Connect with us

America

The US contacted the Canada against the truckers

Published

on

In a rare moment in Canadian history, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testified before the Emergencies Act for an independent public investigation. The reason for the investigation was whether the state of emergency powers exercised against the protests of the truckers who locked Ottawa in January and February of this year were legitimate.

Trudeau stood firm in the face of the investigation. Claiming that the use of extraordinary powers is “unavoidable”, the Canadian leader said it is not possible to negotiate with protesters. “They didn’t want their voices heard, they wanted obedience,” Trudeau said, noting the threat of violence and the inadequacy of the police.

The Canadian prime minister added that he was “absolutely serene and confident” in his choice to exercise exceptional powers. The State of Emergency Law, which took its current form in the 1980s, had never been used in this form before.

One of the convoy lawyers told Trudeau, “When did you and your government become so afraid of your own citizens?” The Canadian replied: “I am not and we are not.”

What was done to the truckers?

Truckers organized under the name of “Freedom Convoy” had locked up the capital Ottawa to protest the COVID-19 vaccine mandate and public restrictions.

The matter was that the vaccine exemption for truckers crossing the US border should end on both sides of the border and the requirement for vaccination to cross the border was introduced. Truckers were saying that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate should be dropped.

The protests, which began on 29th January, entered a new phase after the meeting between Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau on February 11th. Three days later, the Canadian government began implementing the Emergency Act.

The law gave the government the right to block meetings and send federal forces to help local police. Furthermore, the bank accounts of people “believed to be supporting the convoy” could be temporarily suspended. The government also exercised this authority.

The pressure from the US and banks has worked

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, a member of the cabinet who testified before the commission, argued that Canada has faced a “dangerous moment” during the protests. What Freeland meant was that the blockade of truckers closed the vital trade corridor with the United States.

Trudeau went further and told US President Joe Biden during the protests that he was trying to reassure him that Canada would “continue to be a reliable partner”.

Chrystia Freeland described the phone call Biden had with one of her economic advisers, Brian Deese, on February 10th, as a “defining” moment. Deese said that if the blockade does not end within 12 hours, all automotive factories in the northeast of the United States will be shut down.

On February 13th, the day before the implementation of Emergency Act, the meeting with Canada’s senior bank CEOs also confirmed US’ concerns.

The CEOs felt that the protests were putting Canada’s reputation at risk. A CEO said he spent a week in the US and that the protests made Canada seem like a “joke” to his neighbour. CEOs complained of the inadequacy of the laws in force and made recommendations to cut off financial support for the protest organizers.

In fact, an unnamed CEO wanted the government to act quickly by declaring protesters “terrorists”. Freeland also made an interesting suggestion, calling it “deplorable” when a foreign investor, whom one of the CEOs tried to convince, called Canada a “banana republic.” “Remind him of Brexit if the foreign investor is British, remind him of the Yellow Vests if he is French, remind him of how badly they are currently managing Russia if he is German.”

‘How many tanks are you asking for?’

As part of the commission’s investigation, obtaining messages among the ministers also revealed shocking remarks.

The phone messages between Public Security Minister Marco Mendicino and Justice Minister David Lametti are an example to this. “You need to get the police to act,” Lametti wrote to Mendicino on 2nd February 2022. And CAF if necessary, ”he said. Mendicino’s answer is nothing more than a “joke”: “How many tanks are you asking for?”

The pair then complained of the inadequacy and inability of the Ottawa police chief to maintain order. The messages suggest that the Justice Minister is considering implementing the Emergency Act only on 30th January 2022. “I was just being cautious,” Lametti says.

Intelligence chief’s advice to Trudeau

Another fact that emerged during the investigation is that David Vigneault, chief of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), was the one to have recommended the use of the Emergency Act to the Canadian government.

Testifying to the commission, Vigneault said the truckers’ protests did not pose a national security threat to the CSIS Act, but the Emergency Act was still necessary.

Shaping media narrative

On the other hand, it was revealed how the Canadian government wanted to determine the media narrative against truckers. Trudeau adviser Mary-Liz Power sends a message to Alexander Cohen, communications director at the Department of Public Safety, outlining a media strategy that the truckers’ protest will resemble those of 6th January 2021 in the United States.

In another text message with Cohen, Power says that global and other media outlets are working on some news. Indeed, Global News, one of Canada’s largest media outlets, cited the headline on 25th January 2022: “Extreme right-wing groups hope that trucker protests will be Canada’s ‘January 6th’.”

America

Milei hardens Falklands stance with oil sanctions and defence push

Published

on

Argentine President Javier Milei has said he will tighten sanctions on companies involved in oil projects around the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.

Milei also said he would increase defence resources in the south of the country and submit a bill to Congress aimed at strengthening Argentina’s response to what he described as violations of sovereignty.

In a televised address, Milei said he would sign a decree to accelerate sanctions under Argentine law against companies participating in oil and gas extraction activities in the territory, which Argentina considers its own but which remains under British control.

Speaking in an address to the nation early on Friday morning, Milei said the United Kingdom was facing a migration and economic crisis, adding that this meant Argentina would prevail in its claim over the Falkland Islands:

“If we look at the structural crisis in the United Kingdom, it is clear that the country is facing multiple crises on many fronts, including migration, demographics, and a difficult economic situation. It is clear that Argentina’s future is extremely promising and that Argentina will prevail.”

Milei said Argentina would intensify efforts to sanction not only the companies involved, but also their shareholders, executives, and suppliers.

“We will continue to prevent companies that are directly or indirectly involved in projects (on the islands) without Argentina’s permission from operating on Argentine territory,” the Argentine leader said.

He also stated that the government would issue an emergency decree to expand defence resources, under which a naval base would be built in the nearby province of Tierra del Fuego and telecommunications capabilities would be strengthened.

Milei added that he would submit an urgent “national defence of sovereignty” bill to Congress in order to stiffen penalties for unauthorised activities around the islands, extend sanctions to suppliers, and broaden the legal framework to cover other activities affecting Argentina’s natural resources.

Milei noted that Argentina had determined that the Sea Lion offshore project, operated by Navitas Petroleum and Rockhopper Exploration, could begin oil exploration work in the coming months, presenting an imminent threat to Argentine interests.

The remarks mark a harder line from Milei, who had previously called for the Falkland Islands dispute to be resolved through diplomacy even while seeking warmer ties with Britain.

A British overseas territory located roughly 500 km east of the Argentine mainland, the Falkland Islands have long been claimed by Argentina.

Britain has controlled the islands since 1833, and the two countries fought a brief war over them in 1982.

London maintains that residents of the Falkland Islands voted on their political status and right to self-determination in a referendum held in March 2013. An overwhelming majority of 99.8% voted to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom.

In his speech, Milei stated that residents of the Falkland Islands do not possess the right to self-determination and called on the country to unite around its claim to the islands.

Arguing that the global wind is currently “blowing in favour of Argentina’s demands”, Milei said: “A short time ago, President [Donald] Trump announced that the US is reconsidering its historic stance on the Malvinas islands.”

The British conservative newspaper The Telegraph wrote that the move would appease the US president, who intervened in the dispute and implied he would not assist the United Kingdom in fighting off an invasion of the Falkland Islands.

Asked whether the US would “come to the aid” of Britain, Trump referred to his confrontation with Iran, saying: “Your country was not there to help me.”

Trump then questioned whether Britain would have the capacity to defend the islands, telling GB News:

“Look, I was there when the first war broke out. That was a very long time ago, and I watched it very closely. You handled yourselves very well. You took the islands back quite decisively, but it is very far away.”

Speculation is mounting that Buenos Aires and Washington are discussing an agreement granting the US access to oil extracted off the Malvinas.

On the eve of Milei’s speech, Argentine Minister of Energy and Mining Daniel Gonzalez Casartelli was in Washington to discuss energy investments with American oil companies and members of the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair clashed with the British right by demanding that the Falkland Islands be placed under Argentine sovereignty.

