Harvard Holds Graduation In Shadow Of Trump 'Retribution'

What did Europe achieve at the Washington summit on Ukraine? – DW – 08/19/2025

DW

2 minutes ago

DW

What did Europe achieve at the Washington summit on Ukraine? – DW – 08/19/2025

European leaders backed Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy in his return to the White House to press Donald Trump on security guarantees and block territorial concessions. How much progress did the talks bring? The mood at the White House in Washington, DC, on Monday appeared quite different from the debacle earlier this year when US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in front of the cameras. On Monday, Zelenskyy walked into the Oval Office in a crisp navy suit, not his trademark olive fatigues, and handed Trump a personal letter from his wife, Olena, to First Lady Melania Trump. The left, thanking her for raising the plight of Ukraine's abducted children with Putin, seemed to set a more diplomatic tone. European leaders were determined to support him. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were among those who made the trip to Washington on short notice. They sat in a protective semicircle around Zelenskyy, keen to ensure that another Oval Office humiliation was avoided and that the trans-Atlantic alliance held. "This was a meeting where Europeans had the chance to show their unity and determination," said Almut Möller, Director of European and Global Affairs at the European Policy Centre, to DW. "Europe is not powerless." The European leaders' clearest goal of the White House talks was Trump's public endorsement of security guarantees. The US president delivered; standing beside Zelenskyy, he pledged that the US would "coordinate" with Europe on protections for Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte described them as "Article 5-type guarantees," though not NATO membership itself. Article 5 is the alliance's mutual defense clause, stating that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. That reassurance mattered in Europe, as fear had risen that Trump might again lean towards Russia after he met President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Yet the details of the security guarantees remain undefined. Trump equally pushed back on Europe's call for a ceasefire as a starting point. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video After the meeting, Rutte told Fox News, a US news broadcaster, that there are currently 30 countries in the mix in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing." Their defense ministers could meet as early as this week to begin ironing out the details of these security guarantees. Zelenskyy was hopeful, telling reporters the guarantees will "be formalized on paper within the next week to 10 days." In an interview with DW, researcher Tinatin Akhvlediani at the Brussels Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) evaluated these announcements of security guarantees as an essential step, "especially if the United States is engaged in backing them up." However, she warns that this backup is essential "because, as we know, the United States currently provides the military equipment and weaponry that the EU cannot replace." Equally important was what did not happen. During the meeting, there was no mention of Ukraine ceding territory. The reported that one European official who was part of the delegation to Washington said that Trump explained, "That is not my business, that is a matter for Ukraine," effectively ruling out forcing land swaps. Akhvlediani maintained that the risk remains. "We will have to see what happens next, as we don't know what exactly happened behind closed doors." As of now, Putin continues to demand Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. French President Macron openly voiced doubts about the Kremlin's intentions: "His ultimate goal is to take as much territory as possible," the French president warned. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video According to the Kremlin, Trump interrupted the talks with Zelenskyy and the European leaders to conduct a 40-minute call with Putin. The US president then moved the process forward by proposing a trilateral summit with himself, Zelenskyy and Putin, possibly within weeks. While no date and location have been set, European leaders said they would support such a meeting if it reinforced Ukraine's sovereignty and avoided concessions imposed from outside. Both analysts agree that such a meeting is of utmost importance. "Putin now has to show that he wants peace," Möller said. For Europe, direct talks between Ukraine and Russia carry both opportunity and risk. It could mark the beginning of a genuine peace process or open the door to renewed pressure on Ukraine to compromise, this time without European leaders by his side. For the European leaders in attendance, the summit went beyond its outcomes. The talks showed that Europe can be more than a bystander and is willing to go the extra mile regarding security guarantees, Möller said. "This is about each and every European leader sitting in this room, knowing that there is a threat out there that this threat might affect their own country. This has brought them together," he said. German Chancellor Merz echoed that in an interview after the meeting. "This isn't just about Ukraine's territory; it's about the political order of Europe. Germany has a major interest and a major responsibility." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The mood in Europe was cautiously optimistic after the summit. "Since Trump returned to the White House, the trans-Atlantic alliance has never been as strong," Akhvlediani argued, stressing that European leaders had succeeded in steering him back toward historical allies. The outcome of the talks also remains provisional. "Trump can change his views very quickly," Möller notes. "This is an evolving situation, and I am hesitant to think of this as a very important moment in this process towards finding peace for Ukraine and territorial integrity for Ukraine." More steps will be needed, yet one lesson stood out: Europe has no choice but to stand united. The challenge is immense, Möller added, but "Europe has no alternative but to try, and they are doing the right things."

What's behind the US's antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

DW

30 minutes ago

DW

What's behind the US's antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

South Africa has rejected a recent report by the United States on its human rights record. It's not the first time the country finds itself in the firing line of the US. What's behind it? South Africa has staunchly rejected a report published on the website of the US Department of State about human rights practices in the country. The document claims that South Africa's human rights situation had "significantly worsened during the year," and references the ongoing debate on land reform. In particular, the paper highlights the signing of the now-infamous Expropriation Bill last year, classifying this move as a "worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country." Signed into law in January, the Expropriation Act states that the South African government can legally take private property for public use — but also spells out fair compensation and only allows seizure in certain instances. The South African government meanwhile has stressed on multiple occasions that the Expropriation Act only aims "to provide for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The document by the US Department of State further alleges that the rate of extrajudicial killings in South Africa has also been growing. It singled out recent reports about two women who were murdered on a farm and whose bodies later were fed to pigs, attempting to link this incident to the government. US President Donald Trump's administration had previously gone as far as accusing South Africa of deliberate violence against the minority white Afrikaner group, saying that thousands were actively fleeing the country. Some who are or were close to Trump, including his billionaire former top adviser Elon Musk, even claimed that South Africa was committing a genocide against white people — a claim which has widely been rejected by the vast majority of South Africans. Analyst and author Hamilton Wende — himself a white South African — told DW earlier this year that anyone who thinks that white people are being massacred is part of a "rightwing extremist viewpoint, which is not reflective of ... what the government thinks, and of what the country thinks generally." President Trump launched a resettlement program for white Afrikaners to the US as refugees earlier this year, doubling down on his unfounded narrative that authorities in South Africa were allegedly complicit in actions that amount to an infringement of the rights and lives of these people. As was the case with all previous accusations leveled against South Africa, the government has also dismissed the latest reports squarely, saying they were "deeply flawed" and "inaccurate" while failing "to reflect the reality of our constitutional democracy." While expressing its general disappointment with the US Department of State document, the government also clarified the facts behind some of the specifitc claims made in the report, saying that the report had been compiled in a manner which was based "on a-contextual information and discredited accounts." Among other things, the government stressed that it had nothing to do with the deaths of the two women, pointing to independent media reports which explain that the women had been killed by a farm owner who is also accused of forcing one of his workers to feed their bodies to pigs. Furthermore, South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) also said in a statement that is was "ironic" that as a country which had recently withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council, the US should make assessments on the issue of human rights in the first Tselapedi, a politics and international studies lecturer at South Africa's Rhodes University, believes that the US is trying to drum up negative publicity about South Africa. Tselapedi told DW that this is in response to South Africa's case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in late 2023. According to Tselapedi, the latest report by the Department of State is an attempt to chip away at "the international standing of South Africa when it comes to the ICJ case against Israel" by making South Africa look like it has no moral ground to question Israel on account of alleged irregularities with its own human rights record. South Africa had filed a case against Israel at the ICJ, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, which generated great international interest and garnered support by governments widely considered hostile to the US, such as Iran. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Tselapedi also asserts, however, that most other countries are likely aware of this deliberate approach to try to undermine South Africa's image, and that the government should be undeterred by such interventions. DIRCO meanwhile proactively drew attention in its response to a recent assessment from the United Nations Human Rights Office, which described South Africa's Expropriation Act as a "critical step in addressing the country's racially imbalanced land ownership." "This recognition from the UN's primary human rights body underscores the integrity of our legislative processes aimed at rectifying historical injustices in a constitutional and human-rights-based manner," DIRCO added. Former South African ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool, meanwhile, also shared the government's view that the Expropriation Act is being used as a scapegoat to draw attention away from the ICJ case against the Israeli government, which he said did not sit well with many in Washington. In response, Rasool was promptly expelled from the US after being declared persona non grata by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Tselapedi meanwhile also emphasized the fact that South Africa's role in the BRICS bloc of nations might also feature prominently in the US' reasoning to try to taint the nation's reputation amid threats that BRICS' members might be launching their own currency. This ultimately would weaken the US-dollar standard as the world's foremost reserve currency, while affecting economies and their trade practices around the world. Trump himself has warned that he would do anything in his power to stop this plan from succeeding. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The drive for a BRICS currency is chiefly being led by China and RussiaHowever, the extent of South Africa's volatility in this geopolitical game could already been when Trump was reelected last November. The South African Rand plummeted upon the news that Trump would be returning to the White House. Having now been slapped with 30% tariffs by the US and having suffered severe cuts in USAID since the beginning of the year, South Africa has been hard hit by the Trump administration. Tselapedi, however, notes that the government can perhaps find some solace in the fact that official reports published by the US under President Trump are increasingly being viewed "with suspicion and caution" around the globe.

What's behind the US' overt antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

DW

an hour ago

DW

What's behind the US' overt antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

South Africa has rejected a recent report by the United States on its human rights record. It's not the first time the country finds itself in the firing line of the US. What's behind it? South Africa has staunchly rejected a report published on the website of the US Department of State about human rights practices in the country. The document claims that South Africa's human rights situation had "significantly worsened during the year," and references the ongoing debate on land reform. In particular, the paper highlights the signing of the now-infamous Expropriation Bill last year, classifying this move as a "worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country." Signed into law in January, the Expropriation Act states that the South African government can legally take private property for public use — but also spells out fair compensation and only allows seizure in certain instances. The South African government meanwhile has stressed on multiple occasions that the Expropriation Act only aims "to provide for the expropriation of property for a public purpose or in the public interest." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The document by the US Department of State further alleges that the rate of extrajudicial killings in South Africa has also been growing. It singled out recent reports about two women who were murdered on a farm and whose bodies later were fed to pigs, attempting to link this incident to the government. US President Donald Trump's administration had previously gone as far as accusing South Africa of deliberate violence against the minority white Afrikaner group, saying that thousands were actively fleeing the country. Some who are or were close to Trump, including his billionaire former top adviser Elon Musk, even claimed that South Africa was committing a genocide against white people — a claim which has widely been rejected by the vast majority of South Africans. Analyst and author Hamilton Wende — himself a white South African — told DW earlier this year that anyone who thinks that white people are being massacred is part of a "rightwing extremist viewpoint, which is not reflective of ... what the government thinks, and of what the country thinks generally." President Trump launched a resettlement program for white Afrikaners to the US as refugees earlier this year, doubling down on his unfounded narrative that authorities in South Africa were allegedly complicit in actions that amount to an infringement of the rights and lives of these people. As was the case with all previous accusations leveled against South Africa, the government has also dismissed the latest reports squarely, saying they were "deeply flawed" and "inaccurate" while failing "to reflect the reality of our constitutional democracy." While expressing its general disappointment with the US Department of State document, the government also clarified the facts behind some of the specifitc claims made in the report, saying that the report had been compiled in a manner which was based "on a-contextual information and discredited accounts." Among other things, the government stressed that it had nothing to do with the deaths of the two women, pointing to independent media reports which explain that the women had been killed by a farm owner who is also accused of forcing one of his workers to feed their bodies to pigs. Furthermore, South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) also said in a statement that is was "ironic" that as a country which had recently withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council, the US should make assessments on the issue of human rights in the first Tselapedi, a politics and international studies lecturer at South Africa's Rhodes University, believes that the US is trying to drum up negative publicity about South Africa. Tselapedi told DW that this is in response to South Africa's case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in late 2023. According to Tselapedi, the latest report by the Department of State is an attempt to chip away at "the international standing of South Africa when it comes to the ICJ case against Israel" by making South Africa look like it has no moral ground to question Israel on account of alleged irregularities with its own human rights record. South Africa had filed a case against Israel at the ICJ, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, which generated great international interest and garnered support by governments widely considered hostile to the US, such as Iran. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Tselapedi also asserts, however, that most other countries are likely aware of this deliberate approach to try to undermine South Africa's image, and that the government should be undeterred by such interventions. DIRCO meanwhile proactively drew attention in its response to a recent assessment from the United Nations Human Rights Office, which described South Africa's Expropriation Act as a "critical step in addressing the country's racially imbalanced land ownership." "This recognition from the UN's primary human rights body underscores the integrity of our legislative processes aimed at rectifying historical injustices in a constitutional and human-rights-based manner," DIRCO added. Former South African ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool, meanwhile, also shared the government's view that the Expropriation Act is being used as a scapegoat to draw attention away from the ICJ case against the Israeli government, which he said did not sit well with many in Washington. In response, Rasool was promptly expelled from the US after being declared persona non grata by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Tselapedi meanwhile also emphasized the fact that South Africa's role in the BRICS bloc of nations might also feature prominently in the US' reasoning to try to taint the nation's reputation amid threats that BRICS' members might be launching their own currency. This ultimately would weaken the US-dollar standard as the world's foremost reserve currency, while affecting economies and their trade practices around the world. Trump himself has warned that he would do anything in his power to stop this plan from succeeding. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The drive for a BRICS currency is chiefly being led by China and RussiaHowever, the extent of South Africa's volatility in this geopolitical game could already been when Trump was reelected last November. The South African Rand plummeted upon the news that Trump would be returning to the White House. Having now been slapped with 30% tariffs by the US and having suffered severe cuts in USAID since the beginning of the year, South Africa has been hard hit by the Trump administration. Tselapedi, however, notes that the government can perhaps find some solace in the fact that official reports published by the US under President Trump are increasingly being viewed "with suspicion and caution" around the globe.

Harvard Holds Graduation In Shadow Of Trump 'Retribution'

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

What did Europe achieve at the Washington summit on Ukraine? – DW – 08/19/2025

What's behind the US's antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

What's behind the US' overt antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

Harvard Holds Graduation In Shadow Of Trump 'Retribution'

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

What did Europe achieve at the Washington summit on Ukraine? – DW – 08/19/2025

What's behind the US's antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

What's behind the US' overt antagonism against South Africa? – DW – 08/19/2025

Get Started Now: Download the App