent of restaurants in France last year with a whopping 1.5 billion units sold, according to a study by Paris-based restaurant consultants Gira Conseil.

More worryingly still for the defenders of French cuisine, just 30 percent of the burgers were sold in fast food joints, with the majority sold at restaurants with full table service.

Le burger has almost become French, often served with some of the country’s most famous cheeses like Roquefort rather than plastic cheddar.

This is big news for a country that takes great pride in its national culinary culture, and which for years resisted the global burger onslaught.

“We’ve been talking about a burger frenzy for three years. This year, we don’t know how to describe the phenomenon. It’s just crazy,” Gira Conseil director Bernard Boutboul told AFP.

There was a nine percent jump in burger sales last year. “That’s phenomenal growth,” Boutboul said.

In 2016, hamburger sales were on a par with the jambon-beurre, or ham-and-butter baguette — which is still the most popular sandwich in France.

“But in 2017, for the first time, [burgers] overtook [the French classic] by a long way,” Boutboul said, with jambon-beurre sales at 1.2 billion units.

“One wonders whether the burger might even overtake our famous steak frites in France,” he said.

‘Beating record upon record’

There, Boutboul may have hit a nerve. While the French see their food culture as unique, the truth is a lot of it is based on meat, bread, salad and potatoes — not a far cry from what makes up a U.S. burger meal.

“Where is the country going to?” one Twitter user sighed at the news, with another raging that “we will all end up wearing Mickey Mouse ears in their rubbish theme parks,” in a reference to Disneyland Paris.

The only silver lining for foodies was the gradual demise of junk food, with high quality, fresh alternatives on the rise in a growing number of French gourmet burger restaurants.

More broadly, however, fast food joint sales were “beating record upon record”, Gira Conseil found, making 51 billion euros ($63 billion) in 2017.

But the big trend was for a more gastronomic experience, the consultants found, often using France’s rich palette of traditional ingredients.

Despite a series of headline-grabbing attacks on its branches by angry farmers two decades ago, France is now McDonald’s most profitable market outside the US, with more than 1,400 restaurants.

 ‘I sold my soul’

The Golden Arches has adapted to French tastes with the McCamembert and McBaguette burgers with emmental cheese, Dijon mustard, various French salads and even macarons for dessert. Customers can also drink beer with their meals.

Jean-Pierre Petit, the man credited with helping France fall in love with “McDo”, is one of the brand’s most influential executives, pioneering McDonald’s attempts to adapt itself to local tastes.

In his 2013 book, “I Sold My Soul to McDonald’s,” Petit admitted that he had not eaten his first hamburger until he was 30.

In 2005 Frenchman Denis Hennequin, who introduced the Parmesan burger in Italy and the Shrimp Burger to Germany, became the first non-American to lead the McDonalds brand in Europe.

But a lot of the fast food that does best in France is high quality — and fairly pricey.

Food truck culture, another import from the US, has spawned a number of hip burger chains such as Le Camion Qui Fume (roughly translated as the Smoky Truck).

Some joints take pride in serving burgers made from premium quality beef, along with a glass of French red wine.

“Even the Americans are keeping an eye on what we’re doing in our gastronomic fast food sector,” Boutboul said.
…

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he is “not planning any constitutional reforms for now,” even before the final tally in a presidential election that critics have dubbed a predestined spectacle.

Putin laughed off questions about whether he will run again in six years, when he will be 71 years old.  Russia’s constitution limits service in the Kremlin to two consecutive terms.

“What, do you think I will sit until I’m 100 years old?” he chuckled.

Jokes aside, before Russians headed to polling stations Sunday in an election marred by allegations of vote-rigging, Moscow was already abuzz with speculation about what Putin might be planning after his election victory.

“There’s a growing sense that this election is less about the future as it is about the end,” Valery Solovei, an academic at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations, said ahead of voting.

To run again in 2024, Putin would have to alter the Russian constitution. Some analysts say he may shake up the whole system and fashion a state or revamped federation council that he would chair until his death.

Will he go in for such an exercise in radical change? Or appoint a tame placeholder, as he did in 2008 when he led Russia as prime minister, returning as head of state later?

“I don’t think he has made up his mind. He doesn’t know himself,” a Kremlin insider, who requested anonymity, told VOA. “He likes to postpone decisions, generally. He will keep all possibilities open, and delay. He has at least three years before he has to start making up his mind, giving him three years to implement any decision.”

He added that Putin has only two options: Rewrite the constitution, or switch jobs and become prime minister again. Asked if Putin might consider a third option of simply retiring, the insider chuckled. “He’s not going to do that,” he said.

Others with connections to the Kremlin said Putin may decide he has to retire — if only semi-permanently. He won’t want to end up a geriatric president like the long-serving communist leader Leonid Brezhnev.

“He won’t want to become the butt of bad jokes like Brezhnev,” said Sergei Markov, director of the Moscow-based Institute of Political Studies. “I am sure this will be Putin’s final term and that during it, he will choose a person he can recommend to the Russian people.”

Nonetheless, Markov sees a role for Putin, even after he relinquishes the top position “maybe as speaker of the upper house or as chairman of a revamped federation council.”

In six years, Putin may well face the same dilemma his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, had to confront. Ailing and increasingly in poor shape, Yeltsin was desperate to relinquish power but feared doing so would leave him, his family and his inner circle of advisers and plutocrats vulnerable to retribution.

In the end, he resigned, after oligarch Boris Berezovsky fashioned a new governing arrangement, with Putin coming in as successor. The Yeltsin family was left untouched. But to the surprise of Berezovsky and other oligarchs and businessmen who had profited under Yeltsin, they were unable to control Putin. He turned on them, stripping them of much of their wealth and businesses, and imprisoning some.

