Arab Americans’ vote will matter in this election, Middle East Institute panel hears

Short Url
Updated 29 October 2024
Follow

Arab Americans’ vote will matter in this election, Middle East Institute panel hears

Arab Americans’ vote will matter in this election, Middle East Institute panel hears

LONDON: Just days before Americans head to the polls to decide who will be the next US president, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris find themselves neck and neck in the race for the White House. With the contest balanced on a razor’s edge, any minor development at this point could be enough to decisively swing the vote.

Although they make up just 1 percent of the total electorate, Arab Americans represent a significant constituency in several swing states, where even a handful of votes could influence the election outcome. As such, neither of the main candidates can afford to take their votes for granted.

That is why Arab News teamed up with polling agency YouGov to survey the attitudes of Arab Americans across all geographies, age ranges, genders and income brackets to see which way the community was leaning, and what issues mattered to them most.

What became abundantly clear from the survey was that Arab Americans are not a monolith motivated by any single issue. Domestic matters, such as the economy and the cost of living, loomed large, while border security and abortion rights were also key considerations.

However, it was the plight of the Palestinians that emerged as the biggest issue for Arab Americans of all generations; namely the ongoing Israeli offensive against Hamas in Gaza and the perceived failure of President Joe Biden’s administration to rein in Israel.




Asked which candidate they were most likely to vote for, 45 percent said Trump while 43 percent opted for Harris. (AFP/File)

Brian Katulis, a senior fellow for US foreign policy at Middle East Institute, who moderated a special panel discussion on Monday to examine the poll findings, said the prominence of the Palestinian issue in this election showed there was still a role for the US to play in the region.

“Within the political discussion we’re having in this country, it does imply that there’s actually a strong interest in the US engaging more deeply in the Middle East — just doing it in the right way,” said Katulis.

“There’s a serious difference over who and which candidate is the right way. But for those who’ve said that we should just pull back from the region, restrain ourselves, there’s some who say that, but I think there’s a general impulse here that we need to actually delve more deeply into trying to solve — or not solve, but engage — these questions in a proper way in the region itself, but then politically here at home.”

Asked to place six key issues in order of priority, 26 percent of Arab Americans polled by YouGov said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is their chief concern. The economy and the cost of living were not far behind, representing the chief concerns for 19 percent of respondents.

“The highest priority, in terms of issues that Arab Americans face, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict came at 26 percent — the highest — then followed by the economy and cost of living,” Lara Barazi, a freelance data consultant and former research director at YouGov, told the MEI panel.

Palestine appeared to be of most concern to Arab Americans in lower income brackets: 37 percent of those earning under $40,000, falling to 22 percent among those paid $80,000 or more.

“These are their issues that kind of mirror what’s going on right now in the US, not only for Arab Americans, when we look at income,” said Barazi.




If Harris does beat Trump to the presidency, it remains unclear whether she will shift the Democratic Party’s stance on Israel. (AFP/File)

“The highest priority goes to the Palestinian conflict. It’s 41 percent of the lowest earners who support the Palestinian-Israeli conflict versus the highest earners. Basically, they’re interested in the economy, cost of living and the Palestinian conflict, but they do put a lot of weight on the economy and cost of living.”

What was also interesting about the findings was how much of a priority the Middle East conflict was for respondents identifying as Republican, Democrat and independent.

“We see that the highest (ranking) for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict comes from independents and the lowest comes from Republicans,” said Barazi. “Only 17 percent of Republicans said that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a top priority for us, while cost of living comes the highest for Republicans.”

Despite Trump being perceived as more supportive of the Israeli government than Harris, many Arab Americans indicated in the poll that they would still vote for him, which suggested they are penalizing the Democrats over the Biden administration’s perceived failure to rein in Israel.

Asked which candidate they were most likely to vote for, 45 percent said Trump while 43 percent opted for Harris, although this gap could easily be narrowed — or slightly widened — by the survey’s 5.93 percent margin of error.

The slightly higher support for Trump than for Harris comes despite the fact that 40 percent of those polled described themselves as Democrats, 28 percent as Republicans and 23 percent as independents.

The findings were somewhat puzzling, especially as Trump has announced his intention to expand his 2017 travel ban on people from seven majority-Muslim countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) and has said if elected he would bar Palestinian refugees from entering the US, policies that few Arab Americans would support.

Nevertheless, it appears Biden’s record on the Middle East over the past year has been the deciding factor for many.

Also taking part in Monday’s MEI panel discussion, Yasmeen Abu Taleb, a White House reporter at The Washington Post, said the Democrats never expected the issue of Palestine to hang over the campaign in the way that it has.




Despite Trump being perceived as more supportive of the Israeli government than Harris, many Arab Americans indicated in the poll that they would still vote for him. (AFP/File)


“We’ve never seen the issue of Palestine be this big of a political issue for this long,” she said. “I think in the Biden administration, there was a sense that people would be really angry and protest for a month or two. They hoped the war would be over by January.

“They were always wildly optimistic that this was not going to hang over them as an election issue. And here we are, more than a year later, and it’s still a key driver of the election. I think that’s an important signal of how much the politics have shifted on this.

“I don’t think we’ve seen this in US politics, where the debate has been this intense and sustained.”

If Harris does beat Trump to the presidency, it remains unclear whether she will shift the Democratic Party’s stance on Israel or if the policy of the Biden administration, of which she is part, will remain broadly unchanged.

“Obviously it depends on who wins but I do think if you saw a Harris presidency, it’s not going to be the dramatic change that people are pushing for,” said Abu Taleb. “But I do think there are signs that the Democratic Party is shifting on Israel, and in subtle but important ways.”

Although the Arab News-YouGov poll focused on Arab American opinion, the panel discussion naturally expanded to the prevailing attitudes among the Arab populations and leaderships in the Middle East. Tarek Ali Ahmad, head of research and studies at Arab News, said that many in the Middle East are holding their breath.

“People are essentially just waiting for the election day to come,” he added. “That’s when everyone’s going to be like, OK, now we can finally stop this election game, campaigning, and we can actually get to solid, concrete policy that will affect what’s going to happen, whether or not we’re going to see an actual end to the conflict, or we’re going to see even further.

“We haven’t heard anything in terms of preference to whichever candidate comes through. But at the same time, we cannot dismiss the fact that any incoming president will have a lot to clean up with regards to everything that’s happening on the ground.”




“So there’s so many different aspects that come to shift public opinion on the ground with regards to who’s going to be president,” Ali Ahmad said. (AFP/File)

On whether or not the Arab world has any preference for the US presidency, Ali Ahmad said many in the region have remained tight-lipped, preferring to wait and see the outcome of this closely fought race.

“There’s a lot of different points of view and there’s no real proper preference for either candidate because of the fact that it’s just such a razor-thin difference,” he said.

“Now you have people on the ground talking about how, essentially, every single event that occurs causes a shift in opinion, from (Israel) entering into Lebanon, from the bombing of Iran, to even Biden’s resignation from the nomination.

“So there’s so many different aspects that come to shift public opinion on the ground with regards to who’s going to be president.”

Reflecting on the significance of the role of the Arab American constituency in the election, Ali Ahmad said many seem to recognize their vote can make a significant difference.

“The reason why there’s a big turnout, as we said, nine out of 10 Americans are set to go vote, is that 80 percent of those who responded found that their vote actually counts and will matter in this year's election,” he said.

“They really feel that they could actually change it and make that difference, whether it is to punish the Democrats or whether it is to actually vote for an independent.”

 


Trump says some white South Africans are oppressed, could be resettled in the US. They say no thanks

Trump says some white South Africans are oppressed, could be resettled in the US. They say no thanks
Updated 09 February 2025
Follow

Trump says some white South Africans are oppressed, could be resettled in the US. They say no thanks

Trump says some white South Africans are oppressed, could be resettled in the US. They say no thanks
  • Trump administration accused the South African government of allowing violent attacks on white Afrikaner farmers and introducing a land expropriation law targetting minority farmers
  • President Ramaphosa’s government denied claims of concerted attacks on white farmers, says Trump’s description of the new land law is full of misinformation and distortions
  • Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum, representing some of the Africaners, thanked Trump but rejected the offer, saying, “We don’t want to move elsewhere”

CAPE TOWN, South Africa: Groups representing some of South Africa’s white minority responded Saturday to a plan by President Donald Trump to offer them refugee status and resettlement in the United States by saying: thanks, but no thanks.
The plan was detailed in an executive order Trump signed Friday that stopped all aid and financial assistance to South Africa as punishment for what the Trump administration said were “rights violations” by the government against some of its white citizens.
The Trump administration accused the South African government of allowing violent attacks on white Afrikaner farmers and introducing a land expropriation law that enables it to “seize ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation.”
The South African government has denied there are any concerted attacks on white farmers and has said that Trump’s description of the new land law is full of misinformation and distortions.
Afrikaners are descended from mainly Dutch, but also French and German colonial settlers who first arrived in South Africa more than 300 years ago. They speak Afrikaans, a language derived from Dutch that developed in South Africa, and are distinct from other white South Africans who come from British or other backgrounds.
Together, whites make up around 7 percent of South Africa’s population of 62 million.
‘We are not going anywhere’
On Saturday, two of the most prominent groups representing Afrikaners said they would not be taking up Trump’s offer of resettlement in the US.
“Our members work here, and want to stay here, and they are going to stay here,” said Dirk Hermann, chief executive of the Afrikaner trade union Solidarity, which says it represents around 2 million people. “We are committed to build a future here. We are not going anywhere.”
At the same press conference, Kallie Kriel, the CEO of the Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum, said: “We have to state categorically: We don’t want to move elsewhere.”
Trump’s move to sanction South Africa, a key US trading partner in Africa, came after he and his South African-born adviser Elon Musk have accused its Black leadership of having an anti-white stance. But the portrayal of Afrikaners as a downtrodden group that needed to be saved would surprise most South Africans.
“It is ironic that the executive order makes provision for refugee status in the US for a group in South Africa that remains among the most economically privileged,” South Africa’s Foreign Ministry said. It also criticized the Trump administration’s own policies, saying the focus on Afrikaners came “while vulnerable people in the US from other parts of the world are being deported and denied asylum despite real hardship.”
There was “a campaign of misinformation and propaganda” aimed at South Africa, the ministry said.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesperson said: “South Africa is a constitutional democracy. We value all South Africans, Black and white. The assertion that Afrikaners face arbitrary deprivation and, therefore, need to flee the country of their birth is an assertion devoid of all truth.”
Whites in South Africa still generally have a much better standard of living than Blacks more than 30 years after the end of the apartheid system of white minority rule in 1994. Despite being a small minority, whites own around 70 percent of South Africa’s private farmland. A study in 2021 by the South Africa Human Rights Commission said 1 percent of whites were living in poverty compared to 64 percent of Blacks.
Redressing the wrongs of colonialism
Sithabile Ngidi, a market trader in Johannesburg, said she hadn’t seen white people being mistreated in South Africa.
“He (Trump) should have actually come from America to South Africa to try and see what was happening for himself and not just take the word of an Elon Musk, who hasn’t lived in this country for the longest of time, who doesn’t even relate to South Africans,” Ngidi said.
But Trump’s action against South Africa has given international attention to a sentiment among some white South Africans that they are being discriminated against as a form of payback for apartheid. The leaders of the apartheid government were Afrikaners.
Solidarity, AfriForum and others are strongly opposed to the new land expropriation law, saying it will target land owned by whites who have worked to develop that land for years. They also say an equally contentious language law that’s recently been passed seeks to remove or limit their Afrikaans language in schools, while they have often criticized South Africa’s affirmative action policies in business that promote the interests of Blacks as racist laws.
“This government is allowing a certain section of the population to be targeted,” said AfriForum’s Kriel, who thanked Trump for raising the case of Afrikaners. But Kriel said Afrikaners were committed to South Africa.
The South African government says the laws that have been criticized are aimed at the difficult task of redressing the wrongs of colonialism and then nearly a half-century of apartheid, when Blacks were stripped of their land and almost all their rights.
 


African leaders urge direct talks with rebels to resolve DR Congo conflict

African leaders urge direct talks with rebels to resolve DR Congo conflict
Updated 09 February 2025
Follow

African leaders urge direct talks with rebels to resolve DR Congo conflict

African leaders urge direct talks with rebels to resolve DR Congo conflict
  • communique at the end of talks urged the resumption of “direct negotiations and dialogue with all state and non-state parties'
  • Rwanda has blamed the deployment of SADC peacekeepers for worsening the conflict in North Kivu, a mineral-rich province in eastern Congo that’s now controlled by M23

KAMPALA, Uganda: Leaders from eastern and southern Africa on Saturday called for an immediate ceasefire in eastern Congo, where rebels are threatening to overthrow the Congolese government, but also urged Congo’s president to directly negotiate with them.
Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi, who attended the summit in the Tanzanian city of Dar es Salaam by videoconference, has previously said he would never talk to the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels he sees as driven to exploit his country’s vast mineral wealth.
A communique at the end of talks urged the resumption of “direct negotiations and dialogue with all state and non-state parties,” including M23. The rebels seized Goma, the biggest city in eastern Congo, following fighting that left nearly 3,000 dead and hundreds of thousands of displaced, according to the UN
The unprecedented joint summit included leaders from the East African Community bloc, of which both Rwanda and Congo are members, and those from the Southern African Development Community, or SADC, which includes countries ranging from Congo to South Africa.
Rwandan President Paul Kagame attended the summit along with his South African counterpart, Cyril Ramaphosa, who has angered the Rwandans by deploying South African troops in eastern Congo under the banner of SADC to fight M23.
Rwanda has blamed the deployment of SADC peacekeepers for worsening the conflict in North Kivu, a mineral-rich province in eastern Congo that’s now controlled by M23. Kagame insists SADC troops were not peacekeepers because they were fighting alongside Congolese forces to defeat the rebels.
The rebels are backed by some 4,000 troops from neighboring Rwanda, according to UN experts, while Congolese government forces are backed by regional peacekeepers, UN forces, allied militias and troops from neighboring Burundi. They’re now focused on preventing the rebels from taking Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu province.
Dialogue ‘is not a sign of weakness’
The M23 rebellion stems partly from Rwanda’s decades-long concern that rebels opposed to Kagame’s government have been allowed by Congo’s military to be active in largely lawless parts of eastern Congo. Kagame also charges that Tshisekedi has overlooked the legitimate concerns of Congolese Tutsis who face discrimination.
Kenyan President William Ruto told the summit that “the lives of millions depend on our ability to navigate this complex and challenging situation with wisdom, clarity of mind, empathy.”
Dialogue “is not a sign of weakness,” said Ruto, the current chair of the East African Community. “It is in this spirit that we must encourage all parties to put aside their differences and mobilize for engagements in constructive dialogue.”
The M23 advance echoed the rebels’ previous capture of Goma over a decade ago and shattered a 2024 ceasefire, brokered by Angola, between Rwanda and Congo.
Some regional analysts fear that the rebels’ latest offensive is more potent because they are linking their fight to wider agitation for better governance and have vowed to go all the way to the capital, Kinshasa, 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) west of Goma.
Rebels face pressure to pull out of Goma
The Congo River Alliance, a coalition of rebel groups including M23, said in an open letter to the summit that they are fighting a Congolese regime that “flouted republican norms” and is “becoming an appalling danger for the Congolese people.”
“Those who are fighting against Mr. Tshisekedi are indeed sons of the country, nationals of all the provinces,” it said. “Since our revolution is national, it encompasses people of all ethnic and community backgrounds, including Congolese citizens who speak the Kinyarwanda language.”
The letter, signed by Corneille Nangaa, a leader of the rebel alliance, said the group was “open for a direct dialogue” with the Congolese government.
But the rebels and their allies also face pressure to pull out of Goma.
In addition to calling for the immediate reopening of the airport in Goma, the summit in Dar es Salaam also called for the drawing of “modalities for withdrawal of uninvited foreign armed groups” from Congolese territory.
A meeting in Equatorial Guinea Friday of another regional bloc, the Economic Community of Central African States, also called for the immediate withdrawal of Rwandan troops from Congo as well as the airport’s reopening to facilitate access to humanitarian aid.
 


Trump says he wants to negotiate about Ukraine. It’s not clear if Putin really does

Trump says he wants to negotiate about Ukraine. It’s not clear if Putin really does
Updated 09 February 2025
Follow

Trump says he wants to negotiate about Ukraine. It’s not clear if Putin really does

Trump says he wants to negotiate about Ukraine. It’s not clear if Putin really does
  • Trump boasts of his deal-making prowess, called Putin “smart” and threatened Russia with tariffs and oil price cuts unless it comes to the negotiating table
  • But with little incentive to come to the negotiating table, Putin will not easily surrender what he considers Russia’s ancestral lands in Ukraine

Nearly three years after President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, his troops are making steady progress on the battlefield. Kyiv is grappling with shortages of men and weapons. And the new US president could soon halt Ukraine’s massive supply of military aid.
Putin is closer than ever to achieving his objectives in the battle-weary country, with little incentive to come to the negotiating table, no matter how much US President Donald Trump might cajole or threaten him, according to Russian and Western experts interviewed by The Associated Press.
Both are signaling discussions on Ukraine -– by phone or in person -– using flattery and threats.
Putin said Trump was “clever and pragmatic,” and even parroted his false claims of having won the 2020 election. Trump’s opening gambit was to call Putin “smart” and to threaten Russia with tariffs and oil price cuts, which the Kremlin brushed off.
Trump boasted during the campaign he could end the war in 24 hours, which later became six months. He’s indicated the US is talking to Russia about Ukraine without Kyiv’s input, saying his administration already had “very serious” discussions.
He suggested he and Putin could soon take “significant” action toward ending the war, in which Russia is suffering heavy casualties daily while its economy endures stiff Western sanctions, inflation and a serious labor shortage.
But the economy has not collapsed, and because Putin has unleashed the harshest crackdown on dissent since Soviet times, he faces no domestic pressure to end the war.
“In the West, the idea came from somewhere that it’s important to Putin to reach an agreement and end things. This is not the case,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, who hosted a forum with Putin in November and heads Moscow’s Council for Foreign and Defense policies.
Talks on Ukraine without Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says Putin wants to deal directly with Trump, cutting out Kyiv. That runs counter to the Biden administration’s position that echoed Zelensky’s call of “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
“We cannot let someone decide something for us,” Zelensky told AP, saying Russia wants the “destruction of Ukrainian freedom and independence.”
He suggested any such peace deal would send the dangerous signal that adventurism pays to authoritarian leaders in China, North Korea and Iran.
Putin appears to expect Trump to undermine European resolve on Ukraine. Likening Europe’s leaders to Trump’s lapdogs, he said Sunday they will soon be “sitting obediently at their master’s feet and sweetly wagging their tails” as the US president quickly brings order with his ”character and persistence.”
Trump boasts of his deal-making prowess but Putin will not easily surrender what he considers Russia’s ancestral lands in Ukraine or squander a chance to punish the West and undermine its alliances and security by forcing Kyiv into a policy of neutrality.
Trump may want a legacy as a peacemaker, but “history won’t look kindly on him if he’s the man who gives this all away,” said Sir Kim Darroch, British ambassador to the US from 2016-19. Former NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said a deal favoring Moscow would send a message of “American weakness.”
Echoes of Helsinki
Trump and Putin last met in Helsinki in 2018 when there was “mutual respect” between them, said former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, the summit host. But they are “not very similar,” he added, with Putin a “systematic” thinker while Trump acts like a businessman making “prompt” decisions.
That could cause a clash because Trump wants a quick resolution to the war while Putin seeks a slower one that strengthens his military position and weakens both Kyiv and the West’s political will.
Zelensky told AP that Putin “does not want to negotiate. He will sabotage it.” Indeed, Putin has already raised obstacles, including legal hurdles and claimed Zelensky has lost his legitimacy as president.
Putin hopes Trump will “get bored” or distracted with another issue, said Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat in Geneva who quit his post after the invasion.
Russian experts point to Trump’s first term when they said Putin realized such meetings achieved little.
One was a public relations victory for Moscow in Helsinki where Trump sided with Putin instead of his own intelligence agencies on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Another was in Singapore in 2019 with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when he failed to reach a deal to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
Previous peace talks
The Kremlin last year said a draft peace agreement that Russia and Ukraine negotiated in Istanbul early in the conflict — but which Kyiv rejected — could be the basis for talks.
It demanded Ukraine’s neutrality, stipulated NATO deny it membership, put limits on Kyiv’s armed forces and delayed talks on the status of four Russian-occupied regions that Moscow later annexed illegally. Moscow also dismissed demands to withdraw its troops, pay compensation to Ukraine and face an international tribunal for its action.
Putin hasn’t indicated he will budge but said “if there is a desire to negotiate and find a compromise solution, let anyone conduct these negotiations.”
“Engagement is not the same as negotiation,” said Sir Laurie Bristow, British ambassador to Russia from 2016-20, describing Russia’s strategy as “what’s mine is mine. And what’s yours is up for negotiation.”
Bondarev also said Putin sees negotiations only as a vehicle “to deliver him whatever he wants,” adding it’s “astonishing” that Western leaders still don’t understand Kremlin tactics.
That means Putin is likely to welcome any meeting with Trump, since it promotes Russia as a global force and plays well domestically, but he will offer little in return.
What Trump can and can’t do
Trump said Zelensky should have made a deal with Putin to avoid war, adding he wouldn’t have allowed the conflict to start if he had been in office.
Trump has threatened Russia with more tariffs, sanctions and oil price cuts, but there is no economic “wonder weapon” that can end the war, said Richard Connolly, a Russian military and economic expert at London’s Royal United Services Institute.
And the Kremlin is brushing off the threats, likely because the West already has heavily sanctioned Russia.
Trump also can’t guarantee Ukraine would never join NATO, nor can he lift all Western sanctions, easily force Europe to resume importing Russian energy or get the International Criminal Court to rescind its war crimes arrest warrant for Putin.
Speaking to the Davos World Economic Forum, Trump said he wants the OPEC+ alliance and Saudi Arabia to cut oil prices to push Putin to end the war. The Kremlin said that won’t work because the war is about Russian security, not the price of oil. It also would harm US oil producers.
“In the tradeoff between Putin and domestic oil producers, I’m pretty sure which choice Trump will make,” said Alexandra Prokopenko, a fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin.
Trump could pressure Russia by propping up the US oil industry with subsidies and lift the 10 percent trade tariffs imposed on China in exchange for Beijing limiting economic ties with Moscow, which could leave it “truly isolated,” Connolly said.
Europe also could underscore its commitment to Kyiv – and curry favor with Trump – by buying US military equipment to give to Ukraine, said Lord Peter Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser.
Lukyanov suggested that Trump’s allies often seem afraid of him and crumble under his threats.
The “big question,” he said, is what will happen when Putin won’t.


German chancellor slams Trump’s Ukraine rare earths demand

German chancellor slams Trump’s Ukraine rare earths demand
Updated 09 February 2025
Follow

German chancellor slams Trump’s Ukraine rare earths demand

German chancellor slams Trump’s Ukraine rare earths demand
  • The German chancellor had already described Trump’s demands as “very selfish” on Monday after a European Union summit in Brussels

BERLIN: German chancellor Olaf Scholz slammed as “selfish and self-serving” Donald Trump’s demands for Ukrainian rare earths in exchange for US military aid, in an interview published on Saturday.
Rare earths group metals used to transform power into motion in a vast array of things ranging from electric vehicles to missiles and there is no substitute for them.
“Ukraine is under attack and we are helping it, without asking to be paid in return. This should be everyone’s position,” Scholz told the RND media group, when asked about Trump’s demands for a possible quid pro quo for US aid.
The German chancellor had already described Trump’s demands as “very selfish” on Monday after a European Union summit in Brussels.
He had said Ukraine’s resources should be used to finance everything needed after the war, such as reconstruction and maintaining a strong army.
“It would be very selfish, very self-serving” to demand something from Ukraine in exchange for aid, he said.
Trump had said he wanted “equalization” from Ukraine for Washington financial support, adding: “We’re telling Ukraine they have very valuable rare earths. We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earths and other things.”
He added: “I want to have security of rare earth. We’re putting in hundreds of billions of dollars. They have great rare earth. And I want security of the rare earth, and they’re willing to do it.”
On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Washington and Kyiv were planning “meetings and talks,” after Trump raised a possible meeting with him next week.
Zelensky said on Tuesday that Ukraine was ready to receive investment from US firms in its rare earths — or metals widely used in electronics.
In a peace plan unveiled in October, Zelensky had, without specifically mentioning rare earths, proposed a “special agreement” with his country’s partners, allowing for “common protection” and “joint exploitation” of strategic resources.
He had cited as examples “uranium, titanium, lithium, graphite and other strategic resources of great value.”


Kosovo heads to election clouded by tensions with Serbia

Kosovo heads to election clouded by tensions with Serbia
Updated 09 February 2025
Follow

Kosovo heads to election clouded by tensions with Serbia

Kosovo heads to election clouded by tensions with Serbia
  • A drop below 50 percent of the votes for Kurti’s party could potentially prompt coalition talks after the election

PRISTINA: Kosovo votes on Sunday after a combative election campaign in which opposition candidates clashed with Prime Minister Albin Kurti over the economy, corruption and relations with the country’s old foe and neighbor Serbia.
Kurti, a leftist and Albanian nationalist, came to power in the small Balkan country in 2021 when a coalition run by his Vetevendosje party received more than 50 percent of votes and secured a seven-seat majority in the 120-seat parliament.
Political analysts say his popularity has been bolstered by moves to extend government control in Kosovo’s ethnic Serb-majority north. But critics say he has failed to deliver on education and health, and his policies in the north have distanced the country from its traditional allies, the European Union and the United States.
The EU placed economic curbs on the country in 2023 for its role in stoking tensions with ethnic Serbs, cutting at least 150 million euros ($155 million) in funding, Reuters has found.
A drop below 50 percent of the votes for Kurti’s party could potentially prompt coalition talks after the election.
Leading opposition parties include the center-right Democratic League of Kosovo which has campaigned on restoring relations with the United States and the EU, and joining NATO; and the Democratic Party of Kosovo, also center-right, which was founded by former guerilla fighters of Kosovo Liberation Army.
Nearly two million voters are registered in Kosovo. Voting starts at 7 a.m. (0600 GMT) and ends at 7 p.m. Exit polls are expected soon after, and results later into the night.
KURTI’S DIVISIVE RHETORIC IN FOCUS
Kurti’s government has overseen some gains. Unemployment has shrunk from 30 percent to around 10 percent, the minimum wage is up and last year the economy grew faster than the Western Balkans average.
He says his policies in the north, which include reducing the long-held autonomy of Serbs living in Kosovo, are helping to bring ethnic Serbs and Albanians together under one system of government. But his rhetoric worries centrist politicians.
“When you have a bad neighbor, then you have to keep your morale high and your rifle full,” he said in a campaign speech near the Serbian border this week.
Differences of opinion have contributed to a bitter war of words with the opposition. The Elections Complaints and Appeals Panel, which monitors party and candidates’ complaints, has issued more than 650,000 euros in fines to parties this election season, three times the 2021 tally, data from NGO Democracy in Action show.
Kosovo, Europe’s newest country, gained independence from Serbia in 2008 with backing from the United States, which included a 1999 bombing campaign against Serbian forces.