The Hong Kong government is probably considering measures to strengthen its crackdown on anti-government protesters after Chinese President Xi Jinping issued a direct warning, urging the city to “end violence and restore order,” analysts say.
Stepping up the suppression, however, may backfire, fueling tensions in the city and further hurting its economy if protesters refuse to back down, they add.
Xi told a summit in Brazil Thursday that “persistent radical and violent crimes have seriously trampled on the basic principle of ‘one country, two systems’ scheme” in Hong Kong, the state news agency People’s Daily reported.
Xi’s warning
“Stopping the violence and restoring order is Hong Kong’s most urgent task at present,” he said.
Xi also expressed support for the city’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, the Hong Kong police, and its judiciary in punishing what he called “violent criminals.”
“The Chinese government is unwavering in safeguarding its sovereignty, security and developmental interests, implementing the ‘one country, two systems’ scheme and deterring any interference by foreign forces in Hong Kong affairs,” he added.
While a reiteration of Beijing’s long-held stance, Xi’s remarks are effectively a direct order for Lam to get tough and end the city’s five months of political unrest, said Sang Pu, a critic and Hong Kong commentator.
“This [stance] was reiterated by Xi Jinping in his statement in Brazil and this Brazil statement makes sure that suppression overrides and prevails everything else. And this suppression will not go away very easily,” Sang said.
On Friday, protesters continued to paralyze parts of Hong Kong for a fifth day, forcing schools to close and blocking some main roads, as university students barricaded campuses and authorities struggled to calm the violence.
Lam also condemned an “attack” in London on Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng during a confrontation with protesters, during which Cheng suffered “serious bodily harm,” according to Hong Kong government statement. Lam said the incident was barbaric and violated the principles of a civilized society, the Hong Kong government said.
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam addresses a news conference in Hong Kong, Nov. 11, 2019.
More emergency measures?
Sang said he believes Lam is considering emergency measures such as curfews or cutting off the Internet, as Xi’s statement followed a short-lived tweet by China’s tightly censored Global Times, saying that the city government was expected to announce a curfew this weekend.
The tweet was quickly deleted as by editor-in-chief Hu Xijin because there wasn’t sufficient information to back it up.
Media speculation was rife in Hong Kong that a meeting of ministers chaired by Lam late Wednesday was devoted to discussing emergency measures including the curfew. That led the city government to issue a press statement Thursday to clarify what it calls “rumors … totally unfounded.”
Sang said he believes the deleted tweet was meant to test the level of tolerance or fear for curfews among Hong Kongers while Lam gauges pressure from the outside world in deciding her next move.
Were Lam to step up the suppression against protesters, the city’s political crisis would worsen, as protesters would not back down, Sang said.
“Even if they’re tired, even this battle will not be the winning battle, they will still stride on because actually they have no other choices,” he said.
The reason is, he said “that if they now step back and then forgo any resistance anymore, the real suppression will come.”
“Many people including me myself and many other Hong Kongers will be arrested at home and even disappear suddenly,” he said.
FILE – A man inspects a Bestmart store that was vandalized during anti-government protests in Hong Kong, Oct. 21, 2019.
Escalation to hurt economy
The city’s political crisis appears to be deteriorating as internal conflicts aren’t easy to resolve, but any further escalation of tensions will badly hurt the city’s economy, said Liao Qun, chief economist at China CITIC Bank International.
Hong Kong “has already slipped into a recession in the third quarter and I expect to see another negative growth in the fourth quarter,” he said.
The recession will continue if the unrest fails to cool, he said, “However, if things cool down, we may begin to see a mild rebound.”
The economist warned that the city’s economy would take another hit if legislation under consideration in the U.S. Congress to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong were to become law, but that would not force China to change how it rules Hong Kong, said Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Beijing’s Renmin University.
The act, he said, “will definitely have a serious adverse impact on the China-U.S. relations, the Chinese economy and Hong Kong’s financial stability.”
“No matter how large an impact there is, the People’s Republic of China government’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty over Hong Kong and the city’s stability won’t waver,” he said.
Shi added that Beijing will firmly support the Hong Kong government’s decisions to solve its political crisis even if Lam decides to invoke her emergency powers.
Student protesters are barricading themselves at universities across Hong Kong, stockpiling makeshift weapons and turning campuses into what look like war zones. It marks a dangerous new phase in Hong Kong’s 5-month-old anti-government protests.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University now looks something more like a fortress. Hundreds of students have hunkered down, laying bricks to obstruct police vehicles they are certain eventually will arrive, and setting up multiple levels of security checkpoints. Inside, students arm themselves with whatever they can, including arrows, bricks and molotov cocktails.
Hong Kong has seen 24 weeks of protests, but what is taking place here is new. Students barricading themselves in at universities, preparing for extended confrontations. It’s the start of what could be a dangerous new phase of anti-government protests.”
WATCH: Inside Campus Fortresses, Hong Kong Students Prep for Battle
Inside Campus Fortresses, Hong Kong Students Prep for Battle video player.
Students don’t want to give their names. But this protester is eager to defend the aggressive tactics.
“We have seen the police brutality in Hong Kong … how can we tolerate that?”
This is going on in at least five Hong Kong campuses. Many schools canceled class for the semester. At the Chinese University of Hong Kong, police moved in earlier this week, prompting a night of clashes that looked more like battles for territory. Police later accused the students of turning the campuses into “weapons factories.”
But this protester says that’s unfair.
“The violence between us and the police is imbalanced. You can see that. We just use the things we have, just only some bottles or some plastic. But the police have the gun, have the tear gas. So the violence between us and the police is totally unbalanced.”
In the downtime, the students test their weapons, which sometimes don’t work. A light moment that masks the gravity of what they’re doing.
“All the protesters are scared. Because maybe we will die. But we think if we don’t stand up this day, all the freedom in Hong Kong will lose. So there is no way to [go] back for us.”
These are student protesters who know they’ll probably lose, but who nonetheless are prepared to fight.