Nervousness among elite

Despite the swagger of government officials Monday, relieved they had accomplished in the election what Putin wanted — a voter turnout of at least 70 percent, with at least a 70 percent vote for him — there’s nervousness among the elite at what the next six years will hold for them.

The last time there was uncertainty was in the years leading up to 2008, when Putin had to decide whether to rewrite the constitution or trade places with his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev. Power struggles were triggered within the Kremlin, as major players maneuvered to ensure their own safety or jockeyed for the chance to succeed Putin, if he decided to quit.

By delaying a decision, there were casualties in the factional struggle for supremacy — something Putin seemed to encourage — allowing those who thought they could succeed him, or wanted to anoint a successor themselves, to start intrigue.

By 2006, to Putin’s irritation, “a close-knit group of kindred souls was beginning to establish an independent existence in the corridors of power,” wrote Mikhail Zygar in the book All the Kremlin’s Men. Putin cracked down, reshuffling the ambitious prosecutor general, Vladimir Ustinov, and making clear to the Kremlin’s inner circle who remained boss.

Markov doesn’t discount that happening again. “Those who have power and property are smart and tough people — sometimes cruel — and they will fight for power,” he said. “But I don’t think Putin will tolerate it getting out of hand, especially when the country needs to be unified in the face of the hybrid war the anti-Russian West has launched against Russia.”

Analysts are wondering if Putin may reshuffle the top political players quickly, which would indicate what might be on his mind for the future. Once again, they believe, Putin may play factions against each other, giving one faction its head, only to cut it down to size.

He could favor the old guard, or nurture the sons of the old guard, who, like their parents, are divided roughly between a security faction (the siloviki) and rivals who gravitate toward the more technocratic Anton Vaino, Putin’s chief of staff.
…

A French employee of France’s Consulate in Jerusalem is under arrest for allegedly smuggling dozens of weapons from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, Israel’s domestic security agency said Monday.

The Shin Bet said the man, identified as Romain Franck, 23, was part of a broader Palestinian smuggling ring. It said he used his consular vehicle, which is subjected to more lenient security checks, to transport the weapons through Israel’s tightly secured border with the Gaza Strip. It said he took part in the ring for financial gain and that his employer was unaware of his actions.

The French Embassy in Israel issued a statement confirming that a consulate employee had been arrested, saying it was treating the incident with “great importance,” but wouldn’t discuss the case itself. The embassy said it was in contact with Israeli authorities and the suspect’s family, and was opening an internal investigation into the matter.

On Monday, Israel charged Franck with conspiracy to commit a crime and multiple weapons offenses, among other counts.

“This is a very serious incident in which the privileges and immunity granted to foreign missions in Israel were cynically exploited to smuggle dozens of weapons that could be used in terror attacks,” the Shin Bet statement said.

The Shin Bet said Franck transferred a total of 70 handguns and two assault rifles on five occasions over recent months. It said he received the arms from a Gaza man employed at the French cultural center in Gaza and brought them to someone in the West Bank, where they were then sold to arms dealers.

The Shin Bet said Franck, who was arrested in February, confessed to the charges. A gag order on the case was lifted Monday.

According to the indictment, Franck was a driver for the consulate and would ferry diplomatic staff between Gaza and Jerusalem. He would transport the arms in packages or suitcases in the trunk of the consular car and lie to Israeli security guards at the Gaza border crossing when asked if he was carrying any weapons. The indictment said Franck earned thousands of dollars for moving the guns.

Israeli officials believe that consular immunity would not apply in this case.

The Shin Bet sent reporters a picture of what it said was the consular vehicle, a silver SUV. It was not clear from the photo whether the vehicle carried the white license plates of the consular corps.

Nine people, including Franck, were arrested, the Shin Bet said. Among the suspects is a Palestinian security guard at the French Consulate in Jerusalem.

The Shin Bet said French authorities were kept aware of developments on the case during the investigation.

Israel has previously accused Palestinians employed by the U.N. or non-governmental organizations of participating in hostile activities, including collaborating with Gaza’s militant Hamas rulers. But allegations against international staffers are rare.
…

France urged the European Union on Monday to consider new sanctions on Iran over its involvement in Syria’s civil war and its ballistic missile program, as Paris tries to persuade Washington to preserve a 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran.

U.S. President Donald Trump has given the European signatories a May 12 deadline to “fix the terrible flaws” of the deal, which was agreed under his predecessor Barack Obama, or he will refuse to extend U.S. sanctions relief on Iran.

In response, the three European signatories — France, Britain and Germany — have proposed new EU sanctions targeting Iranians who support Syria’s government in that country’s civil war and Tehran’s ballistic missile program, according to a confidential document seen by Reuters.

“We are determined to ensure that the Vienna accord is respected,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told reporters on arrival for talks with his EU counterparts, referring to the city where the 2015 deal was signed.

“But we must not exclude [from consideration] Iran’s responsibility in the proliferation of ballistic missiles and in its very questionable role in the near- and Middle East,” he said. “That must also be discussed to reach a common position.”

The confidential document cites “transfers of Iranian missiles and missile technology” to Syria and allies of Tehran, such as Houthi rebels in Yemen and Lebanon’s Shi’ite Hezbollah.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry criticized Le Drian’s comments, saying there could be no negotiation over what Iran says are purely defensive weapons.

“We were hopeful that after his recent visit to Tehran and negotiations with Iranian officials, he would understand the realities of the Islamic Republic’s defence policies,” Fars news agency quoted Iranian spokesman Bahram Qasemi as saying.

Sanctions

The United States has unilateral sanctions on Iran over missile tests it says violate a U.N. resolution against developing weapons capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Any EU-wide measures would be the first significant punitive steps since the bloc lifted broad economic sanctions on Iran last year following the 2015 accord to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions for at least a decade.

But new sanctions would need the support of all 28 EU member states and could complicate new business deals with Iran.

Some EU countries, including Italy and Greece, are keen to rebuild a business relationship that once made the EU Iran’s top trading partner and its second-biggest oil customer.

U.S. Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Sunday he expected Trump to pull out of the nuclear agreement in May unless European governments “really come together on a framework.”

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who chaired the final stages of the nuclear negotiations between Iran and Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, stressed that there was no formal EU position on new sanctions.

But other foreign ministers in Brussels hinted at discussions that diplomats said were underway in EU capitals.

“We have to explore all the possible measures to have the same type of pressure as we had in the nuclear dossier,” Belgium’s Foreign Minister Didier Reynders told reporters.
…

The United States and European powers are negotiating over a possible “supplemental” agreement to the Iran nuclear deal that would address Iran’s ballistic-missile development and involvement in Middle East conflicts, a U.S. diplomat said.

U.S. envoy Brian Hook said the allies had “very good” talks about a “supplemental” accord in Vienna on Friday as Reuters reported that Britain, France, and Germany have proposed new European Union sanctions against Iran over its ballistic-missile program and its role in the Syrian civil war.

Hook said U.S. President Donald Trump wants to reach a side agreement with the three European signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal to address the missile program and Iran’s interventions in conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

Trump also wants the side deal to correct what he has called “disastrous flaws” in the nuclear agreement, in particular its limits on inspections of potential Iranian nuclear sites by a U.N. watchdog, and the scheduled expiration of some of the key curbs on Iranian nuclear activities such as uranium enrichment after 10 years under the deal.

‘Good discussions’

“In order for the United States to remain in the deal, the United States and Europe must come to an agreement to address sunsets, inspections, and long-range ballistic missiles,” Hook said.

“We are taking things one week at a time. We are having very good discussions” he said. “There is a lot we agree on, and where we disagree we are working to bridge our differences.”

Hook said Trump has asked the negotiators to come up with an agreement by May 12, when the president must decide whether to once again extend U.S. sanctions relief to Iran as required under the nuclear deal in exchange for the curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Hook said the U.S. goal in pushing for curbs on Tehran’s involvement in regional conflicts is “to bring about a change in the behavior of the Iranian regime.”

Iran objects to changes

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqhchi, who attended a separate meeting of signatories to the nuclear deal in Vienna on March 16, said that Tehran strongly objects to the changes sought by Trump.

“We made clear that in our eyes, the blocking and constant ultimatums by the U.S. are a clear violation of the deal,” he said.

Araqhchi said Iran will not agree to renegotiate the nuclear provisions of the treaty, but he indicated that Tehran may be willing to hold discussions about missiles and regional conflicts if it feels that the nuclear pact is being fully implemented.

A Russian diplomat at the Vienna meeting on Friday on the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, said no “supplemental” accord is needed, but Moscow would not object if U.S. and European powers reach a side agreement that has no impact on the 2015 deal.

“The way I see it, Western countries are alarmed by the Iranian missile program, and they are seeking to push it into the framework they would find suitable,” Russian envoy Mikhail Ulyanov was quoted as saying by state-run TASS news agency.

“If all the parties concerned suddenly develop a wish to make some additional agreements, which would not be immediately linked to the plan of action and would not be detrimental to it, this will be a matter of their political will and preparedness. But still we think there’s no need for whatever supplementary agreements today,” he said.

Satisfying Trump

European powers are negotiating with Washington over a possible side deal in an effort to address concerns raised by Trump and prevent him from making good on his threats to withdraw from the nuclear deal.

Meanwhile, Reuters on Friday reported that new EU sanctions proposed by Britain, Germany, and France are also aimed at satisfying Trump’s demands and keeping him “committed” to the nuclear deal.

Reuters, citing two people familiar with the matter, said a document outlining the proposal was sent to EU capitals on Friday to measure the level of support for fresh sanctions. According to EU rules, all 28 members must agree to any such sanctions.

The document said the new sanctions would be targeted against individuals and organizations involved with Tehran’s ballistic-missile development and its role in supporting Syria’s government in a seven-year civil war with Sunni rebels.

Reuters said the document mentions that Britain, France, and Germany are involved in “intensive talks” with the Trump administration to “achieve a clear and lasting reaffirmation of U.S. support for the [nuclear] agreement beyond May 12.”

The document suggested the new sanctions would “target militias and commanders” and build on the bloc’s existing sanctions related to Syria, which include travel bans, asset freezes, and a ban on conducting business with public or private companies.

This article contains material from Reuters, AFP, AP and dpa.
…

In a Russian presidential campaign season in which Kremlin officials have insisted that candidates abide by federal election laws, numerous news outlets have reported President Vladimir Putin’s exception to the rule.

Barred from leveraging so-called “administrative resources” — the bureaucratic machinery of various state-backed media, security and educational institutions — to promote their respective candidacies, presidential hopefuls, such as Grigory Yavlinsky of the liberal Yabloko Party, rely instead on the “Kremlin-orchestrated circus” of reality TV-style debates defined by water-throwing, name-calling and threats of physical violence.

Only the incumbent himself remains above the fray, exempted from debates in exchange for fawning 90-minute documentaries by Rosiya-1 state television, police patrols that guard only his campaign billboards against vandalism, and university auditorium lectures on why his re-election is the correct choice for the state.

Russians go to the polls Sunday for an election that is certain to allow Putin to retain his grip on power. He is expected to bring in more than 50 percent of the vote, but his election team is hoping for 70 percent.

While exploitation of state resources to bolster the candidacy of an established leader is a time-tested feature of Russian politics, this year it is completely different — and exactly the same — says Maria Lipman, editor of the Moscow-based Kontrapunkt (Counterpoint), an open-access Russian-language journal of politics and society published by George Washington University.

During previous presidential elections, Lipman said, Putin either used administrative resources himself or allocated them to his hand-picked, temporary successor, former President Dmitry Medvedev.

“The notion that Putin is a leader beyond competition was created at the very beginning of his presidency,” she told VOA. “Even in 2008, it was clear that whichever candidate Putin proposed to his fellow citizens as a successor would be accepted, supported and voted for by the nation simply because Putin recommended him.”

​An evolving strategy

That strategy, Lipman added, is part of what Russian experts sometimes call the “super-majority” approach to maintaining political power in Russia.

“In such a system, public administration and power are concentrated virtually in the hands of one person,” she said. “This person should be beyond competition. He should not simply be one of the candidates, but a ‘super candidate’ elected by ‘super majority.’ It is necessary to demonstrate such an overwhelming superiority that no one has the slightest doubt that this is the right order of things in Russia.”

But ensuring Putin’s sustained super majority rule in Russia — where the 65-year-old leader enjoys substantial popular support, especially outside of major cities — requires a constant updating of strategies, which have evolved over time.

“In 2008, legitimization was achieved due to revenue growth: oil prices increased and Russia’s economic growth was quite substantial, which led to a significant decrease in the number of poor people in Russia,” Lipman said. “But today legitimization is achieved by promoting a ‘besieged fortress’ image” of a nation economically beset by myriad Western sanctions.

“This particular way of legitimization was even apparent in 2012, when Putin’s colossal advantage over political competitors was less obvious, and his rating fell to little more than 60 percent,” she said. “We remember the protests that accompanied his return to the presidency in 2012, so, this time, the super majority is critical to restoring his political legitimacy.”

​Privileged coverage, ‘safe candidates’

One distinct feature of the super majority turnout strategy for 2018, says Grigory Melkonyants, co-chair of the independent election monitor Golos, is deployment of federal media resources at home and abroad.

“Alternative forces proposing different approaches to the country’s development cannot get on federal TV channels or work with the population,” he told VOA. “As soon as a politician gains some momentum, he or she is immediately forced to interact with the courts and law enforcement agencies.”

A case in point: the one-time candidacy of anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, who in December was disqualified from the race because of a conviction for embezzlement, which the European Court of Human Rights dismissed as politically motivated.

“He was attracting volunteers for a whole year, created campaign headquarters, and began to score points, and now we see what they did to him,” Melkonyants said, referring to the Russian courts upholding the conviction, giving Navalny a suspended five-year sentence.

“Others watch this and understand that if they overplay their hand or attempt to sit atop the pedestal occupied by [Putin], there will be problems,” Melkonyants said. “Therefore, the candidates remaining in the race are safe ones.”

The image of Putin as the leading candidate is “formed by the federal media and then picked up by regional media,” the Golos official said.

“Our media monitoring initiative has not recorded a single negative mention of Putin, although one can always find grounds for criticism of a leader who has been in power for so many years,” Melkonyants said. “The whole campaign looks like this: a giant facing down scores of political dwarves.”

Even abroad, in the territorially disputed Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, outlets such as The Washington Post have reported on Russian state broadcasters calling themselves “informational warriors.”

‘Political technologists’

Lilia Shibanova of Russia’s Presidential Human Rights Council says the most distinct feature of the 2018 strategy to secure the super majority turnout is that state media actually run Putin’s campaign.

“The candidate himself solely acts as the president,” Shibanova said, calling footage of Putin campaigning among average Russian voters virtually nonexistent.

“Media here operate as political technologists,” she said, explaining that news media analysis shows opposition candidates cast in a negative light, whereas Putin is portrayed as infallible.

“Any comments about other candidates serve a very specific purpose,” she said.

This story originated in VOA’s Russian Service. Translated from Russian by Sasha Milentey.
…

Britain should consider a limited extension to its exit process from the European Union if needed to ensure details of its future relationship with the

bloc are agreed, a committee of lawmakers said in a report.

Prime Minister Theresa May formally notified the EU of Britain’s intention to leave by triggering Article 50 of the membership treaty on March 29, 2017, setting the clock ticking on a two-year exit process.

Britain has said it wants to have the basis of a trade deal set out with the EU by October, but the Exiting the EU Committee said in a report published Sunday that deadline would be tight.

“In the short time that remains, it is difficult to see how it will be possible to negotiate a full, bespoke trade and market access agreement, along with a range of other agreements, including on foreign affairs and defense cooperation,” the committee said.

“If substantial aspects of the future partnership remain to be agreed in October, the government should seek a limited extension to the Article 50 time to ensure that a political declaration on the future partnership that is sufficiently detailed and comprehensive can be concluded.”

The report also said it should be possible to prolong, if necessary, the length of any post-Brexit transition that’s agreed upon by Britain and the EU.

Britain has said it is confident it can reach a deal on the transition period at an EU summit this month. It expects the transition to last around two years after its departure date, although the European Union has said it should be shorter,

ending on Dec. 31, 2020.

The Exiting the EU committee, made up of lawmakers from all the main political parties, also called on the government to present a detailed plan on how a “frictionless” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would work.

