
Melania Trump shows no interest in her homeland Slovenia – for that I am thankful
This is why the achievements of basketball players Goran Dragić and Luka Dončić, professional cyclist Tadej Pogačar's Tour de France victories, the two-time Olympic gold medallist Janja Garnbret, Laibach's notoriety and Katarina Čas's film roles are all framed as national opportunities.
But none of these Slovenian-born figures, however impressive, generate as much excitement as the former Melanija Knavs, now Melania Trump. When Donald Trump's return to power made Melania the first lady again, the media response in Slovenia was predictable: state-run outlets largely downplayed the connection, but commercial media wasted no time promoting it as an opportunity.
Slovenia's largest commercial television network, Pop TV (nomen est omen), aired an interview with Ivo Boscarol, a wealthy Slovenian businessman who attended the inauguration celebrations in Washington. His argument? The Slovenian government had missed a golden opportunity to use Melania's presence in the White House to improve its ties with the US.
Now, as much as I enjoy cringing at Pop TV, I do take its influence seriously. It's the most watched channel in Slovenia, meaning many Slovenians are likely absorbing and internalising this narrative. Some media commentators have even suggested that Melania might be a golden ticket in case 'everything goes wrong'. I wonder if Trump's rejection of the transatlantic alliance in favour of Vladimir Putin and his threat to launch a trade war on the EU mean that has already happened.
The problem with this thinking, however, is that it is not grounded in any reality. There is nothing whatsoever in Melania's memoir to indicate that she has any interest in fostering a political or economic relationship between her adopted country and Slovenia. On the contrary, the few times she mentioned Slovenia during her first stint as Flotus, it was typically a reference to its 'totalitarian past', perhaps playing into the American fear and loathing of communism and socialism.
Melania grew up in the small town of Sevnica and she left to pursue a modelling career before Slovenia gained independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. She has typically kept quiet about her Slovenian heritage, even though much of her family still lives here, and she supposedly speaks Slovene with her son. In her speeches, she has consistently framed the US as the ideal, the place to be, while Slovenia is, well, a place to forget. Perhaps that's why she has never seen fit to visit Slovenia during her tenure as first lady.
But let's entertain the hypothetical for a moment. What if Melania's position did present a unique opportunity for Slovenia? It's hard to imagine, given that very little is known about her personal political views – except that she opposed her husband's stance on abortion, a rare divergence. Still, her decision to marry a problematic public figure and then remain married to a leader displaying authoritarian tendencies speaks volumes. There is a certain complicity in that choice: a tacit approval of Trump's idea that humiliating Volodymyr Zelenskyy or making Ukraine surrender to Russia's demands is the basis for peace; of his renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America; of his plan to rebuild Gaza but perhaps not for Palestinians; a nod to his gender essentialism, demonisation of immigrants, climate denial; and even, ironically, abortion bans.
So Melania could become Slovenia's best opportunity to obtain a special relationship with a fascist regime in the making. Is that the opportunity Slovenia wants? I'm not naive – rightwing ideologies have supporters in Slovenia, and they no doubt look up to Trump. But funnily enough, I am more afraid of the neoliberal politicians in power, and the business elites of our country who see any connection – no matter how toxic – as a potential win. I would really like to know whether we are in danger of relations between Slovenia and the US being – as our hopeful prime minister wished on X after Trump's inauguration – 'further strengthened'.
For now, Slovenia is fortunate that Melania has yet to show any real interest in using her position to strengthen ties with the country of her birth. There is no diplomatic gambit to be made, no grand strategic move to consider. Any celebration of Melania in the White House will pass, if it hasn't already, and with it – luckily – Slovenia's fleeting hope of leveraging her for political gain. Perhaps our next global celebrity will offer a more constructive opportunity. Until then, Slovenia may be better served by focusing on building relationships based on shared values and long-term interests – rather than relying on the whims of problematic individuals.
Ana Schnabl is a Slovenian novelist, editor and critic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BreakingNews.ie
13 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Protest calls on Central Bank not to renew Israel bonds
Protesters have urged the Central Bank of Ireland not to proceed with the approval for the sale of Israel bonds ahead of an upcoming renewal date. Around 100 demonstrators gathered outside the Central Bank in Dublin on Tuesday to demand an end to the authority's role in approving Israel bonds for sale in the EU, for the Government to include services in the Occupied Territories Bill and to pass that legislation. Advertisement The bank is the designated authority in relation to the sale of Israel bonds in the EU, and has determined the securities meet the standards of the bloc's prospectus regulations. Israel bonds have been advertised as supporting the country's economy and, more recently, websites promoting the securities emphasise their role in supporting Israel's military operations in Gaza. Protesters say the bonds are intended to fund the war in Gaza. Photo: Niall Carson/PA. Protesters and opposition parties have called for legislation that would give Ireland the power to refuse the sale of Israeli 'war bonds' over human rights concerns. They say the bonds are intended to fund the war in Gaza, while Ireland has an obligation under the Genocide Convention to use all means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide. Advertisement The Central Bank has said regulations require it to approve prospectuses that meet standards of completeness, consistency and comprehensibility. The Israel bond prospectus is up for renewal on September 2. The Joint Committee on Finance has recommended that the bank carry out an immediate review before renewing approval of the bonds. Meanwhile, Social Democrats TD Gary Gannon has launched legal proceedings against the Central Bank over claims that investors in Israeli bonds could be legally complicit in genocide in Gaza. Advertisement It is alleged that the Central Bank's failure to ban the marketing, distribution and sale of Israel bonds exposes investors to risks that have not been disclosed to them. Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign chairwoman Zoe Lawlor said: 'The government has to end the direct involvement of the Central Bank in apartheid Israel's sale of genocide-funding bonds. People take part in a protest outside the Central Bank in Dublin (Niall Carson/PA) 'The Central Bank is an organ of this state, and its complicity in genocide makes Ireland complicit.' David Landy of Jews for Palestine, and Academics for Palestine said: 'We are asking the Central Bank to do the absolute minimum required of it under law – to end the sale of Israeli war Bonds, to finally end this direct Irish participation in Israeli genocide.' Advertisement Sinn Fein's foreign affairs spokesman said the Irish government 'must use every lever at its disposal' to show leadership on Gaza. Donnchadh O Laoghaire said: 'Clearly ending the facilitation of Israeli war bonds is one of those.' He added: 'The people of Gaza and of Palestine need us to act.'


Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's Costa: Ukraine's membership process must go forward
LISBON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - European Council President Antonio Costa said on Tuesday the process to make Ukraine a member of the European Union needs to advance and Europe has to be part of any peace negotiations alongside Ukraine, Russia and the United States. Costa, who debriefed council members about Monday's talks in Washington via a video call from Lisbon, told reporters that although there was much to be done and no guarantees of success, the very possibility of a bilateral meeting between Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Russian President Vladimir Putin was "in itself fairly positive".


Metro
6 hours ago
- Metro
Five key takeaways from Zelensky's talks with Donald Trump at the White House
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video US president Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and several European allies to the White House yesterday. Following Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin's summit in Alaska on Friday, in which no ceasefire was reached, the 'coalition of the willing' rallied around Ukraine and strengthened their calls for a solution. UK prime minister Keir Starmer joined Trump and Mr Zelensky alongside several other European leaders – and Sir Keir said 'real progress' had been made during the summit held yesterday afternoon. He described the talks as 'good and constructive', adding: 'There was a real sense of unity between the European leaders that were there, and president Trump and president Zelensky.' Trump also described the talks as 'very good', saying on his Truth Social platform that 'everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine'. And president Zelensky said the talks were 'the best' so far, adding: 'We are very happy with the president that all the leaders are here and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us in our hearts.' But what did the talks actually achieve? During the meeting, Trump promised the US would be involved in providing security guarantees for Ukraine. Trump reiterated ahead of the meeting that he is still totally against Ukraine joining Nato – but Putin is reportedly open to allowing the US to provide Ukraine with Nato-like 'robust security guarantees'. Speaking at the weekend, US envoy Steve Witkoff said: 'We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer article five-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato.' Nato's Article Five is the principle that an attack on one member is considered an attack on them all – and Russia has long opposed Ukraine being accepted into Nato. The US president added: 'I think that the European nations are going to take a lot of the burden. We're going to help them, and we're going to make it very secure.' Trump told the meeting that he had spoken directly with Putin to start planning a meeting between him and Mr Zelensky. In fact, according to an EU diplomat, Trump interrupted the meeting to call the Russian president, Sky News reports. Sir Keir said after the meeting: 'The other material outcome was the agreement that there will now be a bilateral agreement between president Putin and president Zelensky, followed by a trilateral which will then add in president Trump. 'That is a recognition of the principle that on some of these issues, whether it's territory or the exchange of prisoners, or the very serious issue of the return of children, that is something where Ukraine must be at the table. 'These were the two outcomes that were the most important coming out of today. They're positive outcomes, there was a real sense of unity. We've made real progress today.' Speaking to Fox News after the Alaska summit, Trump suggested it could be 'up to Zelensky' to make peace with Russia. If Trump is able to set up a meeting between Putin and Mr Zelensky, it would be only the second time the two leaders have met face-to-face. They last met in 2019 at the Élysée Palace in Paris to try and negotiate a solution after Russia annexed Crimea illegally in 2014 and Russian-backed separatists started to take control of parts of Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Trump also said that 'if everything works out well today' he would organise a meeting between himself, Putin, and Mr Zelensky. Mr Zelensky was reportedly using the meeting to push for a trilateral meeting between himself, Trump and Putin after he was excluded from the Alaska summit. From the perspective of Mr Zelensky and other European leaders, the priority for yesterday's talks seemed to be that further negotiations and talks about Ukraine's future must include Ukraine's input. French president Emmanuel Macron said while a trilateral meeting is important, he also wanted a 'quadrilateral' summit to take place afterwards. It wasn't clear whether he wanted the fourth party in the meeting to be France, Nato, the EU, or the 'coalition of the willing' as a whole. Following Friday's Alaska summit, where the prospect of a ceasefire was not discussed, Trump said there doesn't need to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, as a peace deal could be worked out while the two countries are still at war. He commented: 'I don't think you need a ceasefire. You know, if you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war, I didn't do any ceasefires. 'I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand, strategically, why one country or the other wouldn't want it. 'You have a ceasefire and they rebuild and rebuild and rebuild and maybe they don't want that.' German chancellor Friedrich Merz seemed to oppose this, telling media in the White House: 'I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire, so let's work on that and let's try to put pressure on Russia.' Trump later pushed back, saying: 'So if we can do the ceasefire, great, and, if we don't do a ceasefire… many other points were given to us, many, many points were given to us, great points.' Trump repeatedly said before this meeting that a discussion about territory exchanges needed to be discussed. He said any exchanges would need to 'take into consideration the current line of contact', adding: 'That means the war zone, the war lines that are now, pretty obvious, very sad, actually, to look at them and negotiating positions.' It's understood that during the Alaska summit on Friday Putin demanded Ukraine hand over its Donetsk and Luhansk regions as a condition for ending the war – a move which Trump reportedly endorsed privately. In exchange, Russia would reportedly give up other Ukrainian territories held by its troops. More Trending However Mr Zelensky has repeated that he is not able to give up any of his country's territory – including Crimea, which was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. Speaking in April about the possibility of ceding land, he simply said: 'There is nothing to talk about here. This is against our constitution.' Article two of Ukraine's constitution states that its sovereignty 'extends throughout its entire territory' which 'within its present border is indivisible and inviolable'. For any change to the country's borders to happen, the Ukrainian parliament must authorise a national referendum for its citizens to vote on. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Fact check: Donald Trump boasts he's ended 'six wars in six months' but has he? MORE: Zelensky tells Trump 'it's the best I had' after turning up in black suit with no tie MORE: Russian troops troll Zelensky by flying US flag on mission into Ukraine