Iran deal stupidest of all time, Trump says

October 21, 2016

Jeddah, Oct 21: Leading experts in Arab affairs, columnists and journalists feel that the race for the American presidential elections remains wide open and evenly poised.

trump2

They described the outcome of the three presidential debates as inconclusive and unclear.

For some, Hillary Clinton came out on top; for others Donald Trump, despite his brashness, managed to retain his appeal to his core base of voters.

For Faisal Al-Yafai, chief columnist at the Abu Dhabi-based The National newspaper, watching the three debates, gave one a sense of what he called the vibrancy and pageantry of American democracy.

“That has its pros and cons. The vibrancy is that you see so many people, tens of millions of people, watching three debates of 90-minute each. Which is fantastic. The downside is that it is really about the public performance of politics rather than real politics or real policies. Which is a shame.”

He said there was no doubt that Clinton had come across as more presidential.

“To her credit, she has managed to deal with Trump in a way that no Republican contender could. You have to give her enormous credit for that. None of the Republican contenders was able to land a blow on him, but Clinton managed to do that in the three debates,” he said.

However, he adds a word of caution.

“I don't think you can count Trump out yet because, I think, the debates were important to some parts of America but not to all parts. Those people who like Trump genuinely like Trump. They don't really care what comes across in the debate. To them, the debates are just part of what they consider the mainstream media and the establishment,” he said.

So who does Al-Yafai think will win? “It is still unknown who will win. Clinton is, in my opinion, very far ahead. But, as I said, the people who like Trump will vote for him regardless of what the media says or the establishment says. His supporters don't care about his nastiness. They care about their candidate. Not only will they not believe what was said during the debates, the negative commentary, etc., they will go out in substantial numbers to vote for him.”

Al-Yafai said whoever became the president of America, it matters to the Middle East because of America's influence in the region.

“Most Middle East watchers probably on balance prefer Clinton because she is a known quantity in the way that Trump is not. At the same time, the issues that most Middle Eastern countries have with the United States go far beyond one particular candidate, one particular party or one particular president. I think Clinton would be better at handling some of the difficulties that the region faces. We look to the Americans to be partners with us on the big challenges of the Middle East, such as Syria, Yemen and Iraq. With that in mind, we would prefer Clinton.”

But, he said, Clinton is only the best of what is on offer. “There has not been a presidential candidate that I have seen yet who understands the relationship that America needs with the Middle East and the relationship that Arabs deserve with America.”

His verdict: “You can't count Trump out yet.”

Very precise but despised

For Raghida Dergham, New York-based columnist and bureau chief for Al-Hayat pan-Arab publication, Clinton is very scripted, very organized and very precise which is what she should be if she is running for such an office.

“Trump thinks it is all right to simply change the rules for the debates. It is very embarrassing to witness such name-calling in a debate for such a high office. I have watched earlier debates from 20 and 30 years ago and I saw people discuss policies. These debates are more of a show than an opportunity to debate matters of importance,” she told Arab News.

She does not think that the debates have won any supporters for Clinton from among those who do not like her to begin with.

“People despise her for being part of the establishment. They do not trust her. There are strong feelings against her by many people. I don't think she came out of the debate in any way that will change the minds of those who are already sure of where they stand,” she said. “Clinton was, however, probably effective with those who are undecided and who are looking for something that will sway them one way or another.”

Through the debates, she showed that she has the temperament to lead rather than just to react and be amusing or different. “She projected that she could be in the White House and take on this big responsibility,” said Dergham. “Those who dislike her are going to say she did not do a good job in the past so why should we believe her now? Those who are opposed to Clinton are not only opposed to Clinton, they are opposed to the (Obama) administration.”

Dergham said she was very disturbed by Trump's “simple-mindedness” when it comes to Middle Eastern issues that are of concern to the world.

“The way he speaks about Russian President Vladimir Putin is frightening because he does not look at the actions of Russia in the region. He is only focused on saying from his point of view who won, who lost. He thinks the Russians have won, the (Obama) administration has lost. I mean both — Russia and the Obama administration — have contributed to the misery of what is going on in Syria. But it is really offensive that Trump looks at this as who won and who lost when so many people are dying and suffering and when there is so much human tragedy.”

As somebody from the region, Dergham has multiple concerns. “I am concerned about Trump's approach to all the people of the Middle East as well as to Muslims and to immigrants. I am disturbed by his dismissal of people en masse. I don't think he is going to reset Obama's administration's policies. Clinton will try to reset ties with the Gulf countries, probably because she knows it is time to reset the relationship. Trump will play outside the rules and not inside them. That would probably lead some to say it is time to do that because playing by the rules, we only got where we did not want to be in Syria and in Mosul both of which are a catastrophe.”

Don't count Trump out

So who won the debates? For Dergham, “Those who love Trump, love his brash approach; they love his facial expressions and they love that he called Clinton “a nasty woman.” They are the voters who are decided. With the undecided, I think, Clinton won the last debate.”

Her verdict: “The race is still open. It is always open until the last minute. You can never tell what surprises might come up. I think there could be a major event that might change things. It is always open until the votes are counted.”

Abeer Mishkhas, London-based Saudi journalist with Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, felt Wednesday night's debate improved Clinton's chances because “Trump couldn't get beyond his style of attacking and demeaning her. On the other hand, she was calm. She was in control. She was very statesmanly, or rather, states-womanly. She presented a very good argument for being president of the United States.”

She said whenever Trump talks about a foreign country, one gets the feeling that he is unaware of foreign policy issues and of how foreign policy is conducted.

“Trump takes a very simplistic view of how things are done. He talks about Putin and he says, ‘He likes me.' He doesn't know what he is talking about. Compare this to Clinton who served as secretary of state. She knows exactly what constitutes foreign policy. She has the experience and she seems clear about what she is going to do.”

Mishkhas does not like a couple of things about Clinton. “For instance, I don't agree with her passive stand on the Palestinian issue. As US secretary of state, she was always pro-Israel. She did not support the Palestinians during their most difficult times when they were basically being massacred.”

She thinks Clinton might be tempted to go to war with Iran to demonstrate American might and to show that America is a superpower.

“She is just the way she is. She would gladly go to war with Iran just to prove that she is as tough as anyone else,” said Mishkhas.

She feels Clinton did not do well in the previous two debates. “I don't know who instructed her to keep smiling. That did not give the correct impression of her. It seemed as if she was not ready. She took Trump lightly and talked about petty issues. She should have concentrated on policies and what exactly she wants to do. In Debate 3 on Wednesday night, however, she came out on top.”

Her verdict: “It is very hard to tell because when you listen to Trump supporters, they seem happy with what he is doing. They are the people who are not going to be influenced by TV debates anyway. It is very tricky. The race is still wide open.”

For Dr. Khaled Al-Shoqran, head of the Al-Rai Center for Strategic Studies in Amman, Clinton was the clear winner. “I think Clinton did better. She is fully aware of political and international issues. Trump is unacceptable because he knows very little about things outside the United States he said.

“Clinton has a good vision and she has good ideas for solving Middle Eastern problems. She is very vocal on Iraq, Syria and Yemen which is good,” he said. “She has a plan and she will be very successful as president of the United States. She did very well in all three debates.”

His verdict: “Clinton is far ahead.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 24,2024

columbia.jpg

Pro-Gaza US protesters in New York's Columbia University say they will stay put despite the university's harassment and police crackdown.

The protesters said they refuse to concede to "cowardly threats and blatant intimidation" by university administration, asserting that they will continue to peacefully protest.

Columbia University threatened the students with the national guard after refusing to bargain in good faith.

The university announced a midnight deadline for talks regarding the removal of pro-Palestine encampments on the varsity campus, warning that their campsite will be forcefully cleared by police if no agreement is reached.

The university campus is being used as a campsite for hundreds of pro-Palestine protesters and other activists, who have gathered and set up numerous tents.

Pro-Palestinian protests at colleges have demanded that their universities divest from corporations doing business with Israel or profiting off the war in Gaza. At Columbia, protesters have also asked the university to end a dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University.

The deadline was announced by Columbia University President Minouche Shafik late Tuesday, as authorities across major American universities have launched their repression campaigns against the pro-Palestinian protests on campuses, amid rising anger over US's support for Israel. 

Shafik has issued a midnight deadline to protesters and organizers, warning that failure to comply will result in the forcible clearance of the camp by the New York Police Department (NYPD).

The university has engaged in discussions with student leaders behind the protests, which are part of a series of protests taking place at various colleges nationwide and resulting in multiple arrests.

The purpose of these talks is to address the encampment on the west lawn of Columbia's Morningside Heights campus.

American universities are grappling with the challenge of maintaining a delicate balance between the right to protest and freedom of speech, while also ensuring campus rules and safety, as tensions surrounding the ongoing war in Gaza continue to permeate across campuses.

Meanwhile, Shafik underscored the importance of free speech and the right to demonstrate, but highlighted significant safety issues, disruptions to campus activities, and a strained environment due to the encampment. She firmly stated that any form of intimidation, harassment, or discrimination would not be accepted.

The arrest of more than 100 protesters at Columbia University last week led to more campus demonstrations, at New York University, Yale, and the University of California, Berkeley.

Palestinian university professor Sami al-Arian said what is happening across US university campuses is unprecedented.

Al-Arian said, "I lived four decades in the US, 28 years of which were in academic settings. During my time, it was a very challenging struggle to present an anti-Zionist narrative."

"But the passion, courage, humanity, creativity, and determination displayed these days by students across US campuses make me proud. The Zionist grip on US society is weakening and waning."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 11,2024

vietnamfraud.jpg

Real estate tycoon Truong My Lan was sentenced Thursday to death by a court in Ho Chi Minh city in southern Vietnam in the country's largest financial fraud case ever, state media Thanh Nien said.

It's a rare verdict - she is one of very few women in Vietnam to be sentenced to death for a white collar crime, i.e. looting one of the country's largest banks over a period of 11 years.

The decision is a reflection of the dizzying scale of the fraud. Truong My Lan was convicted of taking out $44bn (£35bn) in loans from the Saigon Commercial Bank. The verdict requires her to return $27bn, a sum prosecutors said may never be recovered. Some believe the death penalty is the court's way of trying to encourage her to return some of the missing billions.

The habitually secretive communist authorities were uncharacteristically forthright about this case, going into minute detail for the media. They said 2,700 people were summoned to testify, while 10 state prosecutors and around 200 lawyers were involved.

The evidence was in 104 boxes weighing a total of six tonnes. Eighty-five defendants were tried with Truong My Lan, who denied the charges.

"There has never been a show trial like this, I think, in the communist era," says David Brown, a retired US state department official with long experience in Vietnam. "There has certainly been nothing on this scale."

The trial was the most dramatic chapter so far in the "Blazing Furnaces" anti-corruption campaign led by the Communist Party Secretary-General, Nguyen Phu Trong.

A conservative ideologue steeped in Marxist theory, Nguyen Phu Trong believes that popular anger over untamed corruption poses an existential threat to the Communist Party's monopoly on power. He began the campaign in earnest in 2016 after out-manoeuvring the then pro-business prime minister to retain the top job in the party.

 The campaign has seen two presidents and two deputy prime ministers forced to resign, and hundreds of officials disciplined or jailed. Now one of the country's richest women has joined their ranks.

Truong My Lan comes from a Sino-Vietnamese family in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon. It has long been the commercial engine of the Vietnamese economy, dating well back to its days as the anti-communist capital of South Vietnam, with a large, ethnic Chinese community.

She started as a market stall vendor, selling cosmetics with her mother, but began buying land and property after the Communist Party ushered in a period of economic reform, known as Doi Moi, in 1986. By the 1990s, she owned a large portfolio of hotels and restaurants.

Although Vietnam is best known outside the country for its fast-growing manufacturing sector, as an alternative supply chain to China, most wealthy Vietnamese made their money developing and speculating in property.

All land is officially state-owned. Getting access to it often relies on personal relationships with state officials. Corruption escalated as the economy grew, and became endemic.

By 2011, Truong My Lan was a well-known business figure in Ho Chi Minh City, and she was allowed to arrange the merger of three smaller, cash-strapped banks into a larger entity: Saigon Commercial Bank.

Vietnamese law prohibits any individual from holding more than 5% of the shares in any bank. But prosecutors say that through hundreds of shell companies and people acting as her proxies, Truong My Lan actually owned more than 90% of Saigon Commercial.

They accused her of using that power to appoint her own people as managers, and then ordering them to approve hundreds of loans to the network of shell companies she controlled.

The amounts taken out are staggering. Her loans made up 93% of all the bank's lending.

According to prosecutors, over a period of three years from February 2019, she ordered her driver to withdraw 108 trillion Vietnamese dong, more than $4bn (£2.3bn) in cash from the bank, and store it in her basement.

That much cash, even if all of it was in Vietnam's largest denomination banknotes, would weigh two tonnes.

She was also accused of bribing generously to ensure her loans were never scrutinised. One of those who was tried used to be a chief inspector at the central bank, who was accused of accepting a $5m bribe.

The mass of officially sanctioned publicity about the case channelled public anger over corruption against Truong My Lan, whose fatigued, unmade-up appearance in court was in stark contrast to the glamorous publicity photos people had seen of her in the past.

But questions are also being asked about why she was able to keep on with the alleged fraud for so long.

"I am puzzled," says Le Hong Hiep who runs the Vietnam Studies Programme at the ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.

"Because it wasn't a secret. It was well known in the market that Truong My Lan and her Van Thinh Phat group were using SCB as their own piggy bank to fund the mass acquisition of real estate in the most prime locations.

"It was obvious that she had to get the money from somewhere. But then it is such a common practice. SCB is not the only bank that is used like this. So perhaps the government lost sight because there are so many similar cases in the market."

David Brown believes she was protected by powerful figures who have dominated business and politics in Ho Chi Minh City for decades. And he sees a bigger factor in play in the way this trial is being run: a bid to reassert the authority of the Communist Party over the free-wheeling business culture of the south.

"What Nguyen Phu Trong and his allies in the party are trying to do is to regain control of Saigon, or at least stop it from slipping away.

"Up until 2016 the party in Hanoi pretty much let this Sino-Vietnamese mafia run the place. They would make all the right noises that local communist leaders are supposed to make, but at the same time they were milking the city for a substantial cut of the money that was being made down there."

At 79 years old, party chief Nguyen Phu Trong is in shaky health, and will almost certainly have to retire at the next Communist Party Congress in 2026, when new leaders will be chosen.

He has been one of the longest-serving and most consequential secretary-generals, restoring the authority of the party's conservative wing to a level not seen since the reforms of the 1980s. He clearly does not want to risk permitting enough openness to undermine the party's hold on political power.

But he is trapped in a contradiction. Under his leadership the party has set an ambitious goal of reaching rich country status by 2045, with a technology and knowledge-based economy. This is what is driving the ever-closer partnership with the United States.

Yet faster growth in Vietnam almost inevitably means more corruption. Fight corruption too much, and you risk extinguishing a lot of economic activity. Already there are complaints that bureaucracy has slowed down, as officials shy away from decisions which might implicate them in a corruption case.

"That's the paradox," says Le Hong Hiep. "Their growth model has been reliant on corrupt practices for so long. Corruption has been the grease that that kept the machinery working. If they stop the grease, things may not work any more."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.