He didn't shake hands: Angela Merkel calls Donald Trump attention-seeker; recalls incident from 2017
Former German chancellor
Angela Merkel
called
US President
Donald Trump
an attention-seeker, while speaking at an event organised by Greek newspaper Kathimerini in Athens on Wednesday.
Merkel was attending an event to promote the Greek edition of her memoir 'Freedom' when she recalled an incident from March 2017.
At a meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office, he refused to shake hands with her, an incident that took place off-camera, outside the main room.
"I made the mistake of saying, 'Donald, we should shake hands,' and he didn't. He wanted to draw attention to himself. That's what he wants: to distract and have everyone look at him,' Merkel said.
"You can see this in what he is doing with the tariffs. Ultimately, he must deliver good results for the American people.
He has to prove his abilities, at least to his own country,' she added.
She went on to urge the European Union to stand up to Trump's tariff threats and not be intimidated.
'Europeans must stand united and not be intimidated when Trump imposes more tariffs on the bloc, but we should retaliate with tariffs of our own.'
"I'm not saying we should break off relations with the US, but we must negotiate. Even the US cannot survive alone,' Merkel said, adding: 'I see a problematic development.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here]
Esseps
Learn More
Undo
When Vice President Vance says, 'we are partners, and we will only support you if you agree with our concept of freedom,' which means no rules and no controls, that is indeed a threat to our democracy."
Merkel was at the helm of European affairs as the de-facto leader of the EU during Trump's first Presidency, but the pair never had an easy rapport. Describing this often-strained equation, she wrote about Trump in her memoir: 'He judged everything from the perspective of the property entrepreneur he had been before politics. Each property could only be allocated once. If he didn't get it, someone else did. That was also how he looked at the world.
'
'For him, all countries were in competition with each other, in which the success of one was the failure of the other; he did not believe that the prosperity of all could be increased through co-operation.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Want Gazans To Be Safe': Donald Trump Hints At Ceasefire Announcement; Dodges Question On Enclave's Takeover
US President Donald Trump has expressed sympathy for the people of Gaza, describing their suffering as 'hell,' while sidestepping questions about US involvement in the territory. Speaking en route to a rally, Trump also mentioned Iran's desire to engage in talks and stated he would meet with them if necessary. Meanwhile, Trump is preparing to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where he expects to push for a Gaza ceasefire and a hostage-release deal. Hamas is reviewing a new proposal, while mediators from Egypt and Qatar work intensively to bridge gaps between the parties. Israeli officials anticipate a major breakthrough during the upcoming visit.#trump #netanyahu #hamas #gazastrip #GazaCeasefire #GazaWar #Israel Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
15 minutes ago
- First Post
Qatar-Saudi boost to US proposal drives Israel-Hamas ceasefire, hostage talks to a breakthrough
The latest ceasefire proposal is a joint diplomatic effort by the US, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. While mediators from Qatar and Egypt are central to the talks, Hamas is expected to deliver its official response on the ceasefire deal soon read more Relatives and supporters of hostages held in Gaza since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas protest for the release of all hostages outside the headquarters of the Likud Party, in Tel Aviv, Israel. Reuters As US President Donald Trump declared a breakthrough in Gaza ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas earlier this week, Qatar and Saudi Arabia worked behind the scenes to chart out the deal. The two Gulf countries have been wearing the mediator hat since the war began in 2023 and were behind the successful execution of the temporary truce in January. Now, as another ceasefire proposal gains momentum, focus is back on Qatar, Saudi and the US on how soon it can be implemented. It's a race against time as more and more people lose their lives in Gaza. Yesterday, at least 70 people died as a result of Israeli airstrikes in the Palestinian region. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The latest ceasefire proposal is a joint diplomatic effort by the US, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. While mediators from Qatar and Egypt are central to the talks, Hamas is expected to deliver its official response on the ceasefire deal soon. What would the truce entail? A Palestinian source familiar with the mediated negotiations told AFP that 'there are no fundamental changes in the new proposal' under discussion compared to previous terms presented by the United States. The source said that the new proposal 'includes a 60-day truce, during which Hamas would release half of the living Israeli captives in the Gaza Strip, in exchange for Israel releasing a number of Palestinian prisoners and detainees'. Out of 251 hostages seized by Palestinian militants in October 2023, 49 are still held in Gaza, including 27, the Israeli military says, are dead. Hamas has also promised not to hold public hostage handover ceremonies, a major demand from Israel and the US after the events drew widespread condemnation from observers across the world. Hamas considers truce deal Hamas is reportedly satisfied with the plan's language, especially US guarantees about continued negotiations to end the war. It said that it was 'conducting national consultations to discuss' the proposals submitted in negotiations mediated by Qatar and Egypt. Trump on Tuesday urged Hamas to accept a 60-day ceasefire, saying that Israel had agreed to finalise such a deal. Hamas said in a statement that it was studying the latest proposals and aiming 'to reach an agreement that guarantees ending the aggression, achieving the withdrawal (of Israeli forces from Gaza) and urgently aiding our people in the Gaza Strip'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Netanyahu vows to uproot Hamas On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to eradicate Hamas if talks fail. Israel has agreed to a partial withdrawal and increased humanitarian aid, but is not committing to a permanent end to the conflict. Netanyahu has come under strong pressure to get the hostages back after US President Donald Trump said Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire with Palestinian militant group Hamas that could lead to their release. 'I feel a deep commitment, first and foremost, to ensure the return of all our abductees, all of them,' Netanyahu told inhabitants of the Nir Oz kibbutz, the community that saw the most hostages seized in the 2023 Hamas attacks that sparked the war. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘America's attitude to Britain was ruthless as it became global hegemon — China's ‘military-civil fusion' mirrors the US now'