Millions of Americans have been watching the U.S. House of Representatives impeachment inquiry hearings into President Donald Trump. Mike O’Sullivan reports from Los Angeles, some voters support the process and others agree with Trump that it’s politically motivated.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, in a televised speech to the nation earlier this week, announced that his government would release three prominent Taliban members in exchange for two Westerners abducted by the Taliban as a confidence-building measure with the insurgent group.
“We have decided to conditionally release three Taliban prisoners who have been detained outside of Afghanistan with the help and coordination of our international partners and have been kept in Bagram prison [north of Kabul] in Afghanistan for some time,” Ghani said.
The Western hostages are American Kevin King and Australian Timothy John Weeks who have been in Taliban’s captivity since 2016 when they were abducted from the capital, Kabul. Both were professors at the American University of Afghanistan.
Timothy Weeks of Australia, left and American Kevin King (photo taken from video sent to VOA from Taliban).
Conflicting reports
Since Ghani’s announcement of the deal Tuesday, there have been several conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the three inmates, with no comments from the Afghan government.
Some reports say the inmates have been transferred to Qatar where the Taliban has a political office, while other reports allege they are still in Afghanistan.
However, a spokesperson for the Afghan Taliban told VOA Friday that the inmates have not left the prison, and he blamed the U.S. for the failure of the swap.
“As per the deal with the Americans, our prisoners were to be taken to the mutually agreed safe location and freed there. We would have then released and handed the American (and his colleague) over to them,” Zabihullah Mujahid explained in a Pashto-language audio message he sent to VOA, implying that the talks were with the U.S. not the Afghan government.
U.S. officials have not immediately reacted to the Taliban claim.
The Afghan Ministry of Defense declined to comment on the issue or the whereabouts of the inmates. An Afghan diplomat Wednesday confirmed to Reuters, on condition of anonymity, that the deal has fallen apart.
In announcing the decision, Ghani said while it was not “easy,” it was “necessary.”
“I have said this several times that enduring and dignified peace requires us to, one day, pay its bitter price. But this price would not come at the expense of the republic,” Ghani added.
Reactions among Afghans were mixed, with some hoping that it would lead to the beginning of direct dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban, who have refused so far to talk to the Afghan government, calling it a “puppet” regime. Others viewed it as an insult to the victims of the terror attacks carried out by the militants in Afghanistan over the years.
FILE – This handout photo taken Oct. 15, 2014 by the Afghan National Directorate of Security shows Taliban prisoner Anas Haqqani, a senior leader of the Haqqani network, in Kabul.
Who are the inmates?
The three prisoners are prominent Taliban leaders, including Anas Haqqani, the younger brother of the Taliban’s deputy, Sirajuddin Haqqani, who leads the Haqqani Network, a U.S.-designated terror group. The others are Mali Khan, a senior member of the Haqqani Network who has family relations to the founder of the terror group, and Qari Abdul Rashid Omari, who was in charge of southeastern Afghanistan for the Haqqani Network before his arrest.
Mali Khan was arrested in 2011 in a U.S. forces raid in Afghanistan’s Paktika province. Omari and Anas Haqqani were arrested in 2014 while traveling in the Persian Gulf, according to Long War Journal, a think tank following developments related to the Afghan war.
“Khan, Rasheed, and Anas are three dangerous Taliban commanders, and the Taliban has been seeking their release since their capture,” Bill Roggio, founder of Long War Journal and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told VOA.
FILE – An Afghan policeman body checks a man in Khost, Afghanistan, Oct. 2, 2011. Security measures are tight after the capture of Haji Mali Khan, a senior Haqqani leader inside Afghanistan.
“Khan has served just about every position within the Haqqani Network, including its operations commander for eastern Afghanistan. Rasheed served as the Haqqani’s military commander in eastern Afghanistan. And Anas is a key propagandist, fundraiser and ambassador for the Haqqanis,” Roggio added.
Of the three, Mali Khan is viewed by experts as the most influential member of the Haqqani network, both because of his age and his close family ties to the founders of the network. He has alleged family ties to both Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin Haqqani. Khan’s sister is Sirajuddin Haqqani’s mother, and Jalaluddin Haqqani’s sister is married to Khan’s uncle.
Concerns
There are concerns among some analysts that, if released, the three members of the Taliban would return to the battlefield.
“I have no doubt that the three will return to the fight in some capacity. For instance, Anas can resume his role even if confined to Qatar or another country,” analyst Roggio said.
“All three provide the Taliban a key propaganda victory, and will, at the minimum, aid the group in fundraising,” he added.
Michael Semple, a longtime expert on Afghanistan, however, believes that risks associated with their release are not so much about their return to battlefield.
“Now I personally think that the risks associated with releasing them are more about propaganda and morale rather than as operational,” Semple told VOA. “All three of them have long been replaced in roles they had.”
Confidence building
While Ghani sees the prisoner release as a confidence building measure, analyst Semple believes the Taliban don’t. They rather see it as a matter of prestige that they “look after their own,” he said.
“I do not believe that the leaders of the Taliban movement entered into this deal as a confidence building measure to bring peace about,” Semple said.
Sher Jan Ahmadzai, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, believes that these goodwill gestures have to be part of a larger mechanism.
“Prisoners exchange, talks, meetings and cease-fire should result in a permanent peace not in the release of prisoners with no permanent peace guarantees,” he said.
Jason H. Campbell, a policy researcher at Washington-based Rand Corp, echoes Ahmadzai’s concerns.
“The question I still have is whether this exchange is a first step of something larger or just a one-off attempt to build some degree of trust,” he said.
“If it is the former, Ghani is taking a big political risk as the Taliban understand that if nothing else materializes, it can have a negative impact on the political unity in Kabul,” he added.
Refusing to talk to the Afghan government, the Taliban have held nine rounds of direct talks with the U.S. in Qatar’s capital city, Doha, with both sides closing in on a deal, before President Donald Trump called off the talks in September, citing increased violence in Afghanistan perpetrated by the militants in an attempt to gain more leverage at the negotiation table.
VOA’s Ayaz Gul contributed to this story from Islamabad.
Washington’s defense cost-sharing demand could hurt the U.S.-South Korean alliance, said a former military general, suggesting the demand seems to stem from “a new paradigm” the Trump administration has adopted.
