Ankara, Athens exploiting refugees for dangerous political game

Thousands of migrants and refugees are sitting at Greece's gates, eager to cross into Europe. But Turkey and Greece are capitalizing on the turbulent border situation to further their own political agendas.

Last Thursday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared he would open the country's border, allowing migrants and refugees to make their way to the Greek frontier. Since then, thousands of people have streamed to Turkey's Pazarkule border crossing with Greece near the Turkish city of Edirne.

Greek border guards, however, have tightened security. They are deploying tear gas and water cannons to drive away migrants and refugees attempting to cross the border. Observers have reported that Turkish authorities have been firing tear gas, as well.

Footage of these dramatic scenes has gone around world — depicting women and children fleeing clouds of tear gas and Greek coast guard officers firing warning shots to force migrant vessels to turn back towards Turkey.

Read more: Migrants at Turkish-Greek border: 'We want another life'

Will 2015 repeat itself?

These images are reminiscent of the 2015 refugee crisis, when, at some point, up to 10,000 refugees and migrants were arriving in Greece each day. Ankara and Athens, however, are capitalizing on these dramatic events unfolding along their border to further their own political agenda.

Ankara is keen to cast a particularly dramatic image of the situation, with Turkey's Minister of Industry and Technology accusing Athens of having granted protection to "terrorists involved in the July 15 coup attempt" on Twitter. The minister added that "this (Greek) government is now shooting down innocent refugees" and that "Greece will never rid itself of this disgraceful episode in its history."

Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu has also been commenting on the situation at Pazarkule via Twitter. He recently claimed, for example, "this morning at 11:00 a.m., another person died, and human rights abuses continue unabated." Soylu sends updates as to how many migrants and refugees have supposedly already made it into Greece. Last Wednesday, he claimed that 135,844 individuals had crossed the border. Greek authorities, however, have not commented on these figures.



SYRIA'S IDLIB: A HUMANITARIAN DISASTER
On the run

Traffic is heavy on the roads heading north through the Idlib region toward the Turkish border. Soldiers of the Assad regime are advancing from the south and east, aided by their Russian and Iranian allies. Some Syrian rebel groups are supported by Turkey, which also has soldiers of its own in the region. But ordinary people just want to reach safet

Read more: DW examines new migration tension between EU, Turkey

Turkish media rails against Europe
According to the Human Rights Center of the Istanbul Bar Association, only about 2,000 individuals have gathered at Pazarkule border crossing. DW reporter Tunca Ögreten estimates that no more than 3,000 people are waiting there at this moment.

Turkish pro-Erdogan media outlets have been churning out an endless stream of reports claiming that Greece is callously turning back individuals who have fled hunger, desperation and war. Many Turkish papers are portraying the EU, and Greece in particular, as "cruel" and "brutal" for rejecting migrants and refugees. Yeni Akit, an Islamic fundamentalist Turkish daily, ran a headline claiming: "Refugees are bombed, the West has lost its humanitarian guise." Another stated: "Unscrupulous Europe. Migrants are forced back, without compassion for women and children." Akşam, another Turkish daily, echoed this sentiment, writing: "Europe does not care about this drama. The Greeks let them die. And Turkey's armed forces saved them."


Read more: Are Germany and the EU prepared for a new influx of refugees?

Many Turks are hostile towards refugees

Turkey, which currently hosts some 3.6 million refugees, is keen to share this burden with other countries. Turkish President Erdogan has repeatedly railed against Greece and the rest of Europe for doing too little to help. Since the Turkish economic crisis in the summer of 2018, hostility against the millions of refugees in the country has grown. According to pollster Türkeitrend, 87.1% of Turks are unhappy with the government's policy towards them.

Yet Athens, too, has been casting the border situation in an overly dramatic light. Greek authorities claimed to have prevented 28,000 refugees from breaching the border, saying that merely 220 made it across. Eyewitnesses, however, told DW that between 1,000 and 2,000 individuals crossed into Greece legally.

Athens is eager to signal that its border is sealed and that everything is under control. Some Greek media outlets, meanwhile, have been running sensationalist headlines and stoking fears. Like Kathimerini, a conservative daily morning newspaper, which recently ran the headline: "Permanent danger of asymmetrical war on border." Ultra-nationalist paper Makeleio, in turn, has suggested invading Turkey for a "re-run of 1821." The date refers to the Greek revolution, which brought it independence from the Ottoman Empire.

On the Greek evening news, meanwhile, commentators have been stoking nationalist sentiments and creating the impression that the country finds itself in a war-like situation under siege from "invaders" and "intruders."


Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russia's Vladimir Putin announced a temporary ceasefire in Idlib on Thursday after difficult talks in Moscow.

Read more: Turkey and Russia announce temporary Syria ceasefire

Athens vs Ankara

Conservative Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis seems glad to capitalize on the tumultuous border situation to portray himself as a man of action, determined to fight the specter of mass immigration. Indeed, surveys show that a majority of Greeks view this as his most pressing challenge to date. Mitsotakis himself has deployed highly dramatic rhetoric as well, accusing Turkey of being the "world's biggest human trafficker," and saying Greece faces an "invasion of people of unknown origin."

Many migrants and refugees stranded at Pazarkule border crossing share the dream of one day living in Germany, Austria or Scandinavia. What Turkey and Greece, in turn, have in common is that they both instrumentalize the situation for their own political purposes. While Turkey is effectively blackmailing the West, Greece is seizing on the moment to stir up nationalist sentiment.

Germany: Thousands of protesters demand EU open borders

Thousands have gathered in Berlin to demand that German Chancellor Angela Merkel change her stance and support the opening of the EU borders to migrants. Migrants are attempting to cross into Greece from Turkey.

Thousands of protesters gathered in Berlin on Tuesday in front of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's official residence to demand the opening of the border between Turkey and the European Union.

At least three thousand people gathered in Berlin while similar protests were held in Hamburg and Potsdam, according to German media.

The group "Seebrücke" ("Sea Bridge"), which led the protests, wrote online that it stands "against the policy of sealing off the EU and for the opening of the borders." Seebrücke says it wants "safe passages and an end to the criminalization of civil sea rescue."

Read more: Migrants at Turkish-Greek border: 'We want another life'


Protesters at the iconic Federal Chancellery in Berlin

'Toxic' EU-Turkey deal

The protests were organized as thousands of refugees gathered at the Greek border after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced last week that his country would no longer stop migrants crossing into the EU.

Under the so-called refugee deal between the EU and Turkey, both sides cooperated in stopping migrants from crossing into the EU from Turkey.

Protesters on Tuesday described the deal as "toxic” and chanted "We have space!” Police put the number of participants at 3,500, while organizers say more than 8,000 came.


'Europe's borders are not open'

The protests come as German politicians are put under increased pressure to deal with the situation at the Greek border.

Merkel has expressed solidarity with Greece's attempt to hold people back after Greek security forces used tear gas to stop migrants crossing the border. The German chancellor has so far remained firm that the EU's borders are closed.

Read more: Migrants stuck on EU doorstep: What is Germany doing?

German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer also tweeted on Tuesday evening in Arabic, discouraging migrants from attempting to cross the border.


"We will support Greece with all our might,” he wrote. "Europe's borders are not open to refugees from Turkey, and this applies to our German borders as well.”

More protests are planned for later in the week.

South Korea's approach to secretive church could backfire, analyst says


Lee Man-hee, founder and leader of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony, apologized for the role his organization has played in the COVID-19 epidemic in South Korea on Monday. File Photo by Yonhap/EPA-EFE

NEW YORK, March 5 (UPI) -- A mysterious religious organization in South Korea is in the hot seat following the massive outbreak of the new strain of coronavirus in the country, but placing members of the church under a harsh spotlight may be a counterproductive move, an analyst told UPI.

John Grisafi, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst and a Ph.D. candidate in religious studies at Yale University, said the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony, may be being singled out in a way by local authorities that is counterproductive to efforts to contain COVID-19.

That does not mean Shincheonji should not bear responsibility for widespread infections that began with South Korea's Patient No. 31, who is believed to have attended services while sick, Grisafi said.

Slightly more than half of COVID-19 cases in South Korea can be traced back to the Daegu branch of the church, according to officials.

Actions taken by South Korean authorities, including what local media described as a "007-style" forced entry into Shincheonji headquarters, however, could be deterring church members from coming forward about possible infections.

"The group already feels marginalized," Grisafi said. "Suspicion of them and the feeling they are being persecuted could drive them further underground and have the reverse effect of what [the South Korean government] is trying to accomplish."

The church has reportedly hesitated to disclose a complete list of its members.

Shincheonji's secrecy, claims regarding the church's strict attendance requirements -- which may have contributed to the outbreak -- have roiled South Koreans who, according to a recent poll, are overwhelmingly in favor of a government-led raid of the church.

But the group, believed to retain 300,000 members worldwide -- with 200,000 in South Korea alone -- could also be attracting South Koreans in their 20s and 30s who may be struggling, according to local reports. Grisafi says diminished prospects for young people could be playing a role in the rise of groups like Shincheonji.

"Social anxieties, social stresses, economic stresses are a big part of why younger South Koreans, or young people in any country, are being motivated to join a group like that," he said.

"Maybe belonging to a closed special group makes them feel better, feels right to them."

China dilemma

The focus on Shincheonji has shifted the spotlight in South Korea.

China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, has largely faded into the background as COVID-19 has become framed as a "Shincheonji problem."

While more than 2,000 cases in Korea remain unrelated to the church, little attention is being paid to those cases as infections continue to rise in the country.

Last week President Moon Jae-in dismissed the idea of stricter quarantine measures against travelers from China, citing possible trade reprisals from Beijing. Chinese regions, meanwhile, have been actively quarantining South Koreans regardless of health status, according to local reports.

Kyle Ferrier, fellow and director of academic affairs at Korea Economic Institute in Washington, told UPI South Korea is heavily dependent on the global economy. Moon's approach to tackling the coronavirus has also yielded no discernible change in support for his administration ahead of general elections in April.

"Shutting off the borders, even temporarily, because of the coronavirus would disproportionately impact Korea," Ferrier said.

Matthew Shapiro, an associate professor of political science at the Illinois Institute of Technology, has studied trans-boundary pollution affecting both countries. Shapiro says past negotiations demonstrate the challenges of tackling environmental and public health problems affecting the region.

"There's been a lot of finger pointing from Korea to China," Shapiro said of pollution negotiations.

South Korea has said a significant portion -- about 30 percent -- of all fine dust originates from China, but the two sides have been unable to agree even on the science of air pollution.

"China doesn't acknowledge it at all," Shapiro said.

Shapiro also said South Korea learned from its experience with deploying U.S. missile defense system THAAD on the peninsula. China may have retaliated by either discouraging or preventing Chinese tourists from visiting Korea; tourism dropped by 70 percent at one point in 2017.

On the coronavirus, China has begun to indicate it is not interested in accepting responsibility for the global outbreak, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan and had killed more than 3,200 people worldwide by Wednesday.

Last week, Chinese scientist Zhong Nanshan, dubbed the "SARS hero" by Chinese state media, said the virus might have not originated in China. His statement has since been followed by comments from the Chinese foreign ministry, which claimed there is no confirmation about the origins of the virus.

"Confirmed cases of #COVID19 were first found in China, but its origin is not necessarily in China. We are still tracing the origin," the ministry said on Twitter on Wednesday.

The elite world of French cinema is divided over the 45th César Awards ceremony, the French equivalent of the Oscars. A movie by the controversial and divisive Franco-Polish filmmaker Roman Polanski won three awards, including the coveted Best Director prize. This was a bitter pill to swallow for many, including feminist groups who had called for a boycott of the ceremony. The incident once again ignited a fierce debate about the question of "separating the man from the artist". Does this episode highlight a deep-rooted problem in French society? And are things slowly starting to change?

HERSTORY
 Dublin architects are first two women to share Pritzker prize


Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara, co-founders of Grafton Architects in Dublin, Ireland, won the 2020 Pritzker Architecture Prize. File Photo courtesy of the Alice Clancy

March 3 (UPI) -- For the first time in the Pritzker Architecture Prize's four-decade history, the organization handed out the industry's most prestigious award to two women Tuesday.

The organization named Irish architects Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara as 2020's winners of what's considered to be the Nobel prize of architecture. They co-founded Grafton Architects in Dublin in the 1978.

"Architecture could be described as one of the most complex and important cultural activities on the planet," Farrell said. "To be an architect is an enormous privilege. To win this prize is a wonderful endorsement of our belief in architecture. Thank you for this great honor."

Farrell and McNamara are known for their designs of educational buildings, including the University Campus UTEC Lima in Peru; the Universite Toulouse 1 Capitole, School of Economics in France; and the Universita Luigi Bocconi in Milan, Italy.

Often relying on concrete and stone in their structures, the two are known for working in urban spaces and using a modern approach while "honoring history," a news release announcing the win said.

"The collaboration between Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara represents a veritable interconnectedness between equal counterparts," said Tom Pritzker, chairman of The Hyatt Foundation, which sponsors the award. "They demonstrate incredible strength in their architecture, show deep relation to the local situation in all regards, establish different responses to each commission while maintaining the honesty of their work, and exceed the requirements of the field through responsibility and community."

In their home country, Farrell and McNamara designed North King Street Housing and the offices for the Department of Finance, the latter of which used local limestone in thick panels in order to convey a sense of strength.

As winners of the Pritzker prize, the two will receive $100,000 and a bronze medallion.

"Within the ethos of a practice such as ours, we have so often struggled to find space for the implementation of such values as humanism, craft, generosity, and cultural connection with each place and context within which we work. It is therefore extremely gratifying that this recognition is bestowed upon us and our practice and upon the body of work we have managed to produce over a long number of years," McNamara said. "It is also a wonderful recognition of the ambition and vision of the clients who commissioned us and enabled us to bring our buildings to fruition."

 ---30---

Architecture's top prize awarded to two Irish women

AFP/File / FILIPPO MONTEFORTEYvonne Farrell (L) and Shelley McNamara, pictured in 2018, are the first female duo and first Irish citizens to win the Pritzker Prize in architecture

Dublin-based Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara were awarded the Pritzker prize on Tuesday -- the first time a female duo has scooped architecture's most prestigious award.

The pair gained international fame for their brutalist-inspired structures, pairing strong, heavy materials like stark concrete with delicate human-scale detail like lookout points, meeting places and spots to loiter.

The pair met at university in 1974, and went on to found their firm Grafton Architects in 1978 in Dublin, where they have worked together for four decades.

McNamara, 68, and Farrell, 69, are the first female duo to win a Pritzker, and the first architects from Ireland to be awarded the prize.

"Pioneers in a field that has traditionally been and still is a male-dominated profession, they are also beacons to others as they forge their exemplary professional path," read the jury citation.

Just three women have won Pritzkers before them: Zaha Hadid in 2004, Kazuyo Sejima in 2010 (with Ryue Nishizawa) and Carme Pigem in 2017 (with Ramon Vilalta and Rafael Aranda).

AFP/File / CARL COURTIrish architect Yvonne Farrell, a newly minted Pritzker laureate, poses next to her installation at the Royal Academy of Arts in central London in 2014

In announcing their selection, the jury cited Farrell and McNamara's "integrity" and "generosity towards their colleagues" -- both continue to teach, rare for architects of their repute.

The judges also praised their "unceasing commitment to excellence in architecture, their responsible attitude toward the environment, their ability to be cosmopolitan while embracing the uniqueness of each place in which they work."

The pair say Ireland informed their focus on geography and shifts in climate, resulting in buildings that celebrate detail while remaining modest.

"What we try to do in our work is to be aware of the various levels of citizenship and try to find an architecture that deals with overlap, that heightens your relationship to one another," the Pritzker committee quoted Farrell as saying.

- 'Earth as client' -

In 2008, Farrell and McNamara's celebrated Grafton Building at Milan's Bocconi University was named World Building of the Year at the World Architecture Festival in Barcelona, a prize that thrust the pair onto the international stage.

The past four decades have seen them complete projects in Ireland as well as Britain, France, Italy and Peru -- notably designing many educational and civic buildings -- all with nuanced sensitivity to a site's natural elements and needs.

"The collaboration between Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara represents a veritable interconnectedness between equal counterparts," said Tom Pritzker, chairman of the foundation that sponsors the award.

"They demonstrate incredible strength in their architecture, show deep relation to the local situation in all regards, establish different responses to each commission while maintaining the honesty of their work, and exceed the requirements of the field through responsibility and community."

In 2018, Farrell and McNamara curated that year's Venice Architecture Biennale, entitled "Freespace," which they defined as "a generosity of spirit and a sense of humanity at the core of architecture's agenda."

 

AFP/File / FILIPPO MONTEFORTEIn announcing their selection, the Pritzker jury cited Farrell and McNamara's "integrity" and "generosity towards their colleagues" -- both continue to teach, rare for architects of their repute

"We are interested in going beyond the visual, emphasizing the role of architecture in the choreography of daily life," they said in their Biennale announcement.

"We see the Earth as client. This brings with it long-lasting responsibilities."

In 2016, their firm won the inaugural RIBA International Prize, for their University of Engineering and Technology building in Peru, which the judges called a "modern-day Machu Picchu" for its verticality and mix of open and enclosed spaces.

Though acclaimed, the pair have cautioned against the "starchitect" phenomenon that celebrates eye candy and celebrity over structural needs.

Farrell, speaking to Spain's IE University in 2015, instead likened architects to translators, saying "we translate people's needs and their dreams into reality."

"We make the space in which life happens, and I think our profession needs to expand to embrace all the other disciplines of environmental sustainability, of making, of the crisis, of changing people's attitude."

2020: Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara
The Irish duo are the fourth and fifth women to win the prestigious prize in its 41-year history. Their Dublin-based firm, Grafton Architects, is renowned for designs using concrete and stone. The judges lauded the pair for buildings that "maintain a human scale and achieve intimate environments." The Bocconi University (photo) in Milan is one of their acclaimed designs.

AMERICAN DIRT
Critics of Oprah book club title put new novel on trial

1 of 2
In this Feb. 13, 2020 photo released by Apple, Oprah Winfrey, right, hosts a taping of Oprah's Book Club with Jeanine Cummins, author of "American Dirt," second right, and panelists, from left, Esther J. Cepeda, Julissa Arce and Reyna Grande in Tuscon, Ariz. The two-part interview will begin streaming on Apple TV Plus at midnight ET on Friday, March 6. (Karen Ballard/Apple via AP)

TUCSON, Arizona (AP) — When Oprah Winfrey chose the novel “American Dirt” for her book club, she imagined engaging in an impassioned television dialog about the narrative, which follows a Mexican mother and her son fleeing to the United States.

Instead, Winfrey ended up organizing a show that put the book, author Jeanine Cummins and Winfrey herself on trial. After critics complained about the novel’s portrayal of Latinos, she turned the forum into a debate about the marginalization of Latino voices, the lack of diversity in publishing and the question of who is best suited to tell a given story.


Just a few months ago, the book was one of 2020′s most welcome releases, described as a modern-day version of John Steinbeck’s classic “The Grapes of Wrath.” But criticism quickly mounted and made it Exhibit A in grievances against the industry. The Mexican-American writer Myriam Gurba condemned the novel as a “Trumpian” charade crammed with Mexican stereotypes.

Winfrey and Cummins were joined on the show by three prominent critics of the book. The Associated Press was allowed to attend the taping of the highly anticipated program last month in Tucson, not far from where Cummins wrote and researched parts of the novel. The program airs Friday on Apple TV Plus.

Speaking to the AP after the show, Winfrey lamented the controversy.

“This has taken up a lot of my energy, a lot of her (Cummins’) energy, and it’s taken away my attention from why people want to read books,” she said.

Future book club picks, she said, will almost certainly include Latino authors — she has only chosen a handful since founding her club in 1996. She promised a more thorough approach that anticipated possible backlash, saying she was not going “to wade into that water” again.

Cummins said the conversation was “productive.”

“It was civil. I really understood where they were coming from, the women who were there in opposition to the book. I hope that they also understood where I was coming from,” she said.

Published Jan. 21, the book has been a bestseller, fulfilling the hopes of the Macmillan-owned Flatiron Books, which outbid several competitors and paid seven figures for the manuscript. Sales have exceeded 200,000 copies.

But the publisher has retreated from any grand literary claims. The blurb comparing the story to “The Grapes of Wrath” has been removed from the cover, and Flatiron’s president and publisher, Bob Miller, apologized for the book’s promotion, including a luncheon last year that featured barbed wire centerpieces based on the book’s jacket design.


In her opening remarks, Winfrey defended her choice of “American Dirt,” saying the book had made her feel personally connected to the stories of immigrants. But she acknowledged the criticisms and said her response was to “lean in” and embark on a conversation without “having to cancel, to dismiss or to silence anyone.”

After introducing Cummins, Winfrey was openly sympathetic but directly raised the many issues of recent months. The author was visibly tense — her expression grim and unchanging, her hands and fingers entwined — as Winfrey read from social media postings that called Cummins “clueless” and her novel a “whitewash” of a human rights crisis.

Winfrey asked if Cummins regretted her author’s note, in which she speculated that someone “browner” might have been worthier to write the novel. Cummins called her language “regrettable” and said she had used “a very clumsy phrase.” She also did not dispute that she had enabled the “conflation” of her Irish husband’s wait for citizenship — she described him in the note simply as an “undocumented immigrant” — with the far more dire battles many face at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The two were then joined by Esther Cepeda, a Washington Post syndicated columnist; Julissa Arce, an activist, commentator and author of the bestselling “My (Underground) American Dream”; and Reyna Grande, whose books include the bestselling memoir “The Distance Between Us.”

Grande said the industry was giving “American Dirt” a level of attention far beyond what she and other Latinos have received. Arce chastised Cummins for writing an essentially apolitical book, omitting any direct criticisms of the Trump administration.

“For some reason, someone who has a name like Jeanine Cummins can write about anything,” Cepeda said. “Someone with a name like ours, well, we can only write about immigration.”

Cepeda faulted Winfrey for the virtual absence of Latino writers in her club. “You are a king and queen maker,” Cepeda said.

“Well, I am guilty of not looking for Latinx writers,” Winfrey said. “I will now, because my eyes have been opened to see, to behave differently.”

During the taping, Winfrey called the show a “seminal moment” that she hoped would lead to lasting change.

In a recent telephone interview, Cepeda said she wished some of the answers, especially about how Winfrey and Macmillan would improve diversity, were more specific. Added Arce, in an email to the AP: “Jeanine or Oprah were not there to answer questions. They were there to defend the book. I understand it. When we tried to push Oprah and Jeanine, they were unwilling to really dig deep.”

Cummins is the author of three previous works, including a memoir about her cousins’ murder and two novels that draw upon her own Irish heritage and time lived in Ireland. The recent criticism has changed her future plans.

In a pre-publication interview with the AP, Cummins had said she was working on a novel set, at least in part, in Puerto Rico. She now expresses doubt about that book.

“I’m not a glutton for punishment,” she said, explaining that her greatest concern is in keeping her literary “voice” and “making sure that the experience of this moment doesn’t make me second-guess or subvert the stories that move my heart.”

On stage, Winfrey mentioned that she was deeply shaken by an online letter endorsed by dozens of authors that urged her to drop “American Dirt.” But she told the AP that she never considered changing her mind.

“If I dropped the book because of pressure and not because I felt something was wrong, then anybody is subject to being rescinded, silenced, erased,” she said.

Winfrey’s book club has been an industry blessing and flashpoint since she launched it nearly a quarter-century ago to make public her passion for sharing books among friends.

The club was a hit beyond anyone’s expectations. Authors saw hundreds of thousands of copies of a given book sell. They anticipated a call from Winfrey like would-be lottery winners. In 1999, she received an honorary National Book Award for her belief that great literature “must become the province of many.”

Critics have closely scrutinized her picks, if only because her word matters so much. She has been chastised for ignoring newer books and older ones, for sentimentality and even gullibility, as in 2005, when her selection of James Frey’s addiction memoir “A Million Little Pieces” proved disastrous after Frey acknowledged published reports that substantial parts of the book were false.

After ending her syndicated talk show in 2011, Winfrey launched Oprah 2.0, a more Internet-focused initiative that included joint promotion with Amazon.com.

Audience guests in Tucson included the Flatiron editor who acquired Cummins’ novel, Amy Einhorn, and Macmillan President Don Weisberg.

Einhorn said she loved the book in part because its story of a parent and child connected to her own experiences as a mother. (Grande offered similar praise even as she criticized the publication overall).

Einhorn said Cummins had been unfairly singled out for an industry problem far broader than “American Dirt.” She also suggested that the author’s lucrative deal — the object of much resentment — would not have happened had so many publishers not bid for it.

Weinberg insisted that diversity was a priority at Flatiron and spoke of bringing in strategists and “all different sorts of people” to address the issue.

Did those people suggest you hire more Latinos? Cepeda asked. “It sounds simple, but it’s not simple,” Weinberg responded, saying that Macmillan had to become a “different kind of company,” on all levels.

He rejected a specific idea raised by Winfrey — that Macmillan establish a Latino division. (Winfrey herself has an imprint at Flatiron).

“I resist any special divisions,” he said. “I want everybody to be able to do everything.”

In the second half of the show, Winfrey brought in other voices — taped segments with Central America immigrants who risked their lives to enter the U.S. and officials from the International Rescue Committee. She also invited questions from an audience diverse in age and background and composed almost entirely of women. Individuals were chosen through a combination of local outreach and invitations to those who engaged online with the book club.

Most of the audience praised the book, with one speaker saying it reminded her of African American ancestors who had fled slavery. Paulina Aguirre-Clinch, branch manager of the nearby Pima County Public Library, said “American Dirt” was less a literary work on the level of Steinbeck than a thriller with notable flaws.

“And to be 100 percent honest with you, because it was a thriller, I felt like it touched upon a lot of things, but it didn’t really go deeply into it” them, Aguirre-Clinch said.

“If you had told me it was a thriller,” Winfrey added, “I wouldn’t have read it.”

Arce challenged Cummins about her intentions for the book, which Cummins has called a “bridge” to other communities. To which communities? “Who did you write this book for?” Arce asked, saying that she didn’t feel “American Dirt” was meant for her.

“I wrote this book for the people in this room,” Cummins said.

Whose minds did you want to change? Arce wondered.

“Mine,” called out one audience member. “Mine,” said a second, then a third and a fourth and several others.

“Mine.” “Mine.” Mine.” “Mine.”

• Gas driller pulls out of talks in $5M suit against resident

FILE – This Feb. 4, 2018, file photo shows Ray Kemble speaking with reporters outside the Susquehanna County Courthouse in Montrose, Pa. Houston-based Cabot Oil Gas Corp pulled out of settlement talks aimed at resolving its $5 million lawsuit against Kemble whose drinking water was contaminated and who has spent years bashing the energy industry. Cabot says it pulled out of a settlement conference scheduled for Friday, March 6, 2020, because there has been no progress in talks. (AP Photo/Michael Rubinkam, File)

One of Pennsylvania’s largest gas drillers pulled out of settlement talks aimed at resolving its $5 million lawsuit against a resident whose drinking water was contaminated and who has spent years bashing the energy industry.

Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. sued Dimock resident Ray Kemble and his former lawyers in 2017, claiming they tried to extort the company through frivolous litigation. Cabot also claims Kemble violated a 2012 settlement agreement by repeatedly “spouting lies” about the company in public.

Kemble, a high-profile fracking opponent who has traveled the country talking about his experiences with the gas industry, charges that Cabot is trying to shut him up.


The company, which has drilled hundreds of wells in the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation, pulled out of a settlement conference scheduled for Friday because the parties have made “no progress” toward resolution, Cabot said in a legal filing.

Kemble’s former lawyers, in turn, accused the driller of failing to negotiate in good faith, calling its withdrawal from talks “an indication that this action was not intended to seek compensatory damages, but instead an attempt to harass, embarrass and annoy the defendants.”

An email was sent to Cabot spokesman George Stark on Thursday seeking comment on the case, which, for now, remains on a path toward trial.

Kemble and others have long accused Cabot of polluting their water supplies, a claim that formed the basis of the Emmy-winning 2010 documentary “Gasland.” State regulators held Cabot responsible for polluting residential water wells and banned it from drilling in a 9-square-mile (23-square-kilometer) area of Dimock, a rural community 150 miles (240 kilometers) north of Philadelphia.

Cabot, which has long denied responsibility, has been waging a fierce PR and legal campaign against Kemble and other fracking opponents who the company says are funded by deep-pocketed environmental groups to spread falsehoods about Cabot. The company, which is publicly traded, has said it sees the litigation against Kemble and his former lawyers as a way to defend itself from scurrilous attacks.

But Stark, who was deposed by the defendants’ lawyers in January, was largely unable to identify specific economic damages suffered by Cabot as a result of Kemble’s short-lived federal lawsuit. Kemble’s suit had accused Cabot of polluting his water supply anew.

Under questioning, Stark asserted that Cabot’s reputation was harmed by Kemble. But he added: “From the standpoint of the ongoing basis, I can’t even ascertain what the damages would be,” according to a transcript.


Documents filed as part of the case show that both sides are far apart in resolving their differences.

Kemble’s former law firms offered $50,000 to settle, asserting that Cabot itself could only substantiate damages of $90,000 for legal fees it incurred in 2017. Cabot, in turn, offered to settle for $3 million — the limits of the law firms’ malpractice insurance policies.

Kemble’s current lawyer has not offered a monetary settlement, demanding that Cabot dismiss Kemble from the case.

Cabot has been aggressive about pursuing its lawsuit, forcing Kemble’s fellow activists to sit for depositions and obtaining their bank records. In his deposition, Stark asserted that Kemble and others had perpetuated a “hoax” that gas drilling had polluted the water. At one point, the company sought to have Kemble thrown in jail for failing to appear at depositions.

The judge overseeing the case has previously criticized the company for its $5 million demand, saying Cabot announced the large sum in order to generate headlines.

NFL players’ union sends labor proposal to members for vote

Pittsburgh Steelers owner Arthur Rooney II leaves after NFL owners meet to discuss a proposed labor agreement, Thursday Feb. 20, 2020, in New York. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

The NFL Players Association sent ballots to members Thursday for voting on the proposed collective bargaining agreement, giving the union a week to either ensure another 11 years of labor peace or sending the matter back to the drawing board.
The NFLPA announced that votes would be accepted through March 12 at one minute before midnight. The more than 2,000 members will have a window of about 7 1/2 days to examine the 439-page document and cast a yes or no vote. Ratification requires a simple majority. So if only 1,000 ballots were returned, the union would need 501 yes votes to approve.

Every player who was a dues-paying member during the 2019 season received a ballot, the NFLPA said