According to Bloomberg, Argentina is currently in the midst of an oil boom. Drilling activity is accelerating in the Vaca Muerta shale formation in Patagonia, which already produces more than 1 million barrels of oil and gas per day.

The country also has some offshore production operations, and exploration activities have been carried out in South Atlantic waters in recent years.

Meanwhile, Milei met Sarah Rogers, a senior US State Department official, at a conservative political forum held in Chile.

Reiterating Argentina’s claim to the islands, Milei said: “We must take back these islands, which are negligible in national terms. There is no other way forward. This is the best way to pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives for this cause.”

Continue Reading

America

US House passes bill to strip federal aid over Israel boycotts

Published

on

The US House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to strip federal financial aid from colleges and universities that participate in boycotts against Israel.

The Republican-led measure targets calls for accountability directed at the Tel Aviv government over its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, as well as expressions of solidarity with Palestine on university campuses.

Entitled the “Protecting Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026”, the legislation was approved on Thursday in a 237–169 vote.

Only two Republican lawmakers voted against the measure, while 33 Democrats broke party lines to vote in favour. The bill will now proceed to the Senate.

Designated as H.R. 4795, the proposal bars colleges and universities that benefit from federal student aid programmes from engaging in commercial boycotts against Israel.

Institutions receiving Title VI funding for international studies and foreign language programmes are also required to certify that they do not prevent students or faculty from participating in academic programmes in the occupied territories, nor restrict Israeli students and academics from accessing their campuses.

The bill was co-sponsored by Representative Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, and Representative Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat.

Representative Tim Walberg, chairman of the House Education Committee, argued that taxpayer money should under no circumstances flow to institutions that “discriminate against Israel”.

Gottheimer, a staunch supporter of the Israeli government, stated that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is a campaign “targeting a single country and a single religion”.

Opponents of the bill emphasised that the measure seeks to solve a non-existent problem and constitutes an attack on constitutionally protected free speech.

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Bobby Scott, pointed out that not a single US college or university has actually joined the global BDS movement. Scott recalled that while student and faculty bodies have announced support for BDS, university administrations have refused to implement those demands.

During the floor debate, Scott said: “We must fight antisemitism wherever it appears, but we should not do so by penalising protected free speech or conflating a student’s view with university policy.”

Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who opposes the BDS movement, also voted against the bill. Nadler noted that the only way to protect opinions one agrees with is to defend the right to express opinions one does not agree with.

The liberal Jewish organisation J Street was also among the actors opposing the bill. The group warned that the measure conflates boycotts of the Israeli government with those directed at companies linked to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

J Street stated that the bill places Israel in an exceptional position, does nothing to protect Jewish students, and risks inflaming antisemitism rather than countering it. By contrast, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly backed the legislation.

The vote follows nearly three years of sustained protests by students and faculty against Israel’s war in Gaza.

According to data from the Ministry of Health in Gaza, attacks carried out following the 7 October 2023 operation and the subsequent military campaign launched by Israel have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, while flattening the vast majority of the region’s universities, schools, and civilian infrastructure.

Encampments erected on university campuses demanded an end to the carnage and called on universities to divest financial holdings from companies profiting from the occupation and the war.

The Washington administration and its allies frequently characterised these protests as antisemitic. The Trump administration, meanwhile, targeted universities with various investigations and threats to freeze federal funds.

Aiming to protect their congressional majority in the November midterm elections and during the final two years of Trump’s term, House Republicans are keeping the issue on the agenda to deepen divisions among Democrats, who have grown increasingly critical of Israel as mass casualties in Gaza mount.

In July, amid accusations that the campaign in Gaza had reached genocidal proportions, more than 100 House Democrats supported an initiative to cut certain military aid to Israel, a US ally.

Critics argue that the latest bill is an extension of anti-BDS legislation previously enacted across more than 30 US states, which compels public contractors and public institutions to pledge not to boycott Israel.

Free speech advocates have long maintained that these state laws conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The measure passed by the House of Representatives aims to expand this pressure to the entire federal student financial aid system.

Although no US university has formally adopted a BDS decision, the bill makes even limited commercial or academic distancing from the Israeli government—including entities operating in the occupied Palestinian territories—grounds for terminating federal funding.

Continue Reading

America

Pentagon office takes 35% stake in Venezuela oil venture

Published

on

The Trump administration’s oil agreement with Venezuela represents the riskiest venture to date for a Pentagon unit originally established for an entirely different purpose.

The White House announced this week that the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), an entity operating under the Department of Defence, will acquire a 35% stake “at no cost to American taxpayers” in North American Blue Energy Partners, a firm headed by politically connected Venezuelan investor Alejandro Betancourt.

The objective is to make Venezuelan oilfields more attractive to US investors, thereby increasing revenue for Caracas whilst simultaneously squeezing out Chinese and Russian firms.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the OSC has already facilitated equity acquisitions in at least five other companies during President Donald Trump’s second term. The OSC was created to provide loans for the development of critical technologies.

However, because the Venezuelan agreement involves petroleum rather than conventional critical technology, it stretches the agency’s statutory boundaries even further and has already prompted Democrats to pledge congressional investigations.

Should Democrats regain power in Washington this November, any oversight drive could place the office’s efforts to secure state equity positions in private corporations under intense scrutiny.

In an interview with Semafor, a former OSC official stated:

“Acquiring equity was never intended when the OSC was founded; that circumstance alone does not necessarily constitute a problem. Nevertheless, it raises some legitimate legal and ethical questions.”

Jon Hillman, who directs the council’s tracking system, noted in an interview that the Venezuelan oil deal “appears to be uncharted territory”, adding that the office’s “mission is to catalyze private investment into specific, critical supply chain technologies necessary for national security.”

The statute that established the OSC defines its authority to provide “capital support” as extending and guaranteeing loans and offering technical assistance.

A Pentagon spokesperson initially told Reuters that the office was “not acquiring equity” in private enterprises due to this constrained remit.

On Tuesday, however, a US official offered a contrasting account to journalists, stating that the authority to acquire a stake in Betancourt’s company via “penny warrants” was “granted to the OSC when it was enacted into law under the Biden administration.”

A “penny warrant” is a financial contract that confers upon its holder the right to purchase corporate shares at a negligible, nominal price.

The US official added:

“This is an entirely standard arrangement in terms of the OSC’s capacity to maintain the financial position it holds under this agreement, and all financial positions granted to the OSC comply fully with the law.”

Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center, said in an interview that it was “impossible to render a definitive legal opinion” because officials had “not advanced a precise legal theory.”

Harrell added that the Trump administration may be banking on no party possessing either the legal standing or the inclination to bring a lawsuit over the transaction.

That calculation encompasses oil corporations hoping to profit from the newly reopened Venezuelan petroleum sector.

Cari Stinebower, an attorney at the law firm Steptoe who advises petroleum firms seeking to conduct business in Venezuela, said: “I suspect everyone may be quietly perplexed. Yet I do not believe anyone will speak out, because virtually everyone wants to participate in the investment opportunities in Venezuela.”

Jack Reed, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is among those already demanding further particulars regarding the agency’s statutory authority to conclude the agreement.

Certain Republicans are likewise keen to obtain additional information concerning the Venezuelan deal.

The Biden administration formed the OSC in 2022 to provide loans to businesses developing technologies deemed “vital” to national security.

Recent legislative initiatives aimed at formally expanding its authority to encompass equity investments have so far foundered.

Yet under the direction of Deputy Secretary of Defence Steve Feinberg, the administration pressed forward regardless, enlisting bankers to help deploy a lending authority that surged from $1 billion to $200 billion courtesy of recent party-line Republican tax legislation.

The current director of the OSC, David Lorch, previously served as a managing director at Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm founded by Feinberg.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey