Africa concerned, surprised by US travel ban
Chad suspended visas for US citizens on Thursday in retaliation as Governments hit by President Donald Trump's travel ban on seven African countries reacted with surprise and concern over the measure.
They were Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia and Sudan.
'Chad has neither planes to offer,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel , Reuters Photo: 123RF The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins vs Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. US President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top US judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked. - Reuters
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Five Countries Elected To Serve On UN Security Council
03 June They will serve through the end of 2027 on the UN body responsible for maintaining international peace and security. They will join the five non-permanent members elected last year – Denmark, Greece, Pakistan, Panama, and Somalia – who will serve through 2026. The incoming members will succeed Algeria, Guyana, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia, whose terms end in December 2025. The Security Council has 15 members: five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – who hold veto power, and ten non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for staggered two-year terms. Elections are held annually by secret ballot, with seats allocated by regional group. Candidates must secure a two-thirds majority in the 193-member General Assembly to be elected. Vote tally A total of 188 Member States participated in the election, which required only one round of balloting. In the African and Asia-Pacific group, Bahrain received 186 votes, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) garnered 183 votes, and Liberia received 181 votes, with one country abstaining. In the Eastern European group, Latvia received 178 votes while 10 countries abstained. In the Latin America and the Caribbean group, Colombia received 180 votes, with eight countries abstaining. Debut for Latvia Latvia will take a seat on the Council for the first time in its history. With the exception of Latvia, all the elected countries have previously served: Colombia seven times, the DRC twice, and Bahrain and Liberia once each. Regional groups The non-permanent seats on the Security Council are distributed according to four regional groupings: Africa and Asia; Eastern Europe; Latin America and the Caribbean; and the Western European and other States group. This year's election filled five seats: two allocated to Africa, one to Asia-Pacific, one to Eastern Europe, and one to Latin America and the Caribbean.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down
By Geoff Beattie* of Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP It is not a good break-up. These were always two big beasts used to getting their own way. Two alpha males, if you like the evolutionary metaphor, trying to get along. And now the Donald Trump and Elon Musk relationship is in meltdown. Who could forget that iconic image from just a few short weeks back? Elon Musk standing behind the seated US president, Donald Trump, in the Oval Office, towering over him. Trump, his hands clasped, having to turn awkwardly to look up at him. That silent language of the body. Musk accompanied by his four-year-old, a charming and informal image, or that great evolutionary signal of mating potential and dominance, depending on your point of view. These were also clearly two massive narcissistic egos out in their gleaming open-top speedster. Musk was appointed special advisor to Trump, heading the Department of Government Efficiency, cutting excess and waste. The backseat driver for a while. There were a lot of bureaucratic casualties already, road kill at the side of the highway as the sports car roared on with frightening speed. But things were always going to be difficult if they hit a bump in the road. And they did. Perhaps, more quickly than many had imagined. There were differing views on what caused the crash. Many pointed to the dramatic fall in Tesla's sales - a 71 percent fall in profits in one quarter - and the inevitable impact on Musk's reputation. Since the break-up, Tesla's share price has also dropped sharply], as investors have panicked. The attacks on Tesla showrooms couldn't have helped either. Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Others pointed to Trump's proposed removal of the tax credit for owners of electric vehicles, or the political backlash in Washington over Space X's potential involvement in Trump's proposed "golden dome" anti-missile defence system. However, according to former White House strategist Steve Bannon, what really caused the crash was when the president refused to show Musk the Pentagon's attack plans for any possible war with China. There's only so far being the president's best buddy can get you. Bannon is reported as saying: "You could feel it. Everything changed." That, according to Bannon, was the beginning of the end. So now we watch Trump and Musk stumbling away from the crash scene. One minute Trump is putting on a show for the cameras. He's beaming away and introducing the "big, beautiful bill", a budget reconciliation bill that rolls together hundreds of controversial proposals. Next, he is accusing Musk of "going crazy" and talking about withdrawing government contracts from the Musk empire. Musk is unhappy too. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," he wrote on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong." He says he's disgusted by the bill . Disgust is one of the most primitive of all the emotions. A survival mechanism - you must avoid what disgusts you. He's social signalling here, alerting others, warning them that there's something disgusting in the camp. Musk is highly attuned to public perception, perhaps even more so than Trump (which is saying something). With his acquisition of X (formerly Twitter), Musk was able to direct (and add to) online discourse, shaping public conversations. Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle? Psychologically, Musk's rejection of Trump is an attempt to simultaneously elevate himself and diminish the man behind the bill. He can call out the president's action like nobody else. He is positioning himself anew as that free thinker, that risk taker, innovative, courageous, unfettered by any ties. That is his personality, his brand - and he's reasserting it. But it's also a vengeful act. And it's perhaps reminiscent of another political insider (and geek), former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings, who was sacked by the then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, in 2020. Cummings was accused of masterminding leaks about the social gatherings in Downing Street. He went on to criticise Johnson as lacking the necessary discipline and focus for a prime minister as well as questioning his competence and decision-making abilities. The revenge of a self-proclaimed genius. And revenge is sweet. In a 2004 study, researchers scanned participants' brains using positron emission tomography (PET) - a medical imaging technique that is used to study brain function (among other things) - while the participants played an economic game based on trust. When trust was violated, participants wanted revenge, and this was reflected in increased activity in the reward-related regions of the brain, the dorsal striatum. Revenge, in other words, is primarily about making yourself feel better rather than righting any wrongs. Your act may make you appear moral but it may be more selfish. But revenge for what here? That's where these big narcissistic egos come into play. Psychologically, narcissists are highly sensitive to perceived slights - real or imagined. Musk may have felt Trump was attempting to diminish his achievements for political gain, violating this pact of mutual respect. This kind of sensitivity can quickly transmogrify admiration into contempt. Contempt, coincidentally, is the single best predictor of a breakdown in very close relationships. Disgust and contempt are powerful emotions, evolving to protect us - disgust from physical contamination (spoiled food, disease), and contempt from social or moral contamination (betrayal, incompetence). Both involve rejection - disgust rejects something physically; contempt rejects something socially or morally. Musk may be giving it to Trump with both barrels here. Break-ups are always hard, they get much harder when emotions like these get intertwined with the process. But how will the most powerful man in the world respond to this sort of rejection from the richest man in the world? And where will it end? * Geoff Beattie is a Professor of Psychology at Edge Hill University in the United Kingdom. - This story first appeared in The Conversation