The Irish border is a key sticking point in negotiations between the U.K. and the EU, as Britain has said it wants to leave the customs union but does not want a “hard” land border with customs checks.
…

Greece’s coast guard said Saturday the bodies of six people were recovered from the sea off a Greek island in the eastern Aegean following the sinking of a suspected migrant smuggling boat.

A massive search and rescue operation was underway to locate about a dozen more people believed missing.

The bodies of four children, one man and one woman were recovered off the island of Agathonisi, south of the island of Samos, the coast guard said. Three people, two women and a man, managed to reach the coast and alert authorities.

The three told authorities they had been in a wooden boat that sank with an estimated 21 people on board. The reasons for the sinking were not immediately clear, and authorities said the total number of people who had been on board was also not clear.

Three aircraft, Greek navy and coast guard vessels, a vessel from the European border agency Frontex and private boats were scouring the area to search for the missing.

Despite a two-year deal between the European Union and Turkey designed to stop the flow of migrants and refugees into Europe using the popular route from the Turkish coast to nearby Greek islands, dozens and sometimes hundreds of people continue to make the journey each week. Most cross in rickety inflatable boats or other unseaworthy vessels.
…

Russia’s government is expelling 23 British diplomats and threatened further measures in retaliation in a growing diplomatic dispute over a nerve agent attack on a former spy in Britain.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it is also ordering the closure of the British Council in Russia and ending an agreement to reopen the British consulate in St. Petersburg.

It ordered the diplomats to leave within a week.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned the British ambassador to Russia on Saturday to before making the announcement.

The statement said the government could take further measures if Britain takes any more “unfriendly” moves toward Russia.

Russians expelled

British Prime Minister Theresa May this week expelled 23 Russian diplomats and severed high-level contacts over the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. They remain in critical condition in hospital.

Britain’s foreign secretary accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of personally ordering the poisoning of the Skripals, who remain hospitalized in critical condition after the March 4 attack. Putin’s spokesman denounced the claim.

While Russia has vigorously denied involvement in the attack, Western powers see it as the latest sign of alleged Russian meddling abroad. The tensions threaten to overshadow Putin’s expected re-election Sunday for another six-year presidential term.

​British police said there is no apparent link between the attack on Glushkov and the poisoning of the Skripals, but both have raised alarm in the West at a time when Russia is increasingly assertive on the global stage and facing investigations over alleged interference in the Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president.

EU meeting Monday

The source of the nerve agent, which Britain says is Soviet-made Novichok, is unclear, as is the way it was administered. Russia has demanded that Britain share samples collected by investigators.

Top EU diplomats were expected to discuss next steps at a meeting Monday, with some calling for a boycott of the upcoming World Cup in Russia. British Prime Minister Theresa May is seeking a global coalition of countries to punish Moscow.
…

In June 2017, Montenegro, once considered a Balkan stronghold of pro-Russian sentiments, quietly celebrated its entry into NATO, infuriating the Kremlin. Before joining NATO, Montenegro sent its first cadet to West Point. Nevena Nikolic and her international peers at West Point are getting an opportunity to see the world and America through the lens of its prestigious military academy, where officials believe having foreign cadets is crucial. Milena Djurdjic of VOA’s Serbian Service has more.
…

Britain, France and Germany have proposed fresh EU sanctions on Iran over its ballistic missiles and its role in Syria’s war, according to a confidential document, in a bid to persuade Washington to preserve the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran.

The joint paper, seen by Reuters, was sent to European Union capitals on Friday, said two people familiar with the matter, to sound out support for such sanctions as they would need the support of all 28 EU member governments.

The proposal is part of an EU strategy to save the accord signed by world powers that curbs Tehran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons, namely by showing U.S. President Donald Trump that there are other ways to counter Iranian power abroad.

Trump delivered an ultimatum to the European signatories on January 12 that they must agree to “fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal” — which was sealed under his predecessor Barack Obama — or he would refuse to extend U.S. sanctions relief on Iran. U.S. sanctions will resume unless Trump issues fresh “waivers” to suspend them on May 12.

“We will therefore be circulating in the coming days a list of persons and entities that we believe should be targeted in view of their publicly demonstrated roles,” the document said, referring to Iranian ballistic missile tests and Tehran’s role backing Syria’s government in the seven-year-old civil war.

Analysts say the nuclear agreement, touted at the time as a breakthrough reducing the risk of a devastating wider war in the Middle East, could collapse if Washington pulls out.

The document said Britain, France and Germany were engaged in “intensive talks with the Trump administration to “achieve a clear and lasting reaffirmation of U.S. support for the [nuclear] agreement beyond May 12.”

The European powers and the United States held several rounds of talks this week on the issue, diplomats said.

Sensitive

The document referred to sanctions that would “target militias and commanders”. It proposes building on the EU’s existing sanctions list related to Syria, which includes travel bans and asset freezes on individuals, and a ban on doing business or financing public and private companies.

The issue is highly sensitive because the 2015 pact between Iran and six major powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — lifted international sanctions that crippled Iran’s oil-based economy.

While the EU retains some sanctions on Iranians over human rights abuses, it rescinded its economic and financial restrictions on Iran in 2016 and does not want to be seen to be reneging on the agreement.

While Iran signed up to limits on its uranium enrichment activity, which it has repeatedly said is for peaceful power generation, not atomic bombs, it has refused to discuss its missile program, which it says is purely defensive.

The Islamic Republic has dismissed Western assertions that its activities in the Middle East are destabilizing, and also rejected Trump’s demands to renegotiate the nuclear accord.

In the joint document, Britain, France and Germany set out questions and answers that seek to show that legally, the European powers would not be breaking the terms of the nuclear deal. It said that they are “entitled to adopt additional sanctions against Iran” as long as they are not nuclear-related

or were previously lifted under the nuclear agreement.

The European powers said new sanctions are justified because Iran “did not commit further to stop undertaking ballistic missile destabilizing activities” under the nuclear agreement.

The nuclear deal’s terms did not cover ballistic missile activity. Iran has said its effort to develop ballistic weaponry is solely for defensive purposes and has nothing to do with its nuclear energy ambitions.

Reporting by Robin Emmott and John Irish.
…

For years an anti-corruption activist and outspoken opponent of the Russian government, Alexei Navalny was disqualified from the presidential race in December because of a conviction for embezzlement. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the conviction was politically motivated, but it was upheld in Russian courts. Navalny was given a suspended five-year sentence.

Accused by Putin of being Washington’s pick for president, Navalny has long predicted that Russian authorities will resort to widespread fraud to deliver a Putin landslide and has spoken of organizing post-election protests of the kind that roiled Russia after Putin’s last election victory in 2012.

In a Thursday phone interview, VOA’s Danila Galperovich asked Navalny how he and his supporters plan to monitor and protest this weekend’s election, which he calls illegitimate. The following translated excerpt has been edited for brevity and concision. The full-length Russian language interview is available here.

VOA: How are you going to observe the elections? We know that the Central Election Committee rejected accreditation of your observers, but you continue to call for observation. How are you going to do it?

Navalny: The main thing that we have done now: we created the largest network of observers in the history of Russia. We called out to the masses, called for all our volunteers. More than 60,000 people enrolled, 18 percent of them minors, which, by the way, we are very proud of. But we will offer them a different job—to monitor streaming public access video footage of individual polling stations that anyone in Russia can access online. Given that, of course, we do not expect that all enrolled will come out to actually observe. Somewhere around 25,000 to 26,000 people will be actively monitoring polling stations in the districts. And, most importantly, for the first time we will make at least 20 percent coverage on these “zones of regional anomalies”—the North Caucasus, Mordovia, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan [regions that traditionally produce extremely high voter turnout and equally high results for pro-Kremlin incumbents]. We are trying to do this, and we will do it, but we can already see that absolutely unprecedented measures are being taken to destroy our network: people are being arrested every day, they are withdrawing our accreditation, closing our headquarters. Another wave of arrests is in motion. And it is connected, of course, with our supervision of polls.

VOA: Why do the authorities resist your observation so strongly? If, as you say, they are trying to make the elections look free and fair?

Navalny: The authorities, of course, know that their candidate will “win”—and he will indeed “win”—but they are no longer interested in his mere victory. They are interested in the recognition of elections and that … at least as many people as in 2012, come out to the polls. They are interested in turnout. They are faced with the fact that people do not want to voluntarily go to these elections under the influence of our boycott, or under the influence of the obvious fact that there is no competition, and that the result of the election is predetermined. For them, the only way to increase this turnout is to falsify it. Take, for example, the Kemerovo region. Last time it showed an 87 percent turnout. But if we put observers there, the turnout will immediately fall by 30- to 40-percent, and we can prove that the 87 percent is fake. And even without any boycott, simply just through observation, it will be obvious that the turnout has fallen. And [the Kremlin] cannot allow it—neither Putin nor the regional administrations. That is why they are fighting us so hard.

VOA: Your critics say that boycott and observation are incompatible. You have already explained the observation, can you please explain the logic of the boycott? Why, in your opinion, is this the right step?

Navalny: We do not recognize these elections as elections, but consider them a fake procedure. Because it is important not only to vote, it is important to influence politics—the opportunity to influence power, to express one’s opinion. Putin, realizing that he can achieve an overwhelming result only if he does not allow real competitors, envisioned all these scenarios and picked up the politicians under his control. We are faced with a construct in which they, the authorities, look into the eyes of the public and say: “You know, we will not allow you to choose your own people’s representatives. We offered you some people, you can vote for them.” Moreover, those whom they picked up, whatever I think about them, they did not even do anything. They did not campaign. Many of them, in general, found out what is going on two months before the election. So it’s fake, it’s a falsification, and it’s pointless to participate in the construct that from the get-go foresees Putin’s targeted “70/70” percent result. [As Washington Post contributor Christopher Jarmas reported in December: “Last year, the Kremlin’s top political technologists established a ’70 at 70′ objective for Putin’s reelection in March 2018—70 percent of the vote with 70 percent turnout.”]

VOA: It is known that the European pro-Kremlin politicians come to Russia as observers at the invitation of the State Duma. Their approval of these elections and their confirmation of the legitimacy of the favored candidate, Putin, is to be expected. How, when taking into account their connection with the Russian authorities, will the rest of the world treat such confirmation of the legitimacy of the winner?

Navalny: All those so-called European observers invited by the Duma: they are “observers” in the sense that other presidential candidates are “rivals” to Putin. Of course, this is an absolute fake. It’s ridiculous and unpleasant to look at how Putin corrupted and turned into his puppets a significant part of the European establishment. Even if we are talking about representatives of marginal parties, they nonetheless represent the European political establishment. As for legitimacy: it is not measured by any agreements or by the presence of international observers. This is a generally the populist mindset. Our task in this campaign is that as many people as possible understand that these are not elections and do not recognize them as such. That they consciously declare: “We will not go there.” And that’s how we fight it.

This story originated in VOA’s Russian Service.
…

Khadija Jafari cries as she looks at the asylum-seeker’s home in Croatia where she, her sister and their three children have spent three nights since they were deported from Austria.

The two women arrived in Austria as asylum-seekers from Afghanistan in 2016. They did their best to integrate by learning German and enrolling the children in school, Jafari said.

“I cry every day, every night, and cannot sleep. My child says every day, ‘Why am I not going to kindergarten?’” she told The Associated Press in German during an interview in Croatia’s capital, Zagreb. “We cannot stay here.”

Austrian authorities argued the family should be sent to Croatia because of European Union regulations that require asylum-seekers to apply for protection in the first EU country they reached.

The European Court of Justice agreed in a landmark July ruling that puts the residency status of tens of thousands of other refugees in doubt.

After they fled Afghanistan, Jafari, her 4-year-old son, her sister and the sister’s two children traveled through Serbia to Croatia, an EU member country since July 2013. Croatian authorities arranged transportation to Slovenia, and the sisters and their children made their way to Austria.

Christoph Riedl, a policy adviser with humanitarian aid group Diakonie, said Austria has deported hundreds of asylum-seekers under the EU’s “Dublin” agreement. But lawyers argued the Jafari family had become so well-integrated that they and others like them should be allowed to remain.

Even with the European court ruling in the sisters’ appeal, Austria did not have to deport them, Riedl said. The court stressed that the Dublin agreement permitted countries to “unilaterally or bilaterally in a spirit of solidarity… examine applications for international protection lodged with them, even if they are not required to.”

“Austria should simply have shown some heart and solidarity as the European Court of Justice demanded in its ruling,” Riedl said.

It was Sunday when Austrian authorities came for the family of five.

“We were sleeping in our room and then the police came,” Jafari recalled, wiping tears from her face. “I fled to my neighbor, and the police came to me with a dog and found us, and then they sent us here.”
…

The United States is demanding the world hold Syria’s government, Russia and Iran responsible for what a top official calls “some of the worst atrocities known to man.”

The statement, by U.S. national security adviser H.R. McMaster, came Thursday during an event at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington marking the seventh anniversary of the start of the Syrian conflict.

“The Assad regime has killed indiscriminately, tortured, starved, raped and used chemical weapons on its own people,” McMaster said, referring to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “It has attacked hospitals and schools, and countless Syrians have been arrested, abducted or simply disappeared.”

But McMaster, one of the most senior advisers to U.S. President Donald Trump, also accused Russia and Iran of enabling Assad, and said they, too, must be held accountable.

“All nations must respond more forcibly than simply issuing strong statements,” McMaster said. “Assad should not have impunity from his crimes and neither should his sponsors.”

Political, economic pressures

So far, McMaster and other U.S. officials have emphasized an approach using political and economic pressure, pointing to ramped-up sanctions against both Iran and Russia.

“The president and General McMaster are continuing to work together to put pressure on Russia to do the right thing,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters when asked about McMaster’s comments.

“Again, I think you can see what the administration’s viewpoint is simply by looking at the actions that we took today by placing new sanctions on Russia,” Sanders said.

But while the U.S. has repeatedly criticized Russia, Thursday’s sanctions were not aimed at its support for the Syrian regime.

Instead, the actions were aimed at five entities and 19 individuals accused of interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and for cyberattacks targeting U.S. infrastructure.

There are also questions about how far the Trump administration is willing to go to stop attacks on civilians in Syria, including in eastern Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus that has been bombed repeatedly by Russia and Syria.

“The U.S. seeks to halt Assad’s atrocities and constrain and ultimately reduce the buildup of Iranian proxy forces and Iranian influence in Syria,” said Jennifer Cafarella, with the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. “The means the U.S. is willing to use will not accomplish the stated goals.”

And there are few signs the U.S. is going to change course, at least for now.

“We urge Russia to compel the Assad regime to stop killing innocent Syrians and allow much-needed aid to reach the people of east Ghouta,” chief Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White told reporters Thursday.

“We are going to be consistent in that message and we are going to continue to urge them to do that,” she added.

When pressed on whether the U.S. military would consider taking any action to help ensure the safety of civilians, White said that Syria’s Assad would be “ill-advised to use any gas [chemical weapons].”

U.S. action against Syria

The U.S. has taken action against Assad once before, launching a barrage of 59 cruise missiles at Shayrat airfield, in western Syria, in April 2017. Officials said it was in retaliation for a gruesome sarin gas attack by Assad’s forces that killed about 100 civilians.

But despite more recent reports alleging Assad’s use of chemical weapons and chlorine gas, the U.S. has not acted. Military officials say while they are looking into the reports, they have yet to find conclusive evidence that chemical weapons were used.

There are also no indications that Washington, which has said a political settlement is the only way forward, is willing to use air power or ground forces already in the region to stop the onslaught against civilians, including the most recent bombing campaign in eastern Ghouta, or to forcibly remove Assad from power.

“Our mission in Syria is to defeat ISIS,” said the Pentagon’s White, using an acronym for the Islamic State terror group. “It is not our intention to be part of a civil war. … We are pushing toward the Geneva process.”

On Wednesday, the commander of the U.S. military’s Central Command, General Joseph Votel, told lawmakers he would advise against the use of military force.

“I don’t recommend that at this particular point,” Votel said. “Certainly, if there are other things that are considered, you know, we will do what we are told.”

But when asked whether Assad, with the backing of Russia and Iran, had “won” the civil war in Syria, Votel suggested that was the case.

“I do not think that is too strong of a statement,” Votel said.

VOA’s Steve Herman contributed to this report from the White House.
…

Turkish opposition parties are warning that the raft of electoral reforms parliament passed this week pose a threat to free and fair elections.

“They hid the package from the nation. Why? Because the law explains line by line how election fraud can be conducted,” Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the main opposition CHP party, said Tuesday after the measures were approved.