Katherine C. Epstein is Associate Professor of History at Rutgers University-Camden. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das , she outlines, on America's Independence Day, the rise of the US ' military-industrial complex ' — and its implications: What is the core of your research? I focus on two main issues. The first is how the two most powerful, liberal societies of the modern era — Great Britain and the United States — sought to acquire the most cutting-edge secret naval technology. Upto World War I, naval technology was the most advanced on Earth — air power was in its infancy and nuclear weapons hadn't been invented. Naval procurement presented difficult challenges though — one was the tension between the government and private sector over the control of intellectual property rights (IPRs), patents and advanced new weapons which, owing to their growing sophistication, couldn't be procured by traditional methods like in-house building in public factories. As such technology grew more complex, governments began investing in private sector research and development. This raised questions about who owned the IPRs — the contractor doing the work or the government giving subsidies? Also, these weapons were so secret, governments could assume national powers over them, forbidding exports, etc. I look at the tension here between classical liberal norms of property rights and national security interests. I also study the hegemonic transition from the Pax Britannica to the Pax Americana — this change, where the US became global hegemon over Britain, was much more contested and rivalrous than often thought. Considerable evidence shows Britain was quite unhappy — and the US, quite ruthless — about the American pursuit of power at Britain's expense. I argue the US behaviour towards Britain then anticipated Chinese behaviour towards the United States today. This is reflected in US tech imports, through pursuit and theft, which China has apparently done, and in terms of US efforts to build a navy, financial infrastructure, global telecom, etc., that rivalled Britain in much the same way China has been doing now. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Bank Owned Properties For Sale In Tanggulangin (Prices May Surprise You) Foreclosed Homes | Search ads Search Now Undo When exactly did the 'military-industrial complex' emerge — and is this a purely American entity or a multinational force? For the US, the canonical description of the 'military-industrial complex' comes from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 address — Eisenhower warned this system threatened many American liberties. He defined it as the conjunction of a large military establishment with a permanent arms industry. There were huge changes in military production with World War II and the early Cold War. However, drawing from Benjamin Cooling's work, my research finds the first 'military-industrial complex' in America was naval and emerged in the late 19th century, not as a response to any one war but driven by a set of forces — these included the industrialisation of warfare and technology, geopolitical rivalries between the great powers like the scramble for Africa, the starting of globalisation and so on. William H. McNeill's book 'The Pursuit of Power' further traces the first military-industrial complex to 1880s Britain, emerging in response to a set of global forces that caused a naval buildup in peacetime. This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon — it exists worldwide, from South America to Japan, Russia, France, Germany, etc. China's 'military-civil fusion' has several parallels with the US military-industrial complex and vice-versa. Also, although the military-industrial complex looks like a well-oiled machine from outside — a hugely profitable global ring of arms manufacturers, etc. — inside, there are large tensions between militaries and contractors, the first, often a terrible customer who sees the second as profiteers. Live Events Is there any one emerging technology which could completely redefine national security now? My sense is that war will always remain a human phenomenon and we can be sceptical of the ability of any technology to transform warfare. Of course, torpedoes, airplanes and nuclear weapons did change warfare — today, semiconductors and artificial intelligence could do this. However, I retain some reservations about moves like restricting the export of semiconductors to China — we need to ask if this could have been relevant in a lack of smart weapons and the proliferation of dumb weapons which cause huge civilian casualties. With AI , from a national security view of threats posed, this technology makes populations stupider by undermining critical thinking. The American education system is in a dreadful state and AI's role in stunting intellectual development is a huge threat for a nation that needs educated and aware citizens. Further, AI will only deepen the trend of the growing insulation of the American people from the violence done in their names — this has increased over the 20th century, reflected in fiscal terms and how the US has resorted to borrowing to pay for its wars rather than taxation, hiding conflict's true financial costs from Americans. There's also been an increasing move towards 'standoff weapons', like drones, where American bodies are not at risk and the US can effectively do violence to others without risking it for themselves. In that sense, AI and semiconductors — which are about improving the ability of weapons to do what muscle power once did — are more a continuation of a trend than something fundamentally new. Views expressed are personal
