The French government appears but certain to collapse later this week after far-right and left-wing parties submitted no-confidence motions on Monday against Prime Minister Michel Barnier. Investors immediately punished French assets as the latest developments plunged the eurozone's second-biggest economy deeper into political crisis, with serious doubt cast over whether the annual budget will be approved. "The French have had enough," Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally (RN) told reporters in parliament, saying Barnier, who only became prime minister in early September, had made things worse and needed to be pushed out. "We are proposing a motion of no confidence against the government," she said. Barring a last-minute surprise, Barnier's fragile coalition will be the first French government to be forced out by a no-confidence vote since 1962. RN supports both no-confidence bills RN lawmakers and the left combined have enough votes to topple Barnier, and Le Pen confirmed her party would vote for the left-wing coalition's no-confidence bill on top of the RN's own bill. That vote is likely to be held on Wednesday. Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Rally smiles while in France's National Assembly on Monday. (Michel Euler/The Associated Press) The parties announced their no-confidence motions after Barnier said earlier on Monday that he would try to ram a social security bill through parliament without a vote, as a last-minute concession proved insufficient to win RN's support for the legislation. "Faced with this umpteenth denial of democracy, we will censure the government," said Mathilde Panot of the left-wing France Unbowed. "We are living in political chaos because of Michel Barnier's government and Emmanuel Macron's presidency." France's Macron says leaders shouldn't 'abandon their values' in the face of bad polls The spread between French bonds and the German benchmark widened further and a sell-off in the euro gathered pace. Since Macron called snap elections in early June , France's CAC 40 stock index has dropped nearly 10 per cent. It closed flat on Monday after dropping over one per cent earlier in the day. 'We are at a moment of truth' Barnier urged lawmakers not to back the no-confidence vote. WATCH | Unsetlled political climate after French election: Election results put France in political limbo 5 months ago Duration 2:49 A leftist coalition won the most seats in France’s parliamentary election, but it fell short of a minority. Now, the country has no dominant political bloc, creating uncertainty around what the next government will look like. "We are at a moment of truth.... The French will not forgive us for putting the interests of individuals before the future of the country," he said as he put his government's fate in the hands of the divided parliament which was the result of an inconclusive snap election Macron called in June. Barnier's minority government had relied on RN support for its survival. The budget bill, which seeks to rein in France's spiraling public deficit through 60 billion euros (about $88.5 billion Cdn) in tax hikes and spending cuts, snapped that tenuous link. Barnier's entourage and Le Pen's camp each blamed the other and said they had done all they could to reach a deal and had been open to dialogue. Analysis Macron's election gamble may have blocked the far right. But it didn't dim its appeal A source close to Barnier said the prime minister had made major concessions to Le Pen and that voting to bring down the government would mean losing those gains. "Is she ready to sacrifice all the wins she got?" the source told Reuters. No snap elections before July If the no-confidence vote does indeed go through, Barnier would have to tender his resignation but Macron may ask him and his government to stay on in a caretaker role to handle day-to-day business while he seeks a new prime minister, which could well happen only next year. French President Emmanuel Macron — shown above at a recent press conference — will have to consider his options if the government led by Prime Minister Barnier collapses as a result of a pair of non-confidence motions it is facing. (Sarah Meyssonnier/AFP/Getty Images) One option would be for Macron to name a government of technocrats with no political program, hoping that could help survive a no-confidence vote. In any case, there can be no new snap parliamentary elections before July. As far as the budget is concerned, if parliament has not adopted it by Dec. 20, the caretaker government could invoke constitutional powers to pass it by ordinance. French election sees leftists gain, far right slide and a hung parliament However, that would be risky as there is a legal grey area about whether a caretaker government can use such powers. And that would be sure to trigger uproar from the opposition. A more likely move would be for the caretaker government to propose special emergency legislation to roll over spending limits and tax provisions from this year. But that would mean that savings measures Barnier had planned would fall by the wayside.