The reforms were so contentious that fistfights erupted in the parliamentary chamber among deputies as the articles were approved. The 26 changes include easing restrictions on the presence of security forces in ballot stations, allowing state governors to locate ballot boxes and authorizing security forces to remove ballot boxes.

One of the most contentious reforms is allowing the use of paper ballots that do not have official stamps. Until now, ballots had been issued to match the number of voters, which were then stamped by monitors drawn from all political parties.

Controversial 2017 referendum

The use of unstamped ballot papers has revived the controversial April 2017 referendum on extending President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s powers.

The extension was narrowly approved, but in the middle of vote counting, the electoral body controlling the election allowed unstamped ballots to be included. The decision to accept the votes as valid and the way in which it was implemented was criticized in a report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Council of Europe referendum monitors.

“These decisions undermined an important safeguard against fraud,” the report noted.

The use of unstamped ballots in future elections has caused alarm among opposition parties.

“We can say there is very little hope there are going to be fair elections in Turkey, so the election themselves are under question,” warned Ertugral Kurkcu, parliamentary deputy and president of the pro-Kurdish HDP party. “Tayyip Erdogan put his hand inside the ballot box. Unless the situation is changed dramatically … every election is going to be tainted with fraud and the result won’t be legitimate.”

Voter fraud is of particular concern in Turkey’s predominantly Kurdish southeast, the region at the center of a conflict between security forces and Kurdish insurgents.

During the 2016 presidential referendum, HDP party election monitors raised allegations of ballot-box stuffing. Several voting areas recorded 100 percent support for extending Erdogan’s powers, even though the area was a stronghold against the president.

Adding to such fears, Turkey remains under emergency rule, which was introduced after the failed 2016 coup.

“The next elections most probably take place under the state of emergency, and the government and the regime will do everything in its power to win all the elections. They will not allow any meaningful elections,” political scientist Cengiz Aktar warned.

Ruling party criticisms

Criticism over the latest electoral reforms and fears of fraud have been angrily dismissed by the ruling AK Party and its ally, the MHP party.

Mustafa Sentop, AK Party parliamentary deputy, described opposition party concerns as “ignorant.”

The ruling AK Party argued the reforms are aimed at ensuring fair elections and reducing the threat of voter intimidation.

The opposition CHP party, however, said monitoring elections and counting ballots are key elements of creating free and fair elections.

“For the security of the elections, we have already started working to ensure we will have 1 million volunteer observers, which will mean more than one overseer for each ballot box,” said Sezgin Tanrikulu, deputy head of the CHP party. “I am still hopeful for a just and honest election. At least we should make sure the results cannot be changed.”

The CHP has been frequently criticized by observers for failing to mobilize and marshal its members to properly scrutinize polls.

Already, government supporters have labeled monitoring efforts as subversive and a threat to fair elections.

“The two [opposition] parties’ aim is to create a perception among the public that elections are being manipulated by the ruling party, and the results are therefore illegitimate,” columnist Mehmet Acet wrote in the pro-government Yeni Safak newspaper earlier this month. He said adding a perception of illegitimacy can instigate a “change in government by nonelectoral means.”

Pro-Kurdish HDP party president Kurkcu said, “So what’s ahead for Turkey’s elections is a very big disagreement on how the vote is carried out. There is going to be a very heated debate in the coming days.”

The success of monitoring, especially under emergency rule, in next year’s presidential, general and local elections will be key to whether all parties will accept the election’s results, experts said.
…

Russians are expected to vote Sunday in a presidential election, but disqualified opposition candidate Alexei Navalny told VOA’s Russian service that he expected the entire process to be a sham, even down to the European election observers.

“All those so-called ‘European observers’ — they are as much observers as other candidates in these elections are ‘rivals’ to [President Vladimir] Putin,” Navalny said in a VOA interview Thursday. “Of course this is an absolute fake. It’s ridiculous and unpleasant to look at how Putin corrupted and turned into his puppets a significant part of the European establishment.”

Navalny, for years an anti-corruption activist and outspoken opponent of the government, was disqualified from the race in December because of a conviction for embezzlement. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the conviction was politically motivated, but it was upheld in Russian courts. Navalny was given a suspended five-year sentence. 

Navalny said Sunday’s election would be marked by illegitimacy. He has called for a boycott.

Putin faces seven challengers, but is expected to take an overwhelming majority of the vote.

“Our task in this campaign is that as many people as possible understand that these are not elections” and refuse to take part in them, Navalny  said. “And we will fight for it.”

Putin has been in power as either president or prime minister since 1999. He has switched back and forth between the two roles to circumvent a Russian law banning him from serving more than two consecutive terms as president.

Yet, opinion polls show he has far more support than any of his rivals, who run the gamut from far-right populist to far-left communist. With another Putin win practically guaranteed, Navalny and other experts say Russian authorities will try to use inflated voter turnout numbers to prove the election was a success.

Navalny said the elections are staged to look free and fair, but that at best they are an insincere effort. “We are faced with a construct in which they, the authorities, look into the eyes of the public and say: ‘You know we will not allow you to choose your own people’s representatives. We offered you some people — you can vote for them,’ ” he said. 

But, he added, “it’s pointless to participate in the construct that, from the get-go, foresees Putin’s result is over 70 percent.”

Sunday’s vote will span 11 time zones, starting with the far east and ending with the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, and 108,968,869 people are registered to cast ballots. State-owned polling company VCIOM projects a turnout of 71 percent. 

Yet, the Russian nongovernmental research organization Levada Center conducted a survey in December that indicated 58 percent of voters planned to boycott the elections.

VOA’s Russian service contributed to this report.
…