Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

US sends troops for possible ‘violent’ Congo vote protests

Published

on

US sends troops for possible violent Congo vote protests

KINSHASA, Congo (AP) — On the eve of the first expected results of Congo’s long-delayed presidential election, President Donald Trump said military personnel had deployed to Central Africa to protect U.S. assets from possible “violent demonstrations,” while the country’s powerful Catholic church warned of a popular “uprising” if untrue results are announced.

Congo faces what could be its first democratic, peaceful transfer of power since independence from Belgium in 1960, but election observers and the opposition have raised concerns about voting irregularities as the country chooses a successor to longtime President Joseph Kabila.

The first results are expected on Sunday, and the United States and the African Union, among others, have urged Congo to release results that reflect the true will of the people. The U.S. has threatened sanctions against those who undermine the democratic process. Western election observers were not invited to watch the vote.

While Congo has been largely calm on and after the Dec. 30 vote, Trump’s letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said about 80 military personnel and “appropriate combat equipment” had deployed to nearby Gabon to support the security of U.S. citizens and staffers and diplomatic facilities. More will deploy as needed to Gabon, Congo or neighboring Republic of Congo, he wrote.

The U.S. ahead of the vote ordered “non-emergency” government employees and family members to leave the country.

The Catholic church, an influential voice in the heavily Catholic nation, caused surprise on Thursday by announcing that data reported by its 40,000 election observers deployed in all polling stations show a clear winner. As regulations say only the electoral commission can announce election results, the church did not announce a name.

The electoral commission responded by saying the announcement could incite an “uprising.” In a letter to the commission on Saturday, seen by The Associated Press, the Catholic church dismissed the accusation that it acted illegally, saying its goal was to “make the electoral process credible” and stabilize the country.

Congo’s ruling party, which backs Kabila’s preferred candidate Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary, called the church’s attitude “irresponsible and anarchist.”

Leading opposition candidate Martin Fayulu, a businessman and lawmaker, has accused Congolese authorities of impeding his campaign. His campaign manager, Pierre Lumbi, on Saturday accused the electoral commission of being “in the process of postponing the publication of the results.”

The commission’s rapporteur, Jean-Pierre Kalamba, said “we will see tomorrow” and that 44 percent of the results had been compiled.

At stake is a vast country rich in the minerals that power the world’s mobile phones and laptops, yet desperately underdeveloped. Some 40 million people were registered to vote, though at the last minute some 1 million voters were barred as the electoral commission cited a deadly Ebola virus outbreak. Critics said that undermines the election’s credibility.

The vote took place more than two years behind schedule, while a court ruled that Kabila could stay in office until the vote was held. The delay led to sometimes deadly protests as authorities cracked down, and Shadary is now under European Union sanctions for his role in the crackdown as interior minister at the time.

Kabila, who took office in 2001 after his father was assassinated, is barred from serving three consecutive terms but has hinted that he could run again in 2023. That has led many Congolese to suspect that he will rule from the shadows if Shadary takes office.

Internet and text messaging services were cut off the day after the election in an apparent effort by the government to prevent social media speculation about the results. The United States has urged that internet service be restored, and a United Nations human rights spokeswoman has warned that “these efforts to silence dissent could backfire considerably when the results are announced.”

___

This version corrects the first name of electoral commission’s rapporteur.

___

Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa

Advertisement
Click to comment

Foreign Affairs

The realities of the two-state solution

Published

on

The realities of the two-state solution

The belief that a two-state solution is possible and that it is the solution most likely to bring peace is discussed by observers outside of Israel as an almost foregone conclusion. This outsider view too often wholly ignores the unfortunate realities on the ground in Israel. If either side has ever truly considered the possibility of a two-state agreement, it has been in terms of how it will further either side’s overall goals.

And so, as in most discussions related to deeply held beliefs or viewpoints that affect a significant pivot point in history, we must understand perspective before a real solution, or recognition that there may be no immediate solution, can be found.

First, I would like to state that I find it troubling and seriously disconcerting that so often discussions related to propositions for Middle Eastern peace revolve almost exclusively around the actions and policies of Israel, while little to no discussion occurs in regards to the activities and policies of Palestinian organizations and their supporters across the Islamic world. This is especially troubling considering the majority of actions engaged by Israel and its allies, throughout its short but tumultuous history, have been enacted in response to efforts by their enemies and detractors. To understand why Israel has done and continues to do what it’s doing is to understand the motivations of those that Israel sees as enemies to their very existence.

Why do I say very existence? Major Islamic powers, both within Israel and without, have stated unequivocally that their primary reason for organization is to destroy Israel wholly. These are not charters stating a goal of resisting, impeding, or leveraging for a future two-state arrangement. These are specific statements of intention for total annihilation. Iran has called for the destruction of Israel ever since their revolution in 1979, and many experts believe it is for this purpose they have pursued nuclear capabilities. Hamas, the branch of the Muslim Brotherhood currently in political control of the Gaza Strip within Israel, has maintained the Hamas Charter calling for the destruction of Israel for over thirty years. And this is all occurring in a region that has a historical consistency of armed and political opposition to the very existence of Israel, dating back to 1948 when every major Islamic country that bordered Israel declared war upon its creation as a country.

Indeed, Israel’s tactics can easily be seen as harsh. Indeed, their continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank and in Gaza can be seen as colonial supremacy and even a false sense of cultural superiority. It is true that many Israelis honestly hope for the failure of the two-state solution process. But when it is understood that the two-state option is honestly not viewed by either the Israelis or the Palestinians as a final solution, the whole perspective changes. Israelis often see the two-state option as an appeasement to terrorists and the concession of a base of operations for continued militant attacks against them, and they have only entertained its proposal as an option in hopes of gaining concessions that would stymie outside influence amongst the Palestinians. The Palestinians and their allies often view the two-state solution as a victory in splintering the autonomy of an avowed enemy and the creation of leverage for continued disintegration of what they see as an illegitimate state on lands they continue to view as their own.

I do not pretend to know the answer to the question that so many of the world’s foremost leaders have failed to answer: the question of finding peace in the Middle East. But I think it only takes a little common sense to see that current propositions for a two-state solution choose to ignore the factors demonstrating its failings out of a desperate and foolish belief that any agreement is a good agreement.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

General Jack Keans on Trump’s plan to send more troops to Middle East

Published

on

General Jack Keans on Trumps plan to send more troops to Middle East

As the Pentagon sends 1000 more troops to the Middle East to counter Iran’s latest round of aggressions, many Democrats and media talking heads are attacking the whole mess. They’re blaming the President for antagonizing the Iranians, first by pulling out of the nuclear deal and then by imposing harsh sanctions on them. But as General Jack Keans told Shannon Bream on Fox News last night, the Iranians have been the ones antagonizing the whole time.

Where did all the money go that the Obama administration sent them? Over $100 billion is apparently gone as the people continue to struggle to survive, yet nothing seems to have come from the generous gift.

If the sanctions were really the problem, why won’t Iran stop engaging in proxy wars, funding terrorism, and continuing their development of nuclear weapons? They were testing ballistic missiles even before the sanctions. They were engaged in Yemen before the sanctions. And yes, they never stopped funding terrorism. If they would stop these things, the sanctions could be lifted, but Iran refuses.

Keans is correct in asserting the President has made the right moves. The only question that remains is whether or not Iran will comply or if they’ll continue down the road to war.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

An open letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham on his two-state solution resolution

Published

on

An open letter to Sen Lindsey Graham on his two-state solution resolution

Dear Senator Graham,

It is being reported in the news that you are planning to introduce a nonbinding resolution in the Senate, together with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), calling on President Trump to support a “two-state solution” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. If true, it would be a tragic error.

As a longtime supporter of Israel, I am sure that you’re aware that the GOP removed the two-state solution from its platform in 2016. I’m sure that you also know that the president’s Middle East team has been discussing Israel’s right to retain parts of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank). By supporting the two-state solution at this time, you are not only going against the growing sentiment in your party that opposes a Palestinian (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) state and the danger it would be to Israel’s survival, but you are also taking a stand against the obvious democratic wishes of the Israeli people. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently made it clear that he no longer supports such a path to resolving the conflict by announcing his intention to annex the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank).

In a recent interview with the McClatchy news service, you were quoted as saying “I don’t want to get in the way of Jared,” referring to Deal of the Century architect Jared Kushner, “but I can’t envision a one-state solution. It won’t work. I mean, you’d have to disenfranchise the Palestinians. That won’t work. If you let them vote as one state, they’ll overwhelm the Israelis. That won’t work. So, if you want to have a democratic, secure Jewish state, I think you have to have two states to make that work.”

Sen. Graham, with all due respect, you are echoing the common wisdom that has prevailed for the past forty years, but the facts on the ground have changed. Recent polling shows that Israelis understand the new reality, but the world is lagging beyond, with the very noticeable exception being the growing number of realists in the GOP. President Trump, as well, has expressed a remarkable willingness to explore “new ideas”, since the “land for peace” formula clearly hasn’t worked. This was proven by the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, which simply gave Iranian-backed Hamas the land from which they are now firing rockets at Israeli cities. Doing the same in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem (which is the primary Palestinian demand) would be suicidal for Israel.

However, you have mentioned that a Palestinian state must be created, because of the demographic danger; that without creating a separate Palestinian state, Israel would be “overwhelmed” by the Palestinian vote. This presumes that in a one-state solution, all the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria would be given automatic citizenship. Yes, you and I seem to agree, granting such instant citizenship would be the definition of foolishness. No self-preserving country in its right mind would grant citizenship (and the right to vote in national elections) without a lengthy process of vetting such non-citizens, as is done in the United States and most free countries.

In my peace plan, which is pointedly called Peace for Peace (as opposed to the failed land for peace formula), I call for Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, alongside a path to loyal citizenship for the non-citizens, mostly Arabs (or Palestinians, if you prefer), now residing in the areas that Israel recaptured in the defensive Six Day War of 1967. Such a process would include a three-year comprehensive good citizenship course, followed by two-three years of national service, culminating with an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel.

Many non-citizens in Judea and Samaria, many of whom I know personally, would seize at the opportunity to become loyal Israeli citizens. Many others would refuse, thereby minimizing the demographic danger to Israel, but the truth be told, noted demographers such as Yoram Ettinger have shown that the Jewish birth rates in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem have been sky-rocketing for the past two decades, way beyond that of the Arabs. Israel is undergoing a social renaissance, in which the traditional family is having a resurgence and having large Jewish families is fashionable once again. Therefore, when we examine the current reality, we see that the demographic threat is greatly exaggerated by those who cling to the land for peace agenda.

Of course, I haven’t yet mentioned Israel’s historical rights to these areas, which I have documented extensively in my most recent book, “Trump and the Jews”, but you haven’t disputed those rights. I also haven’t mentioned that we can’t make peace with a Palestinian Authority that for years has been giving salary payments to each and every terrorist that has killed or wounded an Israeli. This includes the three Fatah terrorists who shot and wounded me and my then three-year-old son in December of 2001 and their salaries continue to this day.

Given the new, pragmatic approach of President Trump, I am strongly urging you to rethink the dual mantras of land for peace and the two-state solution. As Donald would say, it’s time for new ideas.

Bio: David Rubin, former Mayor of Shiloh Israel, is the author of the new book, “Trump and the Jews”. Rubin is the founder and president of Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund, established after he and his then three-year-old son were wounded in a terror attack. He can be found at www.DavidRubinIsrael.com or at www.ShilohIsraelChildren.org.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending