Kenyan Protest Death Toll Climbs to 16 After Police Crackdown
At least 16 people died after Kenyan police cracked down on anti-government protests across the country on Wednesday, human-rights groups said.
Demonstrations took place in at least half of Kenya's 47 counties to commemorate the first anniversary of protests that culminated in the storming of parliament and in which at least 60 people were killed. The death toll from Wednesday's unrest is expected to climb, the Independent Medico-Legal Unit, a Nairobi-based non-profit organization, said in a statement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nippon Steel Will Finally Get To Buy U.S. Steel. The Deal Likely Ensures More Federal Meddling in the Future.
The Trump administration is finally getting out of the way of Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel—but in a way that seems to ensure more federal meddling in the future. It has been more than 17 months since U.S. Steel, a private company, struck a deal to be bought by Japan-based Nippon Steel for about $15 billion. Before the deal could be finalized, however, then-President Joe Biden swooped in to block the transaction, citing national security concerns that were never well defined. After an extensive review by the Biden administration found no reason to block the deal, Biden unilaterally decided to derail it anyway. During last year's campaign, President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance sided with Biden (and U.S. Steel's union) and opposed the deal. But Trump has abruptly changed course. On Friday, he announced "a planned partnership" between the two companies. In a statement posted to Truth Social, the president said the deal would "create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $14 Billion Dollars to the U.S. Economy." The details of the deal remain cloudy, but it seems like Nippon will invest $14 billion to take over U.S. Steel, with a few caveats. On Sunday, Trump told reporters that the deal is "an investment and it's a partial ownership, but it'll be controlled by the U.S.A," according to the Associated Press. On Tuesday morning, Sen. Dave McCormick (R–Pa.) told CNBC that the deal ensures an American CEO will continue to run U.S. Steel (presumably as a subsidiary to Nippon Steel) and that the federal government will get a "golden share" in the company. That would "essentially require U.S. government approval of a number of the board members. And that will allow the United States to ensure that production levels aren't cut," McCormick said. If true—none of this has been disclosed officially yet—then the federal government would effectively hold a majority stake in what remains of U.S. Steel after the Nippon acquisition is completed. In short, Trump would have converted Biden's meddling in the affairs of a private company into an official, permanent place for the federal government on the board of U.S. Steel—which is, I stress once again, a private company. So-called "golden shares" originated in Britain during the 1980s, when the British government used the arrangement to retain control over companies that were privatized, including several utilities and Rolls-Royce. More recently, they have been used by the Chinese government to exert direct control over supposedly private companies. It is not surprising to see the U.S. following in China's footsteps in that regard, but it sure is disheartening. While Trump appears to have made the right decision in standing aside and allowing this deal to go through, the inclusion of a "golden share" for the federal government would be a worrying precedent that is likely to chill future investment in American companies. There was nothing objectionable about the original U.S. Steel/Nippon Steel deal. It was always ridiculous for the federal government, under Trump and Biden, to suggest that Nippon Steel, a publicly traded company based in a close American ally that already operates several steelmaking facilities in the United States, is any sort of a national security threat. Biden's decision to unilaterally block the deal was a dangerous, disgraceful expansion of executive power that relied on a willingness to stretch the definition of national security beyond any reasonable point. Trump, unsurprisingly, has used that leverage to extend the federal government's control over decisions that should be left to executives and shareholders. All of this will make it easier for Trump (or the next president) to meddle in the future of U.S. Steel, or to apply the same terms to a future foreign investment in any business a future president decides to call a national security threat. Credit Nippon's negotiators for doing what needed to be done to land a deal that's in the best interests of shareholders and workers on both sides of the Pacific. But don't cheer the bipartisan effort to expand executive power in the marketplace. The post Nippon Steel Will Finally Get To Buy U.S. Steel. The Deal Likely Ensures More Federal Meddling in the Future. appeared first on Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Controlling Stake in U.S. Steel Is Indefensible Socialist Nonsense
U.S. Steel isn't just getting nationalized. It's getting…personalized? President Donald Trump will personally control the so-called "golden share" that his administration has forced U.S. Steel to accept as part of the terms of a deal that will see the previously private company get acquired by Japan-based Nippon Steel. It's an utterly absurd arrangement—one that will leave the federal government with a controlling share of U.S. Steel even after Trump leaves office—that gives Trump the power to block future attempts by U.S. Steel to relocate its headquarters or make changes to its production facilities. Documents filed this week with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) spell out the specifics of the deal. Trump must provide "written consent" before U.S. Steel will be allowed to change its name, relocate its headquarters, reduce or alter any planned capital investments, "close, idle, or sell" its existing plants, or attempt to acquire any part of a competing business. In short: Whatever decisions are made by U.S. Steel's executives and shareholders (or by Nippon, which will own U.S. Steel) will require approval from Trump, his appointees, or his successors. The terms spelled out in the SEC documents extend well beyond government meddling in the future of a private business. The deal also means that the same federal government charged with regulating other steel companies operating in the United States now owns a controlling share in a direct competitor. That's a massive conflict of interest, on top of the other gross implications here. This is socialism of the particularly stupid variety, like something ripped from the pages of Atlas Shrugged. No surprise, then, that The New Republic is a fan: "This leftish maneuver—one might even call it socialist—represents a promising new experiment in regulatory policy," writes Timothy Noah. As he points out, the idea of using these "golden shares" to effectively take over private business has gained some traction on the political left in recent years. The Roosevelt Institute, for example, has advocated for using them to force car companies to build more electric vehicles and to artificially hike wages. The Trump administration's handling of the U.S. Steel/Nippon deal will only open the door to more arrangements like this—giving future presidents a precedent for forcing their way into the board rooms of private companies. For anyone to the right of hardened socialists, this arrangement should be completely indefensible. That being said, I do look forward with a sort of grim amusement to the rhetorical gymnastics that many Republicans will no doubt deploy to not only defend this deal but to insist that Trump's takeover of U.S. Steel is actually a brilliant exercise of executive power. When that happens—and it will—keep in mind how conservatives and Republicans reacted to the Obama administration's partial takeover of General Motors a decade ago. "If congressional Republicans do not object to this arrangement, the GOP position is simple," writes Jim Geraghty at National Review. "The U.S. government owning shares in private companies and directing a company's decisions is socialism, communism, economic foolishness, and arguably a form of economic fascism. But that's only when a Democratic president does it. When a Republican president does it, it's perfectly fine." Trump's takeover of U.S. Steel is socialist nonsense that violates every principle of limited government and represents an unrestrained view of executive power. It should be universally opposed by Congress and the public, and it ought to be reversed as soon as possible. The post Trump's Controlling Stake in U.S. Steel Is Indefensible Socialist Nonsense appeared first on
an hour ago
Reeling from Trump rebukes, Europe weighs deeper ties with China
BARCELONA, Spain -- Jilted, betrayed, dumped, or defiant. It's hard to describe the European Union after relentless attacks from its once-dependable ally, the United States. The threat from Donald Trump's second administration against Greenland, its sweeping tariff plans and courtship of Moscow have firmed up some European leaders' vows to reduce their reliance on America. That has not gone unnoticed in another global power. China hopes for a Europe detached from the U.S. and is sensing an opportunity now to divide the West. For the past several years, the EU moved in lockstep with Washington to levy tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and sanction Chinese officials accused of rights violations. Now, locked in a trade war with Washington that may be prolonged, Beijing sees the 27-nation bloc as a desirable partner in blunting the impact from Trump's tariffs and to maintain its strong global position. But for EU leaders, meeting Thursday in Brussels to discuss China among a host of regional and global issues, managing ties with Beijing is no easy matter. An upcoming summit in China in July to mark 50 years of ties might offer the first hint of new consensus between these two global behemoths. The EU-China economic ties are hefty: bilateral trade is estimated at 2.3 billion euros ($2.7 billion) per day. China is the EU's second largest trading partner in goods, after the United States. Both China and the EU believe it is in their interest to keep their trade ties stable for the sake of the global economy, and they share certain climate goals. Like the U.S., Europe runs a massive trade deficit with China: around 300 billion euros last year. It relies heavily on China for critical minerals, which are also used to make magnets used in cars and appliances. As European companies are seeing declining profitability in China, Brussels is hoping Beijing will follow through on recent pledges, like one announced Thursday by the Ministry of Commerce, to ease restrictions on foreign business ventures. 'While other opened their market, China focused undercutting intellectual property protections, massive subsidies with the aim to dominate global manufacturing and supply chains,' said EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the G7 meeting in Canada. 'This is not market competition – it is distortion with intent." Now, Europe, already fretting over the trade deficit, worries that Trump's tariffs could divert even more Chinese goods to Europe, destabilizing markets across the continent. Such vulnerabilities could strengthen Beijing's negotiating position, said Alicia Garcia-Herrero, a China analyst with the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank. 'China has built so many strategic dependencies that the EU is trapped in an asymmetric relationship,' she said, and Beijing could leverage them to 'get a deal in July" at the summit. Analysts don't expect a grand bargain at the summit, but China will likely demand the EU lift tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles or even reopen the bilateral trade treaty, the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. Either or both would send a powerful signal to Washington. But China's main goal is ensuring the EU remains an accessible and affluent market for goods that might not reach the U.S. because of Trump's tariff blitzkrieg. Despite a truce in the trade war, Chinese businesses are widening their global reach to be less dependent on the U.S. Regardless of any deal, the summit itself will be the message, said Noah Barkin, an analyst of Europe-China relations at the German Marshall Fund think tank. For the EU, the main goal would be for von der Leyen to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, he said. Whereas she was 'treated rather shabbily' on a 2023 trip to Beijing, Barkin said the Chinese this time will probably 'roll out the red carpet," keen to see 'pictures of Chinese and European leaders walking through gardens and sending a message of unity.' Sun Chenghao, head of the U.S.-EU program at Tsinghua University's Center for International Security and Strategy, expressed hope 'that the future of China-Europe relations can be more independent on both sides.' 'For Europe, that would mean shaping its China policy based on its own interests, rather than simply taking sides,' Sun told the German Marshall Fund in a podcast. 'And for China, this means building a more independent and nuanced approach to Europe.' 'It is precisely because most European decision-makers realize the necessity of strategic autonomy that they have made it clear that they must strengthen cooperation with China," said Yan Xuetong, dean of the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, to The Paper, a Shanghai-based news site. "Even if China and Europe have differences on the Ukraine issue, there is still room for expanding cooperation in areas beyond the differences.' China's deepening ties with its historic allies in Europe like Hungary and Greece stand alongside fears across the continent about its human rights record, espionage, trade policies, military buildup and support for Russia. European police arrested employees of the Chinese tech giant Huawei during an ongoing bribery investigation in Brussels. Czech intelligence services have claimed Beijing directed cyberattacks on its critical infrastructure. And the EU's criticisms of China's human rights violations remain unabated. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has further disaffected Europe from China. Despite Beijing's claims of neutrality, Europe largely sees China as complicit in, if not covertly supporting Russia's war machine. The EU recently cancelled a high-level economic and trade dialogue with China, due to a lack of progress on trade disputes. It also has moved to restrict Chinese participation in EU medical devices procurement. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called out Spain for its courtship of China, warning that countries seeking to get closer to China would be 'cutting their own throat' because Chinese factories will be looking to dump goods that they can't ship to the U.S. By decoupling their positions on China, analysts say both Brussels and Washington have weaker hands dealing with Beijing. And that might hurt the U.S., which has vowed to prevail over China and retain its global dominance but, as many believe, needs help from its allies and partners. 'If we could just get Japan and the EU and the U.S. together on any issue, ... we could outweigh the Chinese at the negotiating table,' said Nick Burns, the U.S. ambassador to China in the Biden administration. 'President Trump, I think, because of his inattention to our allies and maybe even worse, his sometimes just acrimonious behaviors towards allies, has given away that leverage.' Joerg Wuttke, former president of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China and now a partner at DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group in Washington, argued that the fundamentals underlining EU-China relations have not changed as long as China does not take genuine steps to open its market and that the EU remains 'geared towards' the U.S., though he described Washington as a 'major backdrop noise.' 'We are not allies. We are trading partners,' Wuttke said of EU and China. 'And, so from my point of view is, what is there to worry for the United States?'