Bernard Champoux, a retired three-star general who served as commander of the Eighth Army in South Korea during the Obama administration, said he is “concerned about the impact” the increased cost-sharing demand “will have on the alliance.”
The U.S. has been asking South Korea to pay more for keeping about 28,500 American troops in South Korea in the cost-sharing deal set to expire at the end of this year.
In the last round of negotiations for the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) held in October in Honolulu, Washington asked Seoul to pay about $5 billion for next year, an amount that is more than five times the $924 million Seoul agreed to shoulder for this year.
Incoming Commander General of the Eighth U.S. Army, Lt. Gen. Thomas Vandal, second from left, ROK-US Combined Forces Command and U.S. Forces Korea Commander Curtis Scaparrotti, center, and outgoing Commander General of the Eighth U.S. Army, Lt. Gen. Bernard Champoux, second from right, during a change of command ceremony at Yongsan Garrison in Seoul, South Korea, Feb. 2, 2016.
New cost-sharing paradigm
Champoux said the U.S. demand for the increased defense cost-sharing stems from a “new paradigm” adopted by the Trump administration.
Champoux said the increased cost-sharing demand “is not a negotiating tactic because this is the result of a new paradigm.” He continued, “It’s perhaps consistent with the way this administration has looked at the burden sharing of all our allies, to include Japan and the NATO allies.”
As a way of pushing his “American First” policy, a slogan Trump used in his presidential campaign, Trump has given a priority to U.S. national economic interests in broad-ranging foreign policy issues including trade and military alliances.
The approach had Trump declaring the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), America’s military alliance with North American and European countries, was “obsolete” and costing too much in January, only to roll back to say, “It’s no longer obsolete” in April.
For years before he entered the political arena, Trump had complained that U.S. allies did not pay the U.S. enough for bases and troops used in their defense and, earlier this year, pushed for the “Cost Plus 50” plan.
“Wealthy, wealthy countries that we’re protecting are all under notice,” said Trump in January.
Trump has backed away from pushing the plan, and it is uncertain whether it will become official U.S. policy, but the idea is being played out in Washington’s defense cost-sharing negotiations with Seoul.
FILE – New chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley speaks during his welcome ceremony, Sept. 30, 2019, at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Va.
Mark Milley, chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the American public needs an explanation of how much it costs for U.S. forces to defend wealthy countries like South Korea and Japan. He made the remark while en route to Tokyo on Sunday. He arrived in Seoul on Wednesday and met with South Korean General Park Han-Ki for the Annual Military Committee Meeting.
“The average American looking at the forward deployed U.S. troops in South Korea and Japan asks some fundamental questions: Why are they needed there? How much does it cost? These are very rich and wealthy countries, why can’t they defend themselves?” Milley said.
He continued, “It is incumbent on us … to make sure we adequately explain how the U.S. military is a stabilizing force in Northeast Asia.”
Ahead of Milley’s trip, Randall Schriver, assistant defense secretary for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, said the U.S. allies “have to be willing to pick up a larger share of the burden, as the president has emphasized globally, not just related to South Korea.”
Champoux says Washington’s steep increase in Seoul’s burden of defense cost could impact the alliance in a way that could benefit its adversaries.
“Our adversaries would love there to be an issue or challenge that drives a wedge in the alliance,” Champoux said.
David Maxwell, a former U.S. Special Forces colonel and current fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said, “Of course, Korean people are asking why should they pay more.” He continued, “We are heading for a train wreck.”
On Wednesday, North Korea, one of the adversaries considered by the U.S., expressed anger over the planned joint military drills between the U.S. and South Korea scheduled for December saying they are “hostile” to North Korea. It vowed to respond with “force in kind,” through a statement carried by its official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and South Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo shake hands for the media before the 51st Security Consultative Meeting at the Defense Ministry in Seoul, South Korea, Nov. 15, 2019.
North Korea’s statement came as U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday while traveling to Seoul that he is open to the possibility of adjusting the joint drills to provide space for diplomacy.
In Seoul, Esper will be attending the 51st U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting on Friday where he is expected to discuss with South Korea a host of important alliance issues, including the defense cost-sharing deal and an intelligence-sharing pact set to expire this month, which Seoul announced in August that it will terminate with Tokyo against the U.S. urges.
After the 44th Military Committee Meeting in Seoul on Thursday, Milley said the U.S. remains ready to use “the full range of U.S. military capabilities” to respond to “any attacks on the Korean Peninsula” according to a joint statement.
VOA Korean reporter Christy Lee contributed to this report
The impeachment inquiry involving President Donald Trump moved into an important new phase this week — public hearings. Opposition Democrats believe Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden. They hope the hearings will sway public opinion to support their case against the president, just as Republicans are counting on an aggressive defense to move the public to oppose impeachment. VOA national correspondent Jim Malone has more on the political stakes in the impeachment battle from Washington.
A boy described as bright, quiet and “normal” pulled a gun from his backpack on his 16th birthday and opened fire at his high school before saving the last bullet for himself, authorities said.
The shooting that killed two teenagers and wounded three others Thursday at Saugus High School in a Los Angeles suburb took 16 seconds and left the attacker hospitalized in critical condition with a head wound, authorities said.
Investigators searched the boy’s home as they sought a motive for the attack, which seemed to target students at random, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Captain Kent Wegener said.
Authorities said the teenager apparently acted alone. There was no indication he was affiliated with a group or ideology, said Paul Delacourt, the agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office.
D.J. Hamburger, center in blue, a teacher at Saugus High School, comforts a student after reports of a shooting at the school, Nov. 14, 2019, in Santa Clarita, Calif.
Gunfire erupted about 7:30 a.m. as students were “milling around” and greeting each other in an outdoor quad area, Wegener said. Surveillance video showed the shooter standing still while “everyone is active around him.”
“He just fires from where he is. He doesn’t chase anybody. He doesn’t move,” Wegener said.
The suspect appeared to fire at whoever was in front of him. He had no known connection to those he shot, Wegener said.
Video showed the last thing the assailant did was shoot himself with the final bullet in the .45-caliber handgun, Wegener said. The weapon was empty when it was recovered.
Saugus High School, Santa Clarita, California
A 16-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy died.
Two girls, ages 14 and 15, were each in good condition after being treated for gunshot wounds at a hospital.
A 14-year-old boy was treated and released from another hospital, authorities said.
Shauna Orandi, 16, was in her Spanish class when she heard four gunshots and a student burst into the room saying he’d seen the shooter.
“My worst nightmare actually came true,” she said. “This is it. I’m gonna die.” She was later escorted from the school and reunited with her father in a nearby park.
A sheriff’s detective and two off-duty police officers from Los Angeles and Inglewood who had dropped off children at the school ran to the shooting within moments and provided first aid, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said.
Police have not publicly identified the suspect because he’s a minor. The Associated Press determined his identity based on property records for his home and interviews with three of his friends.
Flowers and cards are placed in front of Saugus High School in the aftermath of a shooting, Nov. 14, 2019, in Santa Clarita, Calif.
The suspect lived with his mother in a modest home on a leafy street in Santa Clarita, a Los Angeles suburb of about 210,000 people known for good schools, safe streets and relatively affordable housing.
He was a smart, quiet boy who played chess and had been active in a local Boy Scout troop, acquaintances said.
A girl who knew him for years said he wasn’t bullied and had a girlfriend.
The teen’s father died two years ago. An online obituary said he loved big-game hunting. In 2015, the father had been arrested amid a domestic dispute with the boy’s mother but no charges were filed.
The Sheriff’s Department hadn’t been called to the home recently and there was no indication of “turmoil” there, Wegener said.
Saugus High has no metal detectors but it has a dozen security cameras and a fence with a limited number of gates. Security is provided by one unarmed sheriff’s deputy and nine “campus supervisors” who act as guards, said Collyn Nielson, chief administrative officer for the William S. Hart Union High School District, which canceled classes for Friday.
All district schools hold lockdown drills three times a year, including two in the fall that have already occurred, Nielson said.
“In speaking with staff and hearing reports, students reported they knew what to do and immediately went into lockdown mode,” he said.
VOA Serbian service’s Jela de Franceschi spoke with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about the shifting global alliances in the current political environment.
Q. Both sides of the Atlantic are undergoing political upheaval, unprecedented in a sense. We have impeachment proceedings in the U.S., the third time in modern American history, and we have Brexit in Europe, which has been a prolonged process. Does that affect larger security issues at all?
Stoltenberg: I think what we have seen is that despite issues like these over decades on both sides of the Atlantic that NATO has proven that while we come to different opinions about Brexit and different opinions about the issues in the (impeachment) hearings in the Congress, we will continue to be a strong and adaptable alliance. That has happened so many times before. These important issues will not undermine NATO.
FILE – Brexit supporters display their signs in front of Parliament in London, Oct. 23, 2019.
Q. They don’t affect NATO?
Stoltenberg: As I have stated many times, it is about how to manage differences and small and big crisis — from the Suez Crisis in 1956, to the French withdrawal from the NATO military cooperation in 1966, when actually France, one of the major allies, left the military cooperation with NATO. It was also an issue when Turkey went into Cyprus in 1974, or when we had the Iraq war, some allies were in favor, some were against it.
So, these are serious issues where we have seen differences between allies, but again and again we have been able to unite around our core task to protect and defend each other based on the idea ‘one for all, all for one.’ And the reason why we do that is because this in our own national security interest; we are safer and stronger when we are together.
That is the reason why we are able to overcome these differences. I am not saying that the differences are without importance. We see them today on trade and climate change, and the situation in northeast Syria. However, again I, if we look back, I think what we can learn from history that it is possible to overcome these differences if we have the political will. Moreover, I feel that the political will is there to maintain a strong bond between North America and Europe.
FILE – People stuck flowers in remains of the Berlin Wall during a commemoration ceremony to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall at Bernauer Strasse in Berlin, Nov. 9, 2019.
Q. There is also a huge global shift that is taking place. NATO started as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, which disappeared. It had a relatively peaceful period after the Berlin Wall fell. Now we have rising powers. We have Russia, which maybe is not a power in the economic sense, but military it is. Then we have China that has declared that it wants to overcome America by 2025. From NATO’s perspective, how would you signify this?
Stoltenberg: NATO is the most successful alliance in history for two reasons: partly because of a unity, that we have been able to unite around our own core task despite differences on many other issues. The other reason why we are the most successful ones in history is that we have been able to adapt to change when the world is changing for 40 years, we did only one thing. We deterred the Soviet Union in Europe.
Then the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War ended, and people started to ask do we need NATO? And they said either NATO has to go out of area, meaning to go into operations outside the NATO area, which was never done before.
So out of area, or out of business.
And what NATO did, we actually went beyond NATO territory. We went into the Balkans. We helped to end the bloodshed there.
We also did something we have never done before. We became part of the fight against international terrorism. After 9/11 we went into Afghanistan. And since then we have been participating in different missions.
Now NATO has to adapt again, partly because we see a more assertive Russia, illegally annexing Crimea, but also because we see new threats, new challenges — cyber-hybrid, but also the rise of China. We need to understand all kinds of implications of the shifting global balance of power has for our security. There are some opportunities but also some obvious challenges. China has the second largest defense budget in the world. They are modernizing their armed forces.
The recent display of many new hypersonic advanced missiles intercontinental missiles. In addition, of course we need to fully understand the consequences. So, what we are doing is this, that we once again are proving that we are adaptable, that we are able to change the way the world is changing.
FILE – Militia members and soldiers of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) march past Tiananmen Square during a rehearsal before a military parade marking the 70th founding anniversary of People’s Republic of China, on its National Day in Beijing.
Q. One thing that China also is doing is it has a combination of military and economic power. And it has also, it has a strong presence in Europe. At a recent hearing in Congress, some experts were saying that China is building infrastructure in some countries that are defaulting on the financial, enabling China to take over the various infrastructure projects to the point that it could threaten NATO. Let’s say if they have access to European ports, they could block movement of NATO’s ships in various circumstance. Are you worried about that?
Stoltenberg: Our military operations and forces depend on civilian infrastructure, on roads, bridges, harbors, airports, cables crossing the Atlantic and telecommunications networks and so on. That is the reason why we also developed what we call resilience guidelines. And we recently updated one of them the way we call them basic requirements actually for a civilian infrastructure.
Recently we updated our basic requirements for the telecommunications to include 5G, which is one of the areas where we really are seeing big changes and where societies will be completely transformed by the move from 4G to 5G.
And that’s a way for us to make sure that we have functioning safe and secure critical infrastructure in peace, in crisis, and of course also in conflict.
Q. Is that something that NATO can influence while accepting new members like Macedonia, like Serbia in the future.
Stoltenberg: Well other countries that join NATO they have to meet their two standards. They have to have of course a safe and secure way of communications. For instance, there are requirements for civilian infrastructure and telecommunications as 5G, they also apply for new members like North Macedonia.
They do not apply for nonmembers. We cannot force nonmembers. We can ask them and again, we can advise them and zone. It is for Serbia to decide what kind of telecommunications they have and how they organize their civilian infrastructure. We welcome the fact that Serbia is a close partner. We work with Serbia. We recently had the will of our civilian preparedness exercises in Serbia. And I visited Belgrade. Met with the Serbian president. And we actually inaugurated the start of that exercise, which shows that we are working together. Serbia is a neutral country. Serbia is not aiming or striving for NATO membership. It is up to Serbia to decide.
Q. Why is it important for NATO to have open doors and take in countries, small countries, which are militarily- and security-wise not that strong and cannot contribute in a substantial manner.
Stoltenberg: Because when our neighbors are more stable, we are more secure. And, of course, when neighbors join NATO then we become even more stable and even more secure. One of the great successes of NATO is that we started with 12 countries. We had a significant increase at the end of the Cold War with 16 members of NATO. Now we are soon to be 30, almost twice as many.
Those were former countries in Eastern and Central Europe joining NATO and many of them also joining the European Union. That means that hundreds of millions of people were invited into the community of NATO. And that has helped create democracy that underpins the prosperity and peace. We see a Europe, which is more united, more at peace than Europe has probably ever been.
The normal situation in Europe was conflict, war between European countries for centuries and then another Cold War dividing totally Europe. There are problems. We have Ukraine, we have Georgia. We have all other challenges where we see instability and Russia crushing sovereignty.
But overall, what you have seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall 30 years ago is an enormous achievement for everyone who believes in peace, democracy, freedom because we have a much more united and much more peaceful Europe. And that’s where much because of a need to want enlargement.
Q. What is the biggest challenge that you think NATO faced during these 70 years of existence?
Stoltenberg: The greatest success is of course that NATO made it possible to end the Cold War without a shot being fired in Europe. And by doing that we created the conditions for the fall of the Berlin Wall for the unification of Germany and for the reunification of Europe.
Q. So, the Berlin Wall is the pinnacle?
Stoltenberg: It’s a symbol of the most important achievement that that after 40 years — from 1949 to 1989 — 40 years of existence we were able to prevent war, a confrontation between the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, and NATO and actually contribute to the opposite, peace and reconciliation between countries in east and west of Europe.
Then there are of course, there are many other challenges. We are now living in a totally new time where we have terrorism. We have a shifting balance of power globally and we have cyber and many other things. But historically then I think that the end of the Cold War and the way it ended is NATO’s greatest achievement.
Q. What is the greatest challenge now?
Stoltenberg: The unpredictability. During the Cold War it was very clear what was the challenge. Now there are so many that are more different threats and challenges. It is hard to predict. It is hard to foresee the unforeseen. However, we have to be prepared for the unforeseen. That is the reason why we need an agile NATO ready to be able to react when a new crisis occurs.
Chile braced for another day of intense protests on Thursday, with demonstrators gathering around the country to mark one year since a young indigenous man was shot dead by police in circumstances that are still under investigation.
According to fliers circulating on social media, 18 protests are planned for urban centers around Chile in the late afternoon, with more planned outside Chilean embassies abroad.
The father of Camilo Catrillanca, a Mapuche man from the southern Araucania region which has long been in conflict with the state, appealed to people to demonstrate “calmly.”
“We don’t want to mourn the death of any young person, whether Mapuche or from elsewhere, because for us it would be to relive the pain again,” he told local radio station Cooperativa.
Camilo Catrillanca, the grandson of an indigenous leader, was shot in the head in November 2018 in a police operation in a rural community near the town of Ercilla, 480 miles (772 km) south of Santiago.
The incident — and subsequent accusations of cover-up — triggered huge protests throughout Chile. Four police offers are due to go on trial on charges of homicide and obstruction of justice later this month.
Thursday’s planned protests follow on from four weeks of intense unrest that started over a hike in public transport fares but have broadened to encompass grievances over low wages, the high cost of living and social inequality.
President Sebastian Pinera announced a state of emergency as violent riots took hold, then a costly new social plan. He reshuffled his government and appealed for Chileans to subscribe to national accords around justice, equality and peace.
Yet still, the protests continue, so far leaving 24 people dead, more than 7,000 arrested, 2,800 police and civilians injured and millions of dollars of damage done to property in looting and arson attacks, according to the government and rights group.
The police have come under fire for their handling of the demonstrations, with medical experts saying that more than 200 protesters have suffered eye injuries or been blinded by tear gas canisters and rubber bullets. This week, the police chief said he would fit firearms officers with surveillance cameras and deploy more human rights experts.
Ana Piquer, the executive director of Amnesty International Chile, said Pinera should respond to the many complaints of police excesses.
“We don’t want to see any more victims of police violence anywhere in Chile, killed or seriously injured simply for raising their voice on social demands,” she said.
Kattya Barrera, 19, a resident of Santiago’s low-income La Florida neighborhood preparing to join Thursday’s protests, said she believed nothing had changed since Catrillanca’s death.
“When someone goes out to demonstrate, they take out their eyes,” she said. “Today isn’t just about Catrillanca, it’s for everyone.”
Ten Democratic presidential candidates were expected to qualify for next Wednesday’s debate in Georgia, giving voters a smaller lineup on stage to consider even as the party’s overall field expands.
Those poised to meet the Democratic National Committee’s polling and grassroots fundraising thresholds were: former Vice President Joe Biden; New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana; Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard; California Sen. Kamala Harris; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar; Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders; billionaire activist Tom Steyer of California; Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang of New York.
DNC officials planned to finalize the lineup later Thursday after reviewing qualifying polls and grassroots donor lists submitted by the campaigns.
Former Obama administration housing chief Julian Castro is the most high-profile remaining candidate seen as falling short of the benchmarks. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas ended his campaign last month. Those two created headlines with their earlier debate performances, including some spirited exchanges with each other.
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and author Marianne Williamson already have missed debates as the party chairman, Tom Perez, continues to raise qualification requirements.
This month, candidates were required to have reached 3% in at least four qualifying national polls since Sept. 13 or 5% in two early nominating state polls since that date, while also having collected contributions from at least 165,000 unique donors, with at least 600 each in a minimum of 20 states.
Some candidates have criticized Perez for the requirements. Some argue that the donor emphasis has forced them to spend disproportionately for online fundraising efforts that drain resources they could be using to reach voters other ways. Perez counters that candidates have had ample time to demonstrate their supporter, both in polls and through small-dollar contributors, and that any Democrat falling short this far into the campaign almost certainly isn’t positioned to win the nomination or defeat President Donald Trump.
Perez already has announced even stiffer requirements for a Dec. 19 debate. The polling marks: 4% in four national polls or 6% in two early state polls taken after Oct. 16. The donor threshold: 200,000 unique donors with at least 800 each from 20 states.
Biden, Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg — the four who top most national and early state polls — are not threatened by those goals. Harris and Klobuchar already have met them, as well. But the higher targets put pressure on several other candidates to broaden their support or risk falling out of any reasonable contention with less than three months to go before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses.
Two new candidates also could be vying for December spots.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick launched his campaign Thursday and filed to appear on New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary ballot, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering a bid as well, while already having filed paperwork for some Super Tuesday primaries.
Patrick has strong ties to Wall Street and deep-pocketed Democratic donors. Bloomberg is among the world’s wealthiest men. Both may be able to afford television advertising and other campaign operations relatively quickly. But, just as Perez has said throughout the process, debate slots intended not as rewards for the amount a campaign raises or spends, but as a recognition of how much support a candidate has attracted.
Next week’s debate will be broadcast on MSNBC from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST.
A day of testimony in the impeachment inquiry targeting U.S. President Donald Trump changed no minds in Washington, with his critics convinced as ever that he abused his office by pushing Ukraine for political investigations of Democrats in the U.S. and his staunchest allies unwavering in their opinion that he did nothing wrong.
Trump declared on Twitter, “This Impeachment Hoax is such a bad precedent and sooo bad for our Country!”
….that the House Democrats have done since she’s become Speaker, other than chase Donald Trump.” This Impeachment Hoax is such a bad precedent and sooo bad for our Country!
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, said that Trump’s actions amounted to bribery — temporarily withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine while pushing for an investigation of one of his chief 2020 Democratic challengers, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, talks to reporters on the morning after the first public hearing in the impeachment probe of President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Nov. 14, 2019.
“The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections. That’s bribery,” Pelosi said at a news conference. “What the president has admitted to and says it’s perfect, I say it’s perfectly wrong. It’s bribery.”
Trump called Wednesday’s testimony from two career U.S. diplomats detailing his efforts to get Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open the investigation of Biden “a joke.” The U.S. leader delighted in retweeting comments from supporters, including Congressman Mark Meadows’s assessment that the hearing was “a MAJOR setback for the unfounded impeachment fantasy.”
But Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that could soon push for Trump’s impeachment, called the day’s testimony “pretty damning.” However, Nadler said he would remain open-minded “for the moment” on whether articles of impeachment should be written.
White House adviser Kellyanne Conway told CNN, “The president was very placid. I’ll tell you why. There was nothing new yesterday.”
FILE – White House adviser Kellyanne Conway talks with reporters outside the White House, in Washington, Nov. 7, 2019.
She dismissed the importance of the day’s major news from the first of several days of the public impeachment inquiry, only the fourth against a U.S. president in the country’s 243-year history.
William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified that an aide of his overheard a cell phone conversation at a Kyiv restaurant on July 26 in which Trump asked Gordon Sondland, a million-dollar Trump political donor and now the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, about whether Ukraine was opening “the investigations” he wanted about Biden, his son Hunter Biden’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company and a debunked theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election Trump won. The U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia was behind the election meddling.
The overheard conversation occurred a day after Trump from the White House asked Zelenskiy in a half-hour call for “a favor” — the investigations of the Bidens — at a time when he was blocking release of $391 million in military aid to Ukraine that it needed to help fight pro-Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country.
FILE – U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on the sidelines of the 74th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Sept. 25, 2019.
Taylor said his aide, David Holmes, told him that Sondland said he believed Trump was more concerned about the investigations of the Bidens, which Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was pursuing, than anything else in Ukraine.
Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee conducting the impeachment inquiry, called the previously undisclosed phone conversation “so explosive.”
But Trump adviser Conway said, “You’re calling that evidence, respectfully. In a real court of law we’d not be referring to something as evidence that is, oh, someone on my staff recalled overhearing a conversation between someone else and the president where they think they heard the president use the word investigations. This is not what due process and the rule of law in our great democracy allows.”
Trump said he knew “nothing” about the alleged Kyiv call from Sondland.
FILE – U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland arrives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Oct. 17, 2019.
Impeachment investigators are interviewing Holmes, the Taylor aide, on Friday, while Sondland is set to testify before the impeachment inquiry next Wednesday. Sondland has already testified for hours in private behind closed doors, telling investigators that he told an aide to Zelenskiy that Ukraine would not get the military assistance unless the Ukrainian leader promised publicly that it would initiate the Biden investigations.
Trump at one point called Sondland a “‘great American,” but after he revised his testimony to say there were conditions on the Ukraine aid, Trump contended, “I hardly know the gentleman.”
Trump has denied a quid pro quo with Zelenskiy – release of the military aid in exchange for the Biden investigations – and described his July 25 call with Zelenskiy as “perfect.” After a 55-day delay, Trump released the military assistance on Sept. 11 without Ukraine undertaking the Biden investigations.
Trump’s Republican supporters say the fact that he released the aid without Ukraine investigating the Bidens is prime evidence there was no quid pro quo. They also pointed to the testimony from Taylor and George Kent, the State Department’s top Ukraine overseer, that they have had no personal interactions with Trump during the months that the Ukraine drama has played out.
Trump called the diplomats “NEVER TRUMPERS,” but both denied the characterization and cited their long service in the diplomatic corps under both Republican and Democratic presidents.
FILE – Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch (C) arrives on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Oct. 11, 2019.
The House Intelligence Committee is now turning its attention to Friday’s testimony from Marie Yovanovitch, a former U.S. ambassador to Kyiv who was ousted from her posting earlier this year by the Trump administration months before her tour of duty was set to end.
Her dismissal, according to career diplomats who watched helplessly as it unfolded, came after Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney he had assigned to oversee Ukraine affairs outside normal State Department channels, pushed for her removal, viewing her as an impediment to getting Ukraine to undertake the Biden investigations.
Trump called Yovanovitch “bad news” in his July call with Zelenskiy.
Next week, the impeachment panel is calling eight more witnesses, including two on Tuesday who listened in as Trump talked with Zelenskiy — Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who serves as director for European affairs on the White House’s National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, a foreign affairs aide to Vice President Mike Pence.
Political analysts in Washington say the Trump impeachment drama could last for several months. If Trump is impeached by a simple majority in the House, perhaps by the end of the year as appears possible, a trial would be held in January in the Republican-majority Senate, where a two-thirds vote would be needed for his conviction and removal from office.
The time frame could bump up against the first Democratic party presidential nominating contests starting in February, when voters will begin voting on who they want to oppose Trump when he seeks a second four-year term in the November 2020 national election. Six Democratic senators are among those running for the party’s presidential nomination, but could be forced to stay in Washington to sit as jurors in the 100-member Senate as it decides Trump’s fate, rather than campaign full-time for the presidency.
Trump’s removal remains unlikely, with at least 20 Republicans needed to turn against him and vote for his conviction. To date, while a small number of Republicans have criticized Trump for his actions on Ukraine, no Republican senator has called for his removal from office via impeachment, a drastic action that has never occurred in U.S. history.
A band of GOP senators rebuffed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s effort to depict anti-Islamic State Kurd forces as terrorists in a contentious Oval Office meeting, as the White House allies took a far harder line against Erdogan than did President Donald Trump.
Participants said Erdogan played a propaganda video for Republican senators attending Wednesday’s meeting, drawing a rebuke from Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and others.
Graham said Thursday that he asked Erdogan, “do you want me to get the Kurds to play a video about what your forces have done?”
The lawmakers also told Erdogan that he is risking economic sanctions by going ahead with a new Russian anti-aircraft missile system.
The exchange behind the scenes was far more confrontational than the reception Trump gave Erdogan in public.
U.N. agencies say early next year, several countries will begin testing a nuclear technique that sterilizes male mosquitoes to control the spread of dengue, Zika and chikungunya to humans. Guidance for testing countries has been developed by the Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization.
The World Health Organization says diseases transmitted by mosquitoes account for 17 percent of all infectious diseases globally. It says every year, more than 700,000 people die from diseases such as malaria, dengue, Zika, chikungunya and yellow fever.
The WHO says dengue has increased dramatically in recent years due to factors such as environmental changes, urban sprawl, and transportation and travel, putting half the world’s population at risk of catching the diseases.
Jeremy Bouver is a medical entomologist at the joint Food and Agriculture Organization and International Atomic Energy Agency. He says a novel technique that uses radiation to sterilize male mosquitoes offers new opportunities for controlling disease. He describes the Sterile Insect Technique as a form of insect birth control.
“You release sterile males that will out compete the wild males in the field and they will induce sterility in the females so that their eggs will not hatch,” Bouver said. “And, so, you will control the next generation. And, if you do that for a long time enough, you will be able to reduce and even, in some cases, eliminate the target population.”
The technique was developed in the late 1950s by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and has been successfully used to control insect pests from attacking crops and livestock, such as the Mediterranean fruit fly.
A pilot program that will start early next year will be the first time the Sterile Insect Technique will be tested targeting human diseases. The countries where the trials will take place will be announced next year, although a few likely candidates reportedly include the United States, France and Brazil.
The U.S. government recorded a $134 billion budget deficit in October, the first month of the new fiscal year, the Treasury Department said Wednesday.
That compared to a budget deficit of $100 billion in the same month last year, according to the Treasury’s monthly budget statement.
Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast a $133 billion deficit for the month.
Unadjusted receipts last month totaled $246 billion, down 3% from October 2018, while unadjusted outlays were $380 billion, a rise of 8% from the same month a year earlier.
The U.S. government’s fiscal year ends in September each year. Fiscal 2019 saw a widening in the deficit to $984 billion, the largest budget deficit in seven years, a result of the Trump administration’s decision to cut taxes and increase government spending.
Those figures reflected the second full budget year under U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican, and a time when the country had an expanding tax base with moderate economic growth and an unemployment rate near a 50-year low.
When adjusted for calendar effects, the deficit for October remained at $134 billion compared with an adjusted deficit of $113 billion in October 2018.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives have a healthy 10-point lead ahead of an election on Dec. 12, a poll by Savanta ComRes showed on Wednesday, extending their advantage over Labour after the Brexit Party stood down candidates.
The poll, carried out for the Daily Telegraph newspaper, showed the Conservative Party with 40%, up 3 points from a poll last week, ahead of Labour on 30%, up 1 point.
The poll was conducted after Nigel Farage said his Brexit Party would not put candidates up in Conservative-held seats, a major boost to Johnson. The Brexit Party will still stand candidates in Labour-held seats.
“The Brexit Party’s decision not to stand in Conservativeseats is likely to have an obvious positive impact on the overall Conservative vote share,” said Chris Hopkins, Head of Politics at ComRes.
“But it’s those Labour-held seats that the Conservatives need to win for a majority, and the Brexit Party could still scupper those best-laid plans.”
The poll showed the Liberal Democrats on 16% and the Brexit Party on 7%. Voting analysis website Electoral Calculus said the vote shares implied a Conservative majority of 110 seats. The online poll of 2,022 adults was carried out on Nov. 11-12.
Microsoft is bringing holograms to the office. The company recently started shipping its 2nd version of HoloLens, a headset that allows users to touch and interact with 3D holograms in everyday settings. Various industries have begun experimenting with the new computing device and VOA’s Tina Trinh had a chance to check it out.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services naturalized 833,000 people — an 11-year high in new oaths of citizenship — in fiscal 2019, which ended Sept. 30. This fiscal year, USCIS administered the Oath of Allegiance to 60 of America’s newest citizens, from 51 countries, during a special naturalizing ceremony Tuesday at Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian. Saqib Ul Islam talked to some of the new citizens about how they feel and what they are looking forward to as a U.S. citizen.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is telling allies that he will join the 2020 presidential race, according to two people familiar with his plans. An official announcement is expected before Friday, the filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary.
His move injects a new layer of uncertainty into the contest less than three months before the first votes. Patrick, a popular two-term Democratic governor with a moderate bearing and close ties to former President Barack Obama, is starting late but with a compelling life story and political resume.
The two people with knowledge of Patrick’s plans spoke to The Associated Press on Wednesday on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
FILE – Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg talks to the media after filing paperwork to appear on the ballot in Arkansas’ March 3 presidential primary, Nov. 12, 2019 in Little Rock, Ark.
In addition to Patrick, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has taken steps toward launching a last-minute presidential campaign, filing candidate papers in Alabama and Arkansas.
Uncertainty among Democrats
The moves reflect uncertainty about the direction of the Democratic contest. Joe Biden entered the race as the front-runner and maintains significant support from black voters, whose backing is critical in a Democratic primary. But he’s facing spirited challenges from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, progressives whose calls for fundamental economic change have alarmed moderates and wealthy donors.
Patrick’s candidacy faces a significant hurdle to raise enormous amounts of money quickly and to build an organization in the traditional early voting states that most of his rivals have focused on for the past year. And he’ll have to pivot to the expensive and logistically daunting Super Tuesday contests, when voters in more than a dozen states and territories head to the polls.
Bloomberg’s team has said it will skip the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina to focus on the Super Tuesday roster.
If Patrick gains traction, he could pull together multiple Democratic constituencies. A former managing director for Bain Capital, he has close ties to Wall Street donors. And as the first black governor of Massachusetts, Patrick could present himself as a historic boundary breaker who could dent Biden’s support among African Americans.
FILE – Deval Patrick, right, then Massachusetts’ governor, shakes hands with bakery employees as then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, center, looks on, during a campaign stop, Oct. 10, 2014, in Hartford, Conn.
Patrick has remained active in politics since his term as governor ended in 2015.
During the 2018 midterm elections, he traveled across the country in support of Democratic candidates, a move that helped raise his national profile. He also campaigned for Doug Jones during Alabama’s contentious 2017 special election for U.S. Senate.
‘Not for me’
By December, however, Patrick cooled to the idea of a White House campaign.
“After a lot of conversation, reflection and prayer, I’ve decided that a 2020 campaign for president is not for me,” Patrick posted on his Facebook page at the time. He said he and his wife worried that the “cruelty of our elections process would ultimately splash back on people whom Diane and I love, but who hadn’t signed up for the journey.”
For years, Patrick had been on an upward swing in Democratic politics, having served two terms as governor. He was the country’s second black elected governor since Reconstruction.
In 2012, he gave a rousing speech in defense of Obama at the National Democratic Convention, urging fellow party members to “grow a backbone” and fight for their ideals. Obama at the time was being challenged by former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — Patrick’s predecessor in the governor’s office.
Patrick grew up in Chicago, Obama’s adopted home. Both men have campaigned for each other.
Patrick has also tried to position himself over the years as slightly more moderate than some on the Democratic left.
After Donald Trump’s election, Patrick’s initial criticism of the Republican president was somewhat less pointed than that from others in his party. He said he was “old-fashioned in the sense that I think nobody should cheer for failure. We need our presidents to succeed,” but said he was particularly concerned about what he described as Trump’s belittling of those with opposing points of view.
FILE – Then-Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, center, waves as his wife, Diane Bemus, left, looks on at the conclusion of ceremonies for the unveiling of his official state portrait, Jan. 4, 2015, in Boston.
Chides party
Patrick also urged the party at the time to look in the mirror, saying the outcome of the 2016 election was less about Donald Trump winning than Democrats and our nominee letting him do so.'' <br />
<br />
Last year, some of Patrick's supporters and close advisers launched the Reason to Believe political action committee,a grass-roots organization dedicated to advancing a positive, progressive vision for our nation in 2018 and 2020.”
The PAC held meetups across the country, including in early presidential primary states, and was seen as a possible vehicle to help support a Patrick candidacy. It was formally dissolved earlier this year.
Early in his career, Patrick served as assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Clinton administration and later worked as an executive at Texaco and Coca-Cola. Since leaving the governor’s office, Patrick has worked as a managing director for Bain Capital — a company co-founded by Romney.
Record as governor
Patrick’s record as governor is mixed. His successes include helping oversee the 2006 health care law signed by Romney that would go on to serve as a blueprint for Obama’s 2010 health law.
Also considered a success was a 2008 initiative pushed by Patrick that committed Massachusetts to spending $1 billion over 10 years to jump-start the state’s life sciences sector.
There were also rough patches, including turmoil at the state Department of Children and Families following the deaths of three children.
Patrick was also forced to publicly apologize for a disastrous effort to transition to the federal health care law during which the state’s website performed so poorly it created a backlog of more than 50,000 paper applications.