Analysis: Hard to see Mayo recovering from latest Patriots fiasco

Omnicom Declares Dividend

Three long days of counting in the General Election finished late on Monday night when the final two seats were declared in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. Fianna Fail was the clear winner of the election, securing 48 of the Dail parliament’s 174 seats. Sinn Fein took 39 and Fine Gael 38. Labour and the Social Democrats both won 11 seats; People Before Profit-Solidarity took three; Aontu secured two; and the Green Party retained only one of its 12 seats. Independents and others accounted for 21 seats. The return of a Fianna Fail/Fine Gael-led coalition is now highly likely. However, their combined seat total of 86 leaves them just short of the 88 needed for a majority in the Dail. While the two centrist parties that have dominated Irish politics for a century could look to strike a deal with one of the Dail’s smaller centre-left parties, such as the Social Democrats or Labour, a more straightforward route to a majority could be achieved by securing the support of several independent TDs. For Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin and current taoiseach and Fine Gael leader Simon Harris, wooing like-minded independents would be likely to involve fewer policy concessions, and financial commitments, than would be required to convince another party to join the government benches. Longford-Westmeath independent TD Kevin “Boxer” Moran, who served in a Fine Gael-led minority government between 2017 and 2020, expressed his willingness to listen to offers to join the new coalition in Dublin. “Look, my door’s open,” he told RTE. “Someone knocks, I’m always there to open it.” Marian Harkin, an independent TD for Sligo-Leitrim, expressed her desire to participate in government as she noted that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael were within “shouting distance” of an overall majority. “That means they will be looking for support, and I certainly will be one of those people who will be speaking to them and talking to them and negotiating with them, and I’m looking forward to doing that, because that was the reason that I ran in the first place,” she said. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats and Irish Labour Party both appear cautious about the prospect of an alliance with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. They will no doubt be mindful of the experience of the Green Party, the junior partner in the last mandate. The Greens experienced near wipeout in the election, retaining only one of their 12 seats. Sinn Fein appears to currently have no realistic route to government, given Fianna Fail and Fine Gael’s ongoing refusal to share power with the party. Despite the odds being stacked against her party, Sinn Fein president Mary Lou McDonald contacted the leaders of the Social Democrats and Labour on Monday to discuss options. Earlier, Fianna Fail deputy leader and outgoing Finance Minister Jack Chambers predicted that a new coalition government would not be in place before Christmas. Mr Chambers said planned talks about forming an administration required “time and space” to ensure that any new government will be “coherent and stable”. After an inconclusive outcome to the 2020 election, it took five months for Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Greens to strike the last coalition deal. Mr Chambers said he did not believe it would take that long this time, as he noted the Covid-19 pandemic was a factor in 2020, but he also made clear it would not be a swift process. He said he agreed with analysis that there was no prospect of a deal before Christmas. “I don’t expect a government to be formed in mid-December, when the Dail is due to meet on December 18, probably a Ceann Comhairle (speaker) can be elected, and there’ll have to be time and space taken to make sure we can form a coherent, stable government,” he told RTE. “I don’t think it should take five months like it did the last time – Covid obviously complicated that. But I think all political parties need to take the time to see what’s possible and try and form a stable government for the Irish people.” Fine Gael minister of state Peter Burke said members of his parliamentary party would have to meet to consider their options before giving Mr Harris a mandate to negotiate a new programme for government with Fianna Fail. “It’s important that we have a strong, stable, viable government, whatever form that may be, to ensure that we can meet the challenges of our society, meet the challenges in terms of the economic changes that are potentially going to happen,” he told RTE. Despite being set to emerge with the most seats, it has not been all good news for Fianna Fail. The party’s outgoing Health Minister Stephen Donnelly became one of the biggest casualties of the election when he lost his seat in Wicklow in the early hours of Monday morning. Mr Donnelly was always predicted to face a fight in the constituency after boundary changes saw it reduced from five to four seats. If it is to be a reprise of the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael governing partnership of the last mandate, one of the major questions is around the position of taoiseach and whether the parties will once again take turns to hold the Irish premiership during the lifetime of the new government. The outcome in 2020 saw the parties enter a coalition on the basis that the holder of the premier position would be exchanged midway through the term. Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin took the role for the first half of the mandate, with Leo Varadkar taking over in December 2022. Current Fine Gael leader Mr Harris succeeded Mr Varadkar as taoiseach when he resigned from the role earlier this year. However, this time Fianna Fail has significantly increased its seat lead over Fine Gael, compared with the last election when there were only three seats between the parties. The size of the disparity in party numbers is likely to draw focus on the rotating taoiseach arrangement, raising questions as to whether it will be re-run in the next coalition and, if it is, on what terms. On Sunday, Simon Coveney, a former deputy leader of Fine Gael, said a coalition that did not repeat the rotating taoiseach arrangement in some fashion would be a “difficult proposition” for his party. Meanwhile, Fine Gael minister Paschal Donohoe said he would be making the case for Mr Harris to have another opportunity to serve as taoiseach. On Monday, Mr Chambers said while his party would expect to lead the government it would approach the issue of rotating the taoiseach’s role on the basis of “mutual respect” with Fine Gael. “I think the context of discussions and negotiations will be driven by mutual respect, and that’s the glue that will drive a programme for government and that’s the context in which we’ll engage,” he said. On Monday, Labour leader Ivana Bacik reiterated her party’s determination to forge an alliance with fellow centre-left parties with the intention of having a unified approach to the prospect of entering government. Asked if Labour was prepared to go into government with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael on its own, she told RTE: “No, not at this stage. We are absolutely not willing to do that. “We want to ensure there’s the largest number of TDs who share our vision and our values who want to deliver change on the same basis that we do.” The Social Democrats have been non-committal about any potential arrangement with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, and have restated a series of red lines they would need to achieve before considering taking a place in government. Leader Holly Cairns, who gave birth to a daughter on polling day on Friday, said in a statement: “The party is in a very strong position to play an important role in the next Dail. In what position, government or opposition, remains to be seen.” Fianna Fail secured the most first preference votes in Friday’s proportional representation election, taking 21.9% to Fine Gael’s 20.8%. Sinn Fein came in third on 19%. While Sinn Fein’s vote share represented a marked improvement on its disappointing showing in June’s local elections in Ireland, it is still significantly down on the 24.5% poll-topping share it secured in the 2020 general election. The final breakdown of first preferences also flipped the result of Friday night’s exit poll, which suggested Sinn Fein was in front on 21.1%, with Fine Gael on 21% and Fianna Fail on 19.5%.Former English Premier League Champions Arsenal are set to offer AC Milan Jakub Kiwior in exchange for Super Eagles forward Samuel Chukwueze, Soccernet.ng reports. Chukwueze has failed to make a significant impression at AC Milan since his €21.1 million transfer from Villareal last year. Last season, the 25-year-old forward registered three goals and three assists in 33 appearances across all competitions. This season, he has gotten three goals and one assist in 21 appearances, but most of them have been off the bench. The Nigerian has never been short of suitors , and due to his struggle for game time, there has been a lot of talk about a possible exit for Chukwueze. Now, according to Team Talk , Chukwueze could get a breakthrough soon. This is as Arsenal want to offer AC Milan Kiwior in exchange for the Nigerian’s services. Kiwior, who is Polish has struggled for game time this season, with just eight Premier League appearances under his belt. The 24-year-old defender is not considered as an important player at the Emirates and could be allowed to leave. Arsenal are long-time admirers of Chukwueze, as they have been linked with the Super Eagles star previously. Now, they will be desperate to get the transfer sorted due to the recent injuries to Raheem Sterling and their star man Bukayo Saka.By BILL BARROW, Associated Press ATLANTA (AP) — Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who won the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, endured humbling defeat after one tumultuous term and then redefined life after the White House as a global humanitarian, has died. He was 100 years old. The longest-lived American president died on Sunday, more than a year after entering hospice care , at his home in the small town of Plains, Georgia, where he and his wife, Rosalynn, who died at 96 in November 2023 , spent most of their lives, The Carter Center said. Businessman, Navy officer, evangelist, politician, negotiator, author, woodworker, citizen of the world — Carter forged a path that still challenges political assumptions and stands out among the 45 men who reached the nation’s highest office. The 39th president leveraged his ambition with a keen intellect, deep religious faith and prodigious work ethic, conducting diplomatic missions into his 80s and building houses for the poor well into his 90s. “My faith demands — this is not optional — my faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have to try to make a difference,” Carter once said. A moderate Democrat, Carter entered the 1976 presidential race as a little-known Georgia governor with a broad smile, outspoken Baptist mores and technocratic plans reflecting his education as an engineer. His no-frills campaign depended on public financing, and his promise not to deceive the American people resonated after Richard Nixon’s disgrace and U.S. defeat in southeast Asia. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. I would not deserve to be your president,” Carter repeated before narrowly beating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, who had lost popularity pardoning Nixon. Carter governed amid Cold War pressures, turbulent oil markets and social upheaval over racism, women’s rights and America’s global role. His most acclaimed achievement in office was a Mideast peace deal that he brokered by keeping Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the bargaining table for 13 days in 1978. That Camp David experience inspired the post-presidential center where Carter would establish so much of his legacy. Yet Carter’s electoral coalition splintered under double-digit inflation, gasoline lines and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. His bleakest hour came when eight Americans died in a failed hostage rescue in April 1980, helping to ensure his landslide defeat to Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter acknowledged in his 2020 “White House Diary” that he could be “micromanaging” and “excessively autocratic,” complicating dealings with Congress and the federal bureaucracy. He also turned a cold shoulder to Washington’s news media and lobbyists, not fully appreciating their influence on his political fortunes. “It didn’t take us long to realize that the underestimation existed, but by that time we were not able to repair the mistake,” Carter told historians in 1982, suggesting that he had “an inherent incompatibility” with Washington insiders. Carter insisted his overall approach was sound and that he achieved his primary objectives — to “protect our nation’s security and interests peacefully” and “enhance human rights here and abroad” — even if he fell spectacularly short of a second term. Ignominious defeat, though, allowed for renewal. The Carters founded The Carter Center in 1982 as a first-of-its-kind base of operations, asserting themselves as international peacemakers and champions of democracy, public health and human rights. “I was not interested in just building a museum or storing my White House records and memorabilia,” Carter wrote in a memoir published after his 90th birthday. “I wanted a place where we could work.” That work included easing nuclear tensions in North and South Korea, helping to avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti and negotiating cease-fires in Bosnia and Sudan. By 2022, The Carter Center had declared at least 113 elections in Latin America, Asia and Africa to be free or fraudulent. Recently, the center began monitoring U.S. elections as well. Carter’s stubborn self-assuredness and even self-righteousness proved effective once he was unencumbered by the Washington order, sometimes to the point of frustrating his successors . He went “where others are not treading,” he said, to places like Ethiopia, Liberia and North Korea, where he secured the release of an American who had wandered across the border in 2010. “I can say what I like. I can meet whom I want. I can take on projects that please me and reject the ones that don’t,” Carter said. He announced an arms-reduction-for-aid deal with North Korea without clearing the details with Bill Clinton’s White House. He openly criticized President George W. Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He also criticized America’s approach to Israel with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” And he repeatedly countered U.S. administrations by insisting North Korea should be included in international affairs, a position that most aligned Carter with Republican President Donald Trump. Among the center’s many public health initiatives, Carter vowed to eradicate the guinea worm parasite during his lifetime, and nearly achieved it: Cases dropped from millions in the 1980s to nearly a handful. With hardhats and hammers, the Carters also built homes with Habitat for Humanity. The Nobel committee’s 2002 Peace Prize cites his “untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Carter should have won it alongside Sadat and Begin in 1978, the chairman added. Carter accepted the recognition saying there was more work to be done. “The world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place,” he said. “The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect.” Carter’s globetrotting took him to remote villages where he met little “Jimmy Carters,” so named by admiring parents. But he spent most of his days in the same one-story Plains house — expanded and guarded by Secret Service agents — where they lived before he became governor. He regularly taught Sunday School lessons at Maranatha Baptist Church until his mobility declined and the coronavirus pandemic raged. Those sessions drew visitors from around the world to the small sanctuary where Carter will receive his final send-off after a state funeral at Washington’s National Cathedral. The common assessment that he was a better ex-president than president rankled Carter and his allies. His prolific post-presidency gave him a brand above politics, particularly for Americans too young to witness him in office. But Carter also lived long enough to see biographers and historians reassess his White House years more generously. His record includes the deregulation of key industries, reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cautious management of the national debt and notable legislation on the environment, education and mental health. He focused on human rights in foreign policy, pressuring dictators to release thousands of political prisoners . He acknowledged America’s historical imperialism, pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and relinquished control of the Panama Canal. He normalized