Second Georgian opposition politician detained, his party says
POLICE in Georgia have detained an opposition politician, his party said on Thursday, the second such detention in a little more than a week of figures denouncing government policies bringing the country closer to Russia.
The Coalition for Change, Georgia's largest opposition group, said one of its leaders, Nika Melia, had been detained.
News reports said he was being held on charges of abusive behaviour towards a law enforcement officer and would be appearing in court.
Previously one of the most pro-Western and democratic of the Soviet Union's successor states, Georgia under the leadership of the Georgian Dream party is accused by its opponents of moving in an authoritarian and pro-Russian direction.
Last week, a Georgian court on Thursday placed Zurab Japaridze, another leader of the Coalition for Change, in pre-trial detention for an indeterminate period of time.
Japaridze had refused to appear at a parliamentary inquiry into alleged crimes committed under jailed former President Mikheil Saakashvili, between 2004 and 2012.
Georgian Dream, after winning an election last November denounced as rigged by the opposition, said it would halt talks on joining the European Union until 2028. Membership of the 27-nation bloc is a popular goal among Georgians and incorporated in the constitution.
Georgian Dream dismisses allegations that the November poll was falsified. The outcome triggered large-scale protests, with protesters confronting police and water cannon in the capital.
Georgian Dream says it still wants to eventually join the EU, but also wants balanced relations with Russia, which ruled Georgia for around 200 years until 1991.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Editorial: Trump's deal-making diplomacy not breaking deadlocks
An explosion of a drone lights up the sky over Kyiv during a Russian drone strike on Saturday. — Reuters US President Donald Trump's diplomacy of mediation through a deal between the major powers has once again ended in failure. Isn't it time for him to change his approach to Russia, which continues its aggression against Ukraine? Trump held telephone talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was the third such talk since the launch of Trump's second administration. During the meeting, Trump asked Putin, 'When are we going to end this [the war]?' But Putin did not answer and also refused to accept the 30-day unconditional ceasefire proposal backed by Trump. Prior to these telephone talks, Russia and Ukraine held direct talks between senior officials in Turkey for the first time in nearly three years, but no progress was made. Trump may have been trying to make a breakthrough in his top-level talks with Putin. However, after the meeting, Putin revealed that he would propose the drafting of a memorandum on a future peace treaty. This may be an attempt to prolong the negotiations by adding new procedures and to create an even more advantageous situation in the war. Putin also repeated his assertion that it is important to 'eliminate the root causes of this crisis'. This refers to demands that Ukraine cannot accept, such as ruling out Ukraine's future membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato). It is Putin's tactic to take advantage of his counterpart's conciliatory stance and increase his demands. Trump should understand that continued concessions to Putin will not lead to progress. Trump must return to the basics that Russia's aggression against Ukraine is a clear violation of international law and unacceptable, and then proceed with negotiations. To counter Russia, it is essential to increase international pressure in close cooperation with European countries. It is appropriate that after the talks, Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of France, Germany, and other major European countries to share information. European countries have warned that they will impose additional sanctions if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire. In the US Senate, deliberations are also underway on a Bill for additional sanctions that would impose high tariffs on countries that import energy from Russia. There is a need to increase the options available to put pressure on Russia. With the lack of diplomatic achievements, there are indications that Trump will decrease his engagement in the role of mediator in future. This is because after talks with Putin, Trump posted on social media that 'Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations' as if leaving the negotiations up to those parties. However, it should not be forgotten that the United States is providing Ukraine with weapons and military intelligence, which is the greatest source of pressure on Russia. If the United States pulls back, Washington will inevitably be accused of giving in to Putin. – The Yomiuri Shimbun/Asia News Network
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Stop scaring future world leaders off US campuses
HERE'S yet another way in which US President Donald Trump is making America neither Great Again nor strong, but weaker, and for a long time to come: He's sabotaging the US-centred trans-national intellectual and personal networks that have amplified American power by breaking the pipeline of future leaders of foreign countries who were educated and shaped in the US. His administration is doing that by expelling, harassing, or intimi-dating foreigners at US univer-sities. It revoked the visas of more than 1,400 international students on American campuses. In some cases, the government alleged that students were pro-Palestinian protesters, in others that they committed 'crimes', even if those turned out to be unpaid parking tickets or were even non-existent. Many of the revocations had no clear rationale at all. As part of the specific showdown between the White House and Harvard University, the administration threatened to stop the institution from enrolling international students altogether; however, on Friday a federal judge temporarily halted the ban. Before that, the many lawsuits brought by international students over their visa statuses caused enough chaos that the government promised to restore due process to its review of student visas. Whether it does or not, though, the damage may already be done. No matter how many students this bureaucratic jihad ultimately forces to go home, it will dissuade myriad other young talents abroad from applying to study in America in the first place. Why should they subject themselves to legal risk or hostility (on top of America's outlandish tuition costs) when they could instead get their degrees in other countries? And among those bright young things forming new ideas, expertise, and friendships outside rather than inside of the US will be some of tomorrow's world leaders. To grasp what America in the coming years will miss out on, consider the subtle but influential webs of soft power that have long been among the boons of America's status as an educational superpower. When covering the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, or again the global one of the late 2000s, I often heard that negotiations among countries and institutions went better than expected – and better for the US, in particular – because a lot of the people in the meetings had spent time on the same campuses, studied under the same professors, or even sat in the same classrooms. They wore different garb and spoke English in different accents. But they shared the language and mentality of, say, Harvard's Kennedy School, or the economics departments at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the University of Chicago. Mario Draghi, for example, has been an Italian and a European central banker (as well as a prime minister of Italy), just as Raghu-ram Rajan ran India's central bank and the research side of the International Monetary Fund, among other things. But both got their PhDs at MIT, and were influenced by Stanley Fischer, a titan of finance (and himself a former central banker of Israel). As a professor at MIT, Fischer in fact mentored future central bankers on most continents except Antarctica. Mark Carney, a former central bank governor in Britain and Canada (and Canada's current Prime Minister), is not among them – he went to Harvard instead. In some cases, these biographies make for stories of stunning success for the individuals as well as for the world and the host country, the US. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is a Nigerian who studied at Harvard and MIT, then went on to reform Nigeria's economy in two stints as Finance minister, before working at the World Bank and running the World Trade Organisation. She's still Nigerian, but now a US citizen as well. The list of US-educated heads of state is also long. For ambitious Latin Americans and Africans, a stint or two on an American campus is practically a rite of passage. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, sent his younger son to Stanford and the elder to Harvard's Kennedy School; that one later became Singapore's third prime minister. Taiwan's current president got his master's degree from Harvard; his predecessor got hers from Cornell. The Jordanian king also studied in America (at Georgetown), as did much of his policy elite. Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, did not, but that makes him an outlier among Saudi royals. The Israelis love to take a swing through American campuses, including incumbent Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (MIT and Harvard). On it goes, from Moldova to South Korea and Indonesia, where the current president did not study in the US but his influential Finance Minister, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, did (University of Illinois); she has called her American years formative. Whether an American educa-tion always makes foreign leaders more pro-American or pro-Western, or even just more capable, is moot. At a minimum, though, it lets international students see the world and their own countries through American eyes, narratives, metaphors, and references. It gives them a literal and figurative vocabulary with which they will later run international organisations or negotiate with the White House. The scholar Joseph Nye defined soft power as the ability to get others to want what you want. To the extent that a US education gets others to think as Americans think, it is the ideal tool of soft power, if you choose to see it that way. There are of course many other reasons for the US to host international students – about a million a year as of last count. Foreigners who study in America go on to invent and pioneer new technologies and business models at disproportionate rates, and most do it in and for the US. If the Trump administration pushes them away, those talents will innovate in and for China instead, or other adversaries and competitors. But the ability to form intellectual and personal networks across the world is enough reason to keep American education cosmopolitan, as opposed to barricading the ivory tower and closing American minds. In that way, education is like trade: enriching when it's open, corrosive when it closes. The benefits I'm describing pay out slowly, admittedly, and Trump isn't known for his attention span or long-term planning. But some rewards can be immediate, even if hard to quantify. Bilal Erdogan (Indiana University and Harvard) has surely talked at least some sense about America into his father, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And as relations between the US and China become ever tenser, it surely helps both countries that Xi Jinping can turn to his daughter Mingze for discreet pointers about the Yanks. She too reportedly went to Harvard, though under an alias. Little else is publicly known, not even whether she paid all her parking tickets. – Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service
The Star
9 hours ago
- The Star
Saudi Arabia to provide financial support with Qatar to Syria's state employees, Saudi foreign minister says
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud attends a press conference with Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shibani (not pictured), in Damascus, Syria May 31, 2025. REUTERS/Yamam Al Shaar CAIRO (Reuters) -Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud said on Saturday that the kingdom will jointly offer with Qatar financial support to state employees in Syria. "The kingdom will provide with Qatar joint financial support to state employees in Syria," Bin Farhan said during a press conference with his Syrian counterpart Asaad al-Shibani in Damascus. He did not provide details on the size of the financial support to be provided by Riyadh and Doha. However, it echoes a similar move by Qatar to bankroll Syria's public sector. His visit comes few weeks after the U.S. made a surprise announcement on lifting sanctions on Syria's Islamist-led government which overthrew former leader Bashar al-Assad in December. U.S. President Donald Trump made the decision during his recent visit to the Middle East and said it was at the behest of Saudi Arabia's crown prince, whose country was a main advocate for the lifting of sanctions. The European Union also recently lifted economic sanctions on Syria. Bin Farhan referred to his country's role in helping to lift economic sanctions on Syria, saying that Saudi Arabia would continue to be one of the main backers to Syria in its path for reconstruction and economic recovery. He said he was being accompanied with a high-level economic delegation from the kingdom to "hold talks [with the Syrian side] to bolster aspects of cooperation in various fields". Several visits would then follow in the coming days by Saudi businessmen to Syria to discuss investments in energy, agriculture, infrastructure and other sectors, he said. (Reporting by Menna Alaa El-Din and Muhammad Al Gebaly; Writing by Menna Alaa El-Din and Jaidaa Taha; Editing by Toby Chopra)
