Saturday, February 4, 2017

In surprise move, Trump warns Israel against settlements

The Israeli settlement of Tzofim seen behind amputated olive trees near Qalqilya, in the occupied West Bank, 15 January. Hundreds of olive trees on private Palestinian agricultural land were cut as part of an Israeli plan to build a bypass road for settlers in the area.Keren ManorActiveStills

Ali Abunimah-3 February 2017

The administration of US President Donald Trump surprised many observers on Thursday by issuing a public warning to Israel over its accelerating construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

“The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years,” the White House said in a statement from press secretary Sean Spicer. “While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”

Spicer reiterated that Trump “hopes to achieve peace throughout the Middle East region.” He added that the “administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits with President Trump later this month.”

Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to be in Washington on 15 February for what will now be a closely watched meeting for any signs of tension with Trump.

Aggressive land theft

Since Trump took office, Israel has announced plans for some 6,000 new settler housing units in the occupied West Bank.

This includes more than 550 in occupied East Jerusalem, and plans for an entirely new settlement deep in the West Bank.

The new settlement is intended as “compensation” to the settler movement after Israeli police this week implemented the court-ordered removal of settlers from Amona, a colonial outpost built on privately owned Palestinian land north of Ramallah.

But Israel had already promised to move the settlers within the West Bank, replacing one land theft with another.

“Shot across the bow”

Taken on its own, the White House statement is weak – although US policy has always been very tolerant of Israeli settlements in practice, rhetorically the previous administration was tougher, dubbing them “illegitimate,” and allowing the passage of December’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that confirmed they constitute a “flagrant violation under international law.”

The Trump statement may signal a return to the policy of the George W. Bush administration which approved settlement construction as long as it did not extend beyond existing settlement boundaries.

But context is everything here. As Chemi Shalev, a commentator in the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz observes, “the main importance of the statement is that it was put out at all.”

“Israelis had assumed that Trump would swallow just about anything their government would do, if only to be different from President Barack Obama,” Shalev adds. “The White House statement was a shot across the bow to Netanyahu that there’s a limit to everything.”

Netanyahu and his ministers have not concealed their glee at Trump’s rise to power, with some seeing it as an opportunity to annex most or all of the occupied West Bank outright.

And triumphant settler leaders found a warm welcome at Trump’s inauguration ceremony last month.

But the latest statement is another signal from the new US president that Israel will not get everything it wants – at least not right away.

Despite expectations that he would immediately fulfill a campaign promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Trump poured cold water on the idea.

“I don’t want to talk about it, yet,” the president told a Fox News interviewer days after taking office.

The warning about settlements came after Trump met with Jordan’s King Abdullah, on the sidelines of the so-called National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on Thursday morning.

According to The Jordan Times, the pair discussed “the importance of intensifying efforts to revive Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations” and other regional issues.

European complicity

While he has proven erratic and unpredictable, it would be foolish to expect Trump to do what none of his predecessors have done: make Israel pay a price for its settler-colonization of Palestinian land.

So in the absence of action from the US, might European leaders who have been sounding increasingly urgent warnings about the danger settlements pose to the so-called two-state solution step up?

So far there is no sign of that. On Thursday, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s top foreign policy official, put out a mild statement calling Israel’s latest settlement push “a very worrying trend, posing a direct challenge to the prospects of a viable two-state solution, which is increasingly difficult and risks becoming impossible.”

The EU noted the UN Security Council’s recent confirmation that the settlements are “illegal under international law,” but the pro forma statement gives Israel no cause to worry that it might face any real consequences for its brazen violations.

Trump order strips privacy rights from non-U.S. citizens, could nix EU-US data flows

by Natasha Lomas (@riptari)-Jan 26, 2017

An Executive Order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in his first few days in office could jeopardize a six-month-old data transfer framework that enables EU citizens’ personal data to flow to the U.S. for processing — with the promise of ‘essentially equivalent’ privacy protection once it gets there.

Close to 1,500 companies have signed up to the framework so far, which only got up and running in August, following a multi-year negotiation process.

MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht, the European Parliament’s rapporteur on data protection regulation, tweeted earlier today suggesting that Trump’s presidential order, signed yesterday, might invalidate Privacy Shield.

Section 14 of the Executive Order signed by Trump — ostensibly aimed at enhancing domestic enforcement of U.S. immigration laws — reads:

Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

Earlier this month European Commissioner Vera Jourova said she would be traveling to the U.S. this spring to meet with the Trump administration to assess its commitment to the EU-US Privacy Shield.

The data transfer framework is also be due for its first annual review this summer.

Talks to agree the Privacy Shield stepped up urgently in October 2015 after the prior Safe Harbor arrangement was struck down by Europe’s top court, following a legal challenge related to U.S. Government mass surveillance programs. That self-certification regime had been operational for fifteen years.

The question now is whether the replacement EU-US data flow mechanism is about to come unstuck far more quickly — helped on its way by the Trump administration’s privacy-related policy choices.

According to Albrecht’s analysis, there could also be ramifications for another EU-US umbrella agreement, which covers data-sharing between law enforcement agencies in the two regions — with the MEP suggesting sanctioning the administration for making this executive order.

At the time of writing the MEP could not be reached for comment.

It’s not clear at this point exactly how damaging the policy change might be to the continued functioning of Privacy Shield — that depends on how important the extensibility of the U.S. Privacy Act to non-U.S. citizens was during the EU Privacy Shield negotiations, and whether another relevant piece of U.S. legislation (the Judicial Redress Act) is also affected by Trump’s executive order.

But the order on “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” certainly looks likely to deepen concerns about the legal robustness of the EU-US data transfer mechanism, given it’s explicitly seeking to strip away privacy protections from non-U.S. citizens. Aka the opposite of what the European Commission was intent on achieving during negotiations.

A spokeswoman for the Commission told TechCrunch it does not have a statement on the implications of Trump’s executive order at present — but did confirm: “We’re looking at it at the moment.” Update: The spokeswoman has now sent us a statement in which the EC asserts that Privacy Shield “does not rely on the protections under the U.S. Privacy Act”.

On the Umbrella Agreement the spokeswoman said this relies on the Judicial Redress Act which she said “extends the benefits of the U.S. Privacy Act to Europeans and gives them access to U.S. courts”.

“We will continue to monitor the implementation of both instruments and are following closely any changes in the U.S. that might have an effect on European’s data protection rights,” she added.

The Commission does look to have fired a warning shot across the U.S. administration’s bows at a privacy conference taking place in Brussels this week, by reiterating that if adequate protection for EU citizen’s personal data under U.S. law can no longer be guaranteed then the framework would indeed have to be suspended.

Any suspension of Privacy Shield would mean a return to legal uncertainty for the 1,500+ businesses currently processing EU data in the U.S. via this authorization framework — which includes the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft. (You can find a full list of sign-ups here.)

A key sticking point in the lengthy EU-US Privacy Shield negotiations was the need for the arrangement to ensure essential equivalence of privacy protections for European citizens’ data in the U.S. — so there really can be little doubt that a presidential order seeking to strip privacy protections from Europeans (regardless of the stated intent) will be viewed very dimly by EU officials.

Compare and contrast Trump’s order with a policy directive signed by President Obama at the start of 2014 — which imposed limits on U.S. agencies’ use of signals intelligence collected in bulk with the stated aim of protecting “the privacy and civil liberties of all persons, whatever their nationality and regardless of where they might reside” [emphasis mine].

Obama’s extension of privacy protections to non-U.S. citizens was lauded as a very positive step by EU officials during the Privacy Shield negotiations. So it’s hard not to conclude the trajectory of the new U.S. administration vis-a-vis privacy and foreigners does not bode well for easy data flows between the two regions.

Earlier this month, as the inauguration of President Trump loomed, the Commission was already signalling public concern about the U.S.’ response to questions it sent following the Yahoo email scanning scandal — after news broke last fall the company had built a custom scanning tool at the behest of U.S. intelligence agencies to enable real-time keyword scanning of the incoming email of all Yahoo users.

On that issue Jourova complained the U.S. response had been tardy and lacking in detail. “This is not how we understand good, quick and full exchange of information,” she told Reuters in an interview earlier this month.

Critics of Privacy Shield –– including the lawyer who brought the original challenge against Safe Harbor — have consistently argued the arrangement contains the same fundamental flaws as its invalidated predecessor, given ongoing U.S. government agency surveillance programs accessing European citizens’ data.

And even before President Trump’s signing-in the Privacy Shield had attracted its first legal challenge. (Which might well find fresh fuel for its fight in Trump’s executive order.)

But the European Commission has previously rejected these structural criticisms of the framework — professing itself satisfied with “assurances” secured from the Obama administration that any access to personal data for law enforcement or national security would be “limited to what is necessary and proportionate”, and arguing the mechanism strengthens privacy protections via new components such as an ombudsperson to handle complaints, and an annual review of how Privacy Shield is operating.

However the arrival of Trump could really put the cat among the Commission’s pigeons.

Its overarching aim for Privacy Shield has been to grease the wheels of digital commerce by providing a streamlined mechanism for authorizing EU-US personal data transfers, while achieving an adequate level of compliance with European privacy law. But the new U.S. administration’s priorities on immigration and on business suggest Trump’s America is intent on pulling in a very different direction.

Other data transfer mechanisms for enabling the processing of EU personal data in the U.S. do exist but are generally more complex for businesses to comply with. And their legality has also been called into question.

Pakistani Radicals Want Trump to Ban Them, Too

BY MOSHARRAF ZAIDI-FEBRUARY 3, 2017

Sunday morning talk shows in America don’t typically stir the imagination in Pakistan. There are plenty of domestic scandals to deal with, whether it’s the corruption of politicians or the military’s interference in civilian matters.

Last Sunday was different. With the world still trying to process last Friday evening’s ban on entry of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, the Sunday morning talk shows were expected to be the Trump administration’s shot at some degree of redemption. But Pakistan was the only country White House Chief of Staff Reince Preibus mentioned by name to Chuck Todd on Meet the Press as likely to be added to the list of banned countries. As soon as he did, the national discourse spun into action: “Pakistan next on Trump’s list,” the television tickers screamed.

In India, a country that longs for Uncle Sam to lay a smackdown on its hated neighbor, the expressions of joy at the news were to be expected. Pakistanis, for their part, turned to the acerbic sense of humor that has helped the country endure an era of terrorist violence that has taken over 60,000 lives since 2007. Novelist Bina Shah tweeted, “Trump hates Muslims because they all have better hair than he does,” while comedian Azhar Usman tweeted, “dearest trump-hating Americans! Now’s your chance to stand up against fascism: CONVERT TO ISLAM to protest trump! (bonus: eternal salvation).” Yet there is nothing funny about a potential ban on Pakistanis’ movements in and out of the United States.

In the 2010 U.S. Census, Pakistanis were the seventh-largest diaspora community in the United States, numbering just under a half million, from grocery store owners and taxi drivers to doctors, software engineers, and bankers. But Pakistan’s American dream began to sour after 9/11. The U.S. government heightened its scrutiny of Pakistani applications for visas — a precursor to Trump’s avowed “extreme vetting” — and introduced efforts to generally make life more difficult for illegal aliens (cracking down in communities known to have high concentrations of Pakistanis, like Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn).The post-9/11 environment has led to substantially slower growth of the Pakistani-American community. The fears brought about by the Trump administration’s immigration ban are likely to aggravate that trend.

Still, some Pakistanis, especially those who are U.S. President Donald Trump’s ideological cousins, are unbothered by these developments. Almost immediately after the ban was unveiled, populist opposition leader Imran Khan announced his strong desire to have the ban extended to Pakistan. Khan, a former cricket star, may be Pakistan’s leader at some future time. He has earned his reputation for dangerous rhetoric, which is designed to provoke and arouse angry young men and women across the Islamic republic in service of short-term political gains.

Speaking to party workers near Multan this weekend, Khan said: “It is being heard that Pakistanis may face U.S. visa restriction. I pray that Trump also stops visas for Pakistanis as I believe that it will help us develop our own country. Besides, we will also give him an Iran-like response … (not allowing Americans here in Pakistan).” Khan’s loyal following of entitled malcontents across Pakistan’s cities were quick to adopt this approach, many celebrating the bold autonomy and sovereignty that they believed his approach represented.

In more sober quarters, Pakistanis were trying to reckon with more immediate challenges posed by the ban — namely, the specter of elderly green-card holders, young student visa recipients, and business travelers from Pakistan stuck at U.S. airports in the event that the ban were to be extended to Pakistan. Dawn, one of the largest newspapers in the country, published a checklist for travelers, and the staff at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington had to suspend disbelief and get down to the business of proactive diplomacy.

Pakistanis who take the longer view understood that the Trump ban will ignite yet more hostility between Iran and the United States (to say nothing of the subsequent warning issued by National Security Advisor Michael Flynn to Tehran after its recent missile test). With Saudi Arabia firmly in the U.S. camp, this dynamic poses even more problems for the delicate balance Pakistan must maintain between the two major Muslim-majority powers.

Given how radical a departure Trump has brought to U.S. governance, all bets are off on whether Pakistan will be added to the list. Regardless, both the elected Pakistani leadership and the Pakistani military are in for a complicated ride.

The bilateral relationship has been a roller coaster in recent years, with the U.S. government first supporting military dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and later adopting a terrorist assassination program on Pakistani soil using unmanned aerial vehicles. American military officials who have served in Afghanistan almost universally blame the country for allowing safe havens to U.S. adversaries in Afghanistan affiliated with the Afghan Taliban.

The U.S. government wants Pakistan to more robustly support its efforts in the region by clamping down on terrorist groups it believes enjoy safety in Pakistan.

American officials are well aware that at least two major acts of terror in the United States since 9/11 have involved people of Pakistani origin: the attempted bombing of Times Square in New York in May 2010 and the San Bernardino, California, attack in December 2015 in which 14 people were killed.

Pakistan has its own grievances. The Pakistani government, and especially its military and intelligence community, wants the United States to, as they see it, stop setting up the region for complete dominance by India. Many Pakistanis, both civilians and military folks, are perturbed by the influence that India has acquired in Afghanistan on the back of security underwritten by American troops. Some openly admit to the India factor being a principal driver of insecurity about Afghanistan, while others hint at it more gingerly. But the combination of New Delhi’s fingerprints in Kabul and deepening U.S.-India ties does not sit well in Pakistan.

And yet, Islamabad understands that Washington is an indispensable partner, and that any further restrictions on the movement of Pakistanis in and out of the United States would be a severe blow.

The United States continues to be Pakistan’s largest export market, receiving over 15 percent of Pakistani exports. Pakistani-Americans who send money back to Pakistan constitute by far the highest per capita source of remittances for the country.

There would also be risks for the United States in extending the ban to Pakistan and causing a diplomatic rupture. Aside from the economic implications of excluding a country of 200 million people (far larger than any country currently blacklisted), both Washington and Kabul rely on Pakistani support (in the shape of significant troop deployments on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border) in the fight against insurgents in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s embrace of Washington’s rivals, including Beijing, would only grow tighter, and the prospects of sustained U.S. influence in the country would shrink dramatically.

But Pakistan may have some powerful advocates in the new administration. Some of the key members of the impending Trump cabinet know Pakistan well. Flynn and incoming Pentagon boss James Mattis have spent years dealing with the complexities of Pakistan’s geography and its legitimate concerns about being surrounded by hostility. Unlike many in the Obama administration, whose default position on the imbroglio in Afghanistan was to blame Pakistan, Flynn and Mattis have expressed appreciation for the difficulties Pakistan faces, and the need to rebuild trust between the countries and to support Pakistan when it requires help.

Yet perhaps the most important reason to avoid adding Pakistan to the immigration ban is what it would do to Pakistan’s domestic political dynamic. Khan’s approach to eliciting the support of young urban millennials in Pakistan by raising hopes of a hypernationalist revival is not unique to the country. And it would be foolhardy to dismiss it. Right-wing narratives are finding resonance in the United States and Europe, and have enjoyed a sustained dominance in next-door India.

Pakistani elites have traditionally been complacent about the moderation of their country’s politics, but six months ago, many of the same people thought Trump was just a punchline. It’s been less than a month since his inauguration, and from Australia, to Mexico, to India, the White House has spread fear and anxiety.If Trump can win America — perhaps precisely because he won America — Khan is more than capable of winning Pakistan.

Of course, as with Trump’s platform, there doesn’t have to be a good reason for Khan to adopt one or another policy line. No one can coherently explain how the inability of Pakistanis to travel to the United States would help develop Pakistan. But in this Trumpian world, as long as wild nationalism sells well with the disaffected, who really cares?

Pakistanis have rarely bought into such narratives, with anti-U.S. rhetoric succeeding politically only once, back in 2002, in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province bordering Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion of that country. If Trump imposes a travel ban on Pakistan, it would help strengthen the foes of democracy and freedom — the same foes that the United States claims it wants to fight. That would constitute an own-goal for the United States when it badly needs victories.

Photo credit: AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

Trump’s Gift To Anti-Muslim Bigotry & Islamist Extremism

By Ameer Ali –February 2, 2017

Dr. Ameer Ali

President Donald Trump’s executive order to suspend (temporarily) Muslim migrants from selected Muslim majority countries is manna to the Islamist extremists and to the anti-Muslim bigots. On the one hand the stock of suicide bombers and would be martyrs in the Islamist camp will swell further while on the other the anti-Muslim bigots especially in the West will enjoy a fresh infusion of oxygen to their hitherto unpopular mission of destroying mosques and harassing Muslims. Already, the Taliban has warned the Americans in Afghanistan that it is time for them to leave the country, several worshipers at the Islamic Centre in Quebec, Canada, had fallen prey to anti-Muslim violence and a mosque in Texas had been set ablaze. Having strengthened the infantry of extremists by his edict, Trump’s resolve to wipe out ISIS sounds hollow.

It is revealing that Trump has left out in his list the oil rich Gulf countries. Being a business magnate himself one need not be surprised at this omission. Yet, has he forgotten that the majority of the S11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia? One thing is sure. If the rulers of these rich Muslim nations fail to condemn unreservedly Trump’s anti-Muslim bigotry and decide to remain silent to enjoy favours from his regime, ISIS, Al-Qaida or any of their off-shoots is bound to make their regimes unsustainable. This might as well apply to Egypt and Pakistan.

Unfortunately other Western countries excepting Australia which condemned Trump’s immigration policy will also not be immune to the new wave of anti-American anger of Islamist extremists. At the least the lone-wolf phenomenon will continue and thrive under the Trump-inspired anti-Muslim bigotry. Western governments will be forced to spend more of their scarce resources on security measures to combat domestic terrorism. This would mean fewer resources would be left to allocate for the welfare needs of citizens such as on education, health and support for the retired and vulnerable. The budgetary crisis that has engulfed many of these countries will become even more acute. Cutting public expenditure and reducing tax on the rich would entail less government revenue which will induce the treasury to widen its indirect taxes. Ultimately it is the poor who will suffer and they will be the ones who will come out on the streets to protest and rebel. Populist parties are already there to reap the electoral harvest. Has Trump forgotten ‘Occupy Wall Street’ in the wake of the Arab Spring?

Trump’s populism has already boosted the popularity of ultra-nationalists in Europe. The National Front in France, the UK Independent Party, the Party for Freedom in Netherlands and the Alternative for Germany are all in sympathy with Trump’s anti-immigration policy. In Australia too political populism is spreading via the One Nation Party. Pauline Hanson’s call for a freeze on Muslim migrants is nothing but an open endorsement of Trump’s anti-Muslim bigotry. The far right within the current liberal government is also supporting that.

How can the world respond to the new challenges? For a long time world leaders have conveniently ignored addressing the real issues that produced terrorism in the first place. Neither the United Nations nor any other international forum of world leaders has openly discussed the fundamental grievances of the Muslims. Yet, all these leaders at different levels and in different forms have participated in a War on Terrorism which is continuing to drain precious resources with no end in sight. Of course this war has benefitted the military industry but at the expense of other economic sectors. The human cost of this war is immeasurable. The world refugee problem which preceded the Syrian crisis which only accentuated it is also a consequence of this war. Trump’s remedy is extremely short sighted. Isn’t it time to face the real issues head on? It was Noam Chomsky, the greatest Jewish intellectual of our time, who said that one cannot eradicate mosquitoes unless one cleans up the swamps. Will the world leaders listen to him at least now?

At the same time, how can the world Muslims themselves who are at the receiving end of this tragedy respond to this crisis? To start with, their leaders and particularly the imams who have monopolised the pulpit for over a millennium must rethink the way they have retailed Islam to the masses. There is something obviously wrong in the way these religious salesmen have marketed Islam to the young, the educated and the disgruntled. Otherwise why do these disaffected disciples of Islam use religion to justify their violence? What does it mean to call ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is Great) when beheading an innocent? How can anyone in his or her right mind believe that Islam is a religion of peace when one witnesses the blood-thirsty savagery and horror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and several others that glorify indiscriminate violence and authenticate it with verses from the Quran? It is no use repeating the hackneyed answer that these groups do not represent Islam because several of their leaders and foot soldiers have attended the same educational institutions and studied the same curriculum as the imams, and secondly their messages are captivating the Muslim youth more than the weekly sermons of the imams.

EU leaders round on Trump and reject May's bridge-building efforts

Leaders line up to criticise Trump at EU summit

Daniel Boffey and Peter Walker in Valletta-Friday 3 February 2017

European leaders launched a series of attacks on Donald Trump over his anti-EU rhetoric on Friday, accusing him of a lack of respect, as Theresa May’s attempts to position herself as a bridge with the new US president were roundly rejected at a summit in Malta.

Trump’s conduct was scorned by prime ministers and presidents, with the French leader, François Hollande, warning there would be no future for Europe’s relations with the US “if this future isn’t defined in common”.

At a working lunch at the talks in the Maltese capital, Valletta, the British prime minister appealed to other leaders to work “constructively and patiently” with the American president. Addressing reporters, however, Hollande said: “Of course it is not about asking one particular country, be it the UK or any other, to represent Europe in its relationship with the United States.

“In a while, France will be the only permanent member of the security council to be also a member of the EU when the UK leaves.”

Dalia Grybauskaitė, the Lithuanian president, offered a withering verdict: “I don’t think there is a necessity for a bridge. We communicate with the Americans on Twitter.”

Asked about relations between Trump and May, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, revealed she had not personally spoken to the British prime minister about her visit to Washington, but she had been left “gratified” after May expressed to her a belief in a “strong European Union”. A planned bilateral meeting between the two leaders was, however, cancelled at the last minute.

A Downing Street spokesman said the two leaders had spoken during a “cultural walk” between the main talks, making a later meeting unnecessary.

Merkel suggested in a press conference following the day’s talks that Trump’s election made it all the more crucial for the EU to strengthen its own defence and repeated her opposition to his ban on nationals from seven majority-Muslim nations. “From our side, we work on the basis of our shared values. We want to bring about transatlantic cooperation,” she said. “There will be areas where we disagree. Fighting international terrorism is not something that will justify throwing a general suspicion on people of a certain faith or a certain origin.

“The debate concentrated over lunch [on] where we stand as the EU. It was repeatedly stated by people at the table that Europe has to forge a common position and act in accord with each other and that we have our destiny in our own hands. There are areas where we can cooperate more closely … it encourages us to increase our common defence.

“This applies to Germany. We need to invest more in our defensive capabilities.”

While the summit in Malta was primarily about the need to stem migration through the Mediterranean and discuss the future of the EU, talk about Trump took up a significant portion of the meeting.

The tone of the day was set when leaders arrived in the Grand Master’s Palace in Valletta and took turns to attack Trump’s behaviour since entering the Oval Office.

The Austrian chancellor, Christian Kern, said Trump’s ban on travellers from some Muslim-majority countries was “highly problematic”. He added: “We should win these countries as allies in the fight against [radical] Islamism, not as adversaries, and we shouldn’t corner them.”

He went on to highlight what he described as America’s “responsibility for the refugee flows through the way it intervened militarily” in the Middle East.

The Austrian chancellor, Christian Kern, said Donald Trumps travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries was ‘highly problematic’. Photograph: Domenic Aquilina/EPA

He said: “It’s not acceptable for the international community if America shirks responsibility. We need to make this clear to our American friends. I’m convinced that there will be a high degree of unanimity [among EU leaders] on this question … The tangible aspects of Trump’s politics are raising some concern.”

May, with the UK’s recently appointed permanent representative to the EU, Sir Tim Barrow, by her side, was one of the few leaders not to comment as she entered through the door of the Grand Master’s Palace.

But an animated Hollande made clear his dismay at Trump’s behaviour. He said: “It cannot be accepted that there is, through a certain number of statements by the president of the United States, pressure on what Europe ought to be or what it should not be.

“We are partners. There should therefore be some respect. We did not build Europe to be divided, or against the United States.”

Asked what he thought of EU leaders who were leaning towards Trump, Hollande said: “Those who want to forge bilateral ties with the US are of course well understood by the public, but they must understand that there is no future with Trump if it is not a common position.

“What matters is solidarity at the EU level. We must not imagine some sort of external protection. It exists through the Atlantic alliance, but it cannot be the only possible route, because who knows what the US president really wants, particularly in relation to the Atlantic alliance and burden-sharing?

“We in France have a defence policy. We fear nothing … We must have a European conception of our future. If not, there will be – in my opinion – no Europe and not necessarily any way for each of the countries to be able to exert an influence in the world.”

The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, later sought to talk up Britain’s position. He said: “We have no illusion that in the future we will be 27 – it is for this reason, because of Brexit. But our intention is we need as strong a transatlantic relationship as possible and the UK can, inside the EU or outside the EU, be very helpful.”

The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said he did not feel threatened by Trump but voiced his concern that the US administration was not on top of world affairs. “There is room for explanations because of the impression that the new administration does not know the EU in detail but, in the EU, details matter,” he said.

At the end of the summit, Joseph Muscat, the prime minister of Malta, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe, said European leaders were right to speak out. “We had a very open discussion with regard to developments in our transatlantic partnership and developments in the United States.

“Obviously, there was concern among the EU28 on some decisions that are being taken by the new US administration and also some attitudes that are being adopted by this administration.

“Nevertheless, there was no sense of anti-Americanism. There was a sense that we need to engage with the United States just the same, but that we need to show ... that we cannot stay silent where there are principles involved.

“As in any good relationship, we will speak very clearly where we think that those principles are being trampled on.”

In a lighter moment, asked who was the biggest threat to the EU, Trump or Putin, Juncker responded: “Me.”

Spain’s prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, boosted Theresa May’s hopes for an early deal on the rights of UK citizens living in Europe. Photograph: Darrin Zammit Lupi/Reuters

May’s hopes for an early deal on the rights of UK citizens living in the EU after Brexit were given a boost as her Spanish counterpart endorsed the plan.

No 10 said Mariano Rajoy backed May’s hopes for an early deal during talks on the margins of the summit. “They discussed the issue of reciprocal rights, and agreed it would be good to get agreement on this issue early on in the negotiations,” a source said.

Boris Johnson attempted to deepens ties with his US counterpart during a phone call on Friday in which it is understood they discussed a commitment to Nato as well as Yemen, China and Russia.
The UK foreign secretary wrote on Facebook: “Just had a great call with newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. We reaffirmed our shared goals and will work together towards success and solutions to the global issues‬ we both face.”

The men also spoke positively about May’s visit to meet President Trump and agreed to meet face to face before the G20 meeting in Germany later this month.

It is understood they spoke for about 10 minutes and got on well, with Johnson reaffirming a British commitment to shared goals, and to working even more closely together.

Eric Trump’s business trip to Uruguay cost taxpayers $97,830 in hotel bills

By Amy Brittain and Drew Harwell February 3 at 9:58 PM

When the president-elect’s son Eric Trump jetted to Uruguay in early January for a Trump Organization promotional trip, U.S. taxpayers were left footing a bill of nearly $100,000 in hotel rooms for Secret Service and embassy staff..

Donald Trump has a lot of potential conflicts of interest as president – but there's no law that specifically requires a commander in chief to remove themselves from all of their business interests. The Fix's Peter W. Stevenson explains why presidents usually put their assets in a "blind trust" to avoid problems. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Eric Trump’s business trip to Uruguay cost taxpayers $97,830 in hotel bills.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

US judge grants nationwide temporary restraining order on 'Muslim ban'

Trump's Muslim ban faces another legal setback from federal judge in Seattle

Trump with Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon (Reuters)

Saturday 4 February 2017

A US federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump's executive order made last week that temporarily barred entry to the United States to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.

The ruling is the broadest to date against Trump's directive.

Several federal judges had suspended different provisions of the presidential action, which has become known as a Muslim ban.

The challenge was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota.

US District Judge James Robart in Seattle ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which may help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

"It's a wonderful day for the rule of law in this country," said Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell.

The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging the executive order. Trump's administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labeled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Boston declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the United States from certain countries in spite of being barred by the executive order.

But in Detroit, a judge ruled against parts of the order, which suspended the admission of all refugees and citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya attempting to travel to the United states.

US Judge Victoria Roberts ordered that permanent residents cannot be denied entry. The lawsuit was brought by the Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL).

Although the administration had issued on Wednesday new guidelines that would exempt green card holders from the ban, Nabih Ayad, the ACRL’s lead attorney, said the ruling from Detroit is important.

He said it ensures indefinitely that permanent residents from any country can leave and return to the United States.

“It says for all green card holders across this world, you can come back to the United States; you can travel freely,” Ayad told Middle East Eye. “It would be a violation of the federal court order if the customs or Department of Homeland Security denies you entry.”

The ACRL attorney said the ruling calms the anxiety of permanent residents who do not trust the White House. He added that the court order also prevents the administration from changing the rules.

As for the Seattle court decision, Ayad explained that it puts a temporary stay on the executive order until the court allows further arguments.

“We really don’t know the effects of it as it stands right now,” he said.

More than 100,000 visas issued to citizens of the seven nations have been revoked.

A judge can reinstate those visas, according to Ayad.

“Executive orders are pretty powerful actions by the president,” Ayad told Middle East Eye. “However, as we have been arguing, these executive orders cannot trump the Constitution. Trump does not Trump the Constitution.”

The ACRL’s lawsuit asks the judge to reinstate immigration visas, which turn travelers into legal permanent residents upon admission into the United States.

US Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, a Democrat whose district in Michigan is home to large Arab and Muslim communities, welcomed the ruling in Detroit.

"Today’s action by the federal court in Michigan is further evidence that President Trump’s Executive Order runs contrary to the Constitution of the United States," Dingell said in a statement. "Within 24 hours of the initial Order, judges across the country issued injunctions to prevent further harm to lawful permanent residents and other visa holders entering the US, but people remain scared and confused."

In Virginia, a federal judge on Friday ordered the White House to provide a list of all people stopped from entering the United States by the travel ban.