relations with China. “I am not nominating Jimmy Carter for a place on Mount Rushmore,” Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s domestic policy director, wrote in a 2018 book. “He was not a great president” but also not the “hapless and weak” caricature voters rejected in 1980, Eizenstat said. Rather, Carter was “good and productive” and “delivered results, many of which were realized only after he left office.” Madeleine Albright, a national security staffer for Carter and Clinton’s secretary of state, wrote in Eizenstat’s forward that Carter was “consequential and successful” and expressed hope that “perceptions will continue to evolve” about his presidency. “Our country was lucky to have him as our leader,” said Albright, who died in 2022. Jonathan Alter, who penned a comprehensive Carter biography published in 2020, said in an interview that Carter should be remembered for “an epic American life” spanning from a humble start in a home with no electricity or indoor plumbing through decades on the world stage across two centuries. “He will likely go down as one of the most misunderstood and underestimated figures in American history,” Alter told The Associated Press. James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924, in Plains and spent his early years in nearby Archery. His family was a minority in the mostly Black community, decades before the civil rights movement played out at the dawn of Carter’s political career. Carter, who campaigned as a moderate on race relations but governed more progressively, talked often of the influence of his Black caregivers and playmates but also noted his advantages: His land-owning father sat atop Archery’s tenant-farming system and owned a main street grocery. His mother, Lillian , would become a staple of his political campaigns. Seeking to broaden his world beyond Plains and its population of fewer than 1,000 — then and now — Carter won an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1946. That same year he married Rosalynn Smith, another Plains native, a decision he considered more important than any he made as head of state. She shared his desire to see the world, sacrificing college to support his Navy career. Carter climbed in rank to lieutenant, but then his father was diagnosed with cancer, so the submarine officer set aside his ambitions of admiralty and moved the family back to Plains. His decision angered Rosalynn, even as she dived into the peanut business alongside her husband. Carter again failed to talk with his wife before his first run for office — he later called it “inconceivable” not to have consulted her on such major life decisions — but this time, she was on board. “My wife is much more political,” Carter told the AP in 2021. He won a state Senate seat in 1962 but wasn’t long for the General Assembly and its back-slapping, deal-cutting ways. He ran for governor in 1966 — losing to arch-segregationist Lester Maddox — and then immediately focused on the next campaign. Carter had spoken out against church segregation as a Baptist deacon and opposed racist “Dixiecrats” as a state senator. Yet as a local school board leader in the 1950s he had not pushed to end school segregation even after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, despite his private support for integration. And in 1970, Carter ran for governor again as the more conservative Democrat against Carl Sanders, a wealthy businessman Carter mocked as “Cufflinks Carl.” Sanders never forgave him for anonymous, race-baiting flyers, which Carter disavowed. Ultimately, Carter won his races by attracting both Black voters and culturally conservative whites. Once in office, he was more direct. “I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over,” he declared in his 1971 inaugural address, setting a new standard for Southern governors that landed him on the cover of Time magazine. His statehouse initiatives included environmental protection, boosting rural education and overhauling antiquated executive branch structures. He proclaimed Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the slain civil rights leader’s home state. And he decided, as he received presidential candidates in 1972, that they were no more talented than he was. In 1974, he ran Democrats’ national campaign arm. Then he declared his own candidacy for 1976. An Atlanta newspaper responded with the headline: “Jimmy Who?” The Carters and a “Peanut Brigade” of family members and Georgia supporters camped out in Iowa and New Hampshire, establishing both states as presidential proving grounds. His first Senate endorsement: a young first-termer from Delaware named Joe Biden. Yet it was Carter’s ability to navigate America’s complex racial and rural politics that cemented the nomination. He swept the Deep South that November, the last Democrat to do so, as many white Southerners shifted to Republicans in response to civil rights initiatives. A self-declared “born-again Christian,” Carter drew snickers by referring to Scripture in a Playboy magazine interview, saying he “had looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” The remarks gave Ford a new foothold and television comedians pounced — including NBC’s new “Saturday Night Live” show. But voters weary of cynicism in politics found it endearing. Carter chose Minnesota Sen. Walter “Fritz” Mondale as his running mate on a “Grits and Fritz” ticket. In office, he elevated the vice presidency and the first lady’s office. Mondale’s governing partnership was a model for influential successors Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Biden. Rosalynn Carter was one of the most involved presidential spouses in history, welcomed into Cabinet meetings and huddles with lawmakers and top aides. The Carters presided with uncommon informality: He used his nickname “Jimmy” even when taking the oath of office, carried his own luggage and tried to silence the Marine Band’s “Hail to the Chief.” They bought their clothes off the rack. Carter wore a cardigan for a White House address, urging Americans to conserve energy by turning down their thermostats. Amy, the youngest of four children, attended District of Columbia public school. Washington’s social and media elite scorned their style. But the larger concern was that “he hated politics,” according to Eizenstat, leaving him nowhere to turn politically once economic turmoil and foreign policy challenges took their toll. Carter partially deregulated the airline, railroad and trucking industries and established the departments of Education and Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He designated millions of acres of Alaska as national parks or wildlife refuges. He appointed a then-record number of women and nonwhite people to federal posts. He never had a Supreme Court nomination, but he elevated civil rights attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the nation’s second highest court, positioning her for a promotion in 1993. He appointed Paul Volker, the Federal Reserve chairman whose policies would help the economy boom in the 1980s — after Carter left office. He built on Nixon’s opening with China, and though he tolerated autocrats in Asia, pushed Latin America from dictatorships to democracy. But he couldn’t immediately tame inflation or the related energy crisis. And then came Iran. After he admitted the exiled Shah of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979 by followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Negotiations to free the hostages broke down repeatedly ahead of the failed rescue attempt. The same year, Carter signed SALT II, the new strategic arms treaty with Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, only to pull it back, impose trade sanctions and order a U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Hoping to instill optimism, he delivered what the media dubbed his “malaise” speech, although he didn’t use that word. He declared the nation was suffering “a crisis of confidence.” By then, many Americans had lost confidence in the president, not themselves. Carter campaigned sparingly for reelection because of the hostage crisis, instead sending Rosalynn as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination. Carter famously said he’d “kick his ass,” but was hobbled by Kennedy as Reagan rallied a broad coalition with “make America great again” appeals and asking voters whether they were “better off than you were four years ago.” Reagan further capitalized on Carter’s lecturing tone, eviscerating him in their lone fall debate with the quip: “There you go again.” Carter lost all but six states and Republicans rolled to a new Senate majority. Carter successfully negotiated the hostages’ freedom after the election, but in one final, bitter turn of events, Tehran waited until hours after Carter left office to let them walk free. At 56, Carter returned to Georgia with “no idea what I would do with the rest of my life.” Four decades after launching The Carter Center, he still talked of unfinished business. “I thought when we got into politics we would have resolved everything,” Carter told the AP in 2021. “But it’s turned out to be much more long-lasting and insidious than I had thought it was. I think in general, the world itself is much more divided than in previous years.” Still, he affirmed what he said when he underwent treatment for a cancer diagnosis in his 10th decade of life. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015 . “I’ve had a wonderful life. I’ve had thousands of friends, I’ve had an exciting, adventurous and gratifying existence.” ___ Former Associated Press journalist Alex Sanz contributed to this report.

Apple TV+ is kicking off the new year with 3 must-watch series in JanuaryWith a focus on human rights, US policy toward Latin America under Jimmy Carter briefly tempered a long tradition of interventionism in a key sphere of American influence, analysts say. Carter, who died Sunday at the age of 100, defied the furor of US conservatives to negotiate the handover of the Panama Canal to Panamanian control, suspended aid to multiple authoritarian governments in the region, and even attempted to normalize relations with Cuba. Carter's resolve to chart a course toward democracy and diplomacy, however, was severely tested in Central America and Cuba, where he was forced to balance his human rights priorities with pressure from adversaries to combat the spread of communism amid the Cold War standoff with the Soviet Union. "Latin America was fundamental and his global policy was oriented toward human rights, democratic values and multilateral cooperation," political analyst Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, told AFP. During his 1977-1981 administration, which was sandwiched between the Republican presidencies of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, the Democrat sought to take a step back from US alignment with right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. An important symbol of Carter's approach was the signing of two treaties in 1977 to officially turn over the Panama Canal in 1999. "Jimmy Carter understood that if he did not return the canal to Panama, the relationship between the United States and Panama could lead to a new crisis in a country where Washington could not afford the luxury of instability," said Luis Guillermo Solis, a political scientist and former president of Costa Rica. Carter called the decision, which was wildly unpopular back home, "the most difficult political challenge I ever had," as he accepted Panama's highest honor in 2016. He also hailed the move as "a notable achievement of moving toward democracy and freedom." During his term, Carter opted not to support Nicaraguan strongman Anastasio Somoza, who was subsequently overthrown by the leftist Sandinista Front in 1979. But in El Salvador, the American president had to "make a very uncomfortable pact with the government," said Shifter. To prevent communists from taking power, Carter resumed US military assistance for a junta which then became more radical, engaging in civilian massacres and plunging El Salvador into a long civil war. Carter took a critical approach to South American dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay, suspending arms deliveries and imposing sanctions in some cases. But his efforts "did not achieve any progress in terms of democratization," said Argentine political scientist Rosendo Fraga. The American president also tried to normalize relations with Cuba 15 years after the missile crisis. He relaxed sanctions that had been in force since 1962, supported secret talks and enabled limited diplomatic representation in both countries. "With him, for the first time, the possibility of dialogue rather than confrontation as a framework for political relations opened up," Jesus Arboleya, a former Cuban diplomat, told AFP. But in 1980, a mass exodus of 125,000 Cubans to the United States, with Fidel Castro's blessing, created an unexpected crisis. It "hurt Carter politically with the swarm of unexpected immigrants," said Jennifer McCoy, a professor of political science at Georgia State University. Castro continued to support Soviet-backed African governments and even deployed troops against Washington's wishes, finally putting an end to the normalization process. However, more than 20 years later, Carter made a historic visit to Havana as ex-president, at the time becoming the highest-profile American politician to set foot on Cuban soil since 1959. During the 2002 visit, "he made a bold call for the US to lift its embargo, but he also called on Castro to embrace democratic opening," said McCoy, who was part of the US delegation for the trip, during which Castro encouraged Carter to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at a Cuban All-Star baseball game. "Castro was sitting in the front row and we were afraid he would rise to give a long rebuttal to Carter's speech. But he didn't. He just said, 'Let's go to the ball game.'" In the years following Carter's presidency, Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) would go on to resume a full-frontal confrontation with Cuba. Decades later, Barack Obama (2009-2017) opened a new phase of measured normalization, which Donald Trump (2017-2021) brought to an end. US President Joe Biden promised to review US policy toward Cuba, but hardened his stance after Havana cracked down on anti-government protests in 2021. "Carter showed that engagement and diplomacy are more fruitful than isolation," McCoy said. bur-lp-rd-jb/lbc/mlr/bfm/sst/bbk

BEREA, Ohio (AP) — The Cleveland Browns have again restructured quarterback Deshaun Watson's massive contract to create salary-cap space and give them future flexibility, a person familiar with the move told The Associated Press on Friday. Watson has been because of an NFL suspension and injuries with the Browns, who signed him to a five-year, $230 million fully guaranteed contract in 2022. The restructuring allows the team to spread out the salary-cap hit after the 2026 season, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the team does not disclose contract specifics. The 29-year-old Watson has two years remaining on his contract with an average of $46 million a year. The move to restructure his deal will not preclude the Browns from adding talent at the quarterback position in 2025, the person said. Watson played in only seven games this season before suffering a ruptured Achilles tendon. He's 9-10 as a starter with Cleveland. The Browns (3-12) have been a major disappointment this season after making it to the playoffs a year ago behind Joe Flacco, who was signed as a free agent after Watson suffered a season-ending shoulder injury. Watson had surgery in October and is expected to make a full recovery. While the team hasn't disclosed its plans at quarterback, it's assumed Watson will be in the mix to be the starter next season. It's also possible the Browns will draft a quarterback in the first round. The team hasn't had a first-round pick the past three years after trading three to the Houston Texans to acquire Watson, who was once considered one of the league's elite QBs. ___ AP NFL: Tom Withers, The Associated Press( MENAFN - Jordan Times) EDINBURGH/TRONDHEIM – When Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the order to invade Ukraine in February 2022, he surely did not expect that one of Russia's neighbors would be the main beneficiary of his war. Yet, as Russian hydrocarbon exports to Europe cratered in the wake of the invasion, Norway emerged as the continent's largest supplier. Owing to the steep increase in gas and oil prices that followed the outbreak of the war, Norway ultimately enjoyed a massive financial windfall. In 2022 and 2023, it reaped nearly kr1.3 trillion ($111 billion) in additional revenue from gas exports, according to recent estimates from the finance ministry. Why, then, has Norway allocated only a little more than $3.1 billion for support to Ukraine in its 2025 budget? Combined with what it contributed in 2024, Norway's support for Ukraine amounts to less than 5 per cent of its two-year war windfall. For comparison, Germany – Europe's largest single contributor – provided $16.3 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian support for Ukraine from January 2022 until the end of October 2024, and the United States has contributed $92 billion. But while Norway's two-year windfall is larger than the US and German contributions combined, Norway's support for Ukraine as a share of GDP, at 0.7 per cent, ranks only ninth in Europe, far behind Denmark (2 per cent) and Estonia (2.2 per cent). Not only does Norway have the capacity to be making far more of a difference to the outcome of the war and the subsequent civilian reconstruction; it has an obvious moral obligation to do so. Given that its excess revenues are a direct consequence of Russia's war, surely a greater share of them should go to those fighting and dying on the front lines to keep their country free. Go beyond the headlines to understand the issues, forces, and trends shaping the US presidential election – and the likely implications of its outcome. By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. Instead, Norway's government has effectively decided to be a war profiteer, clinging greedily to its lucky gains. To their credit, opposition parties have proposed higher levels of support for Ukraine, ultimately pushing up the sum that the government initially proposed. No party, however, has come anywhere close to suggesting a transfer of the total war windfall to Ukraine. The Norwegian government's position is puzzling, given that Norway shares a border with Russia and has long relied on its allies' support for its defense. Its own national security would be jeopardised if Russia wins the war or is militarily emboldened by a peace agreement skewed in its favour. Moreover, it is not as though Norway would be immiserated by transferring its war windfall to Ukraine. This windfall represents about 6 per cent of its sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, with assets valued at $1.7 trillion – or $308,000 for every Norwegian. True, Norway channels all government revenue from oil and gas production to its sovereign wealth fund, and no more than 3 per cent of the value of the fund can be drawn down and transferred to the government budget each year. This rule helps limit the effects on inflation and the exchange rate, and ensures that the fund exists in perpetuity. But as a macroeconomic and national savings instrument, the drawdown rule was not designed with wartime demands in mind. It therefore should not be seen as an obstacle for a larger transfer to Ukraine. Since such a transfer would not enter the Norwegian economy, it would have no domestic inflationary or other macroeconomic implications. (With the 2025 budget largely set, it would need to be an extrabudgetary measure justified by the wartime circumstances.) This is not the first time that Norway's hoarding of its war windfall has been an issue. But it is the first time that we have been given an official estimate of the windfall's value. The finance ministry has assigned a number to natural-gas export revenues in excess of what they would have been had gas prices remained around their five-year pre-invasion average. Although such counterfactuals will always be subject to uncertainty and debate, the official estimate is the closest we will get to a value for Norway's war windfall. In fact, the actual number is probably much higher, as the estimate does not include excess revenues resulting from higher oil prices following the invasion. With Europeans wringing their hands about the implications of Donald Trump's return to power, Norway's government and parliament should transfer the windfall to Ukraine in the form of military and financial support. Norway has a powerful national-security interest in doing the right thing. Håvard Halland, a former senior economist at the World Bank and OECD, is professor of Sustainable Finance at Heriot-Watt University. Knut Anton Mork is professor emeritus of Economics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. MENAFN21122024000028011005ID1109019819 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.CHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) — Will Riley scored his 19 points in the second half and No. 25 Illinois beat Maryland Eastern Shore 87-40 on Saturday. Kylan Boswell added 13 points, Tomislav Ivisic had 11 and Morez Johnson Jr. finished with 10 points and 13 rebounds for the Illini (4-1), who shot 25% (10 for 40) from 3-point range but committed just nine turnovers. Tre White grabbed 11 rebounds and Kasparas Jakucionis seven for Illinois, which outrebounded the Hawks 59-38. Jalen Ware scored 10 points and Christopher Flippin had 10 rebounds for Maryland Eastern Shore (2-6), which had its lowest point total of the season. The team's previous low came in 102-63 loss to Vanderbilt on Nov. 4. Illinois is unbeaten in four home games. Maryland Eastern Shore is winless in six road games. Illinois: Coming off a 100-87 loss Wednesday to No. 8 Alabama, the Illini had no trouble dominating the overmatched Hawks. They led 35-15 at halftime and extended the lead to as many as 52 points in the second half. Maryland Eastern Shore: The Hawks couldn’t match Illinois’ height and depth and were slowed by 15 turnovers. After struggling at the start of the game, the Illini went on a 17-0 run over a seven-minute stretch to move in front 25-8 with 5:15 to go in the first half. Maryland Eastern Shore struggled from the field, shooting 22% (15 for 68), including 5 for 20 on 3-pointers. Illinois hosts Little Rock on Monday. Maryland Eastern Shore plays at No. 20 Arkansas on Monday. Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here . AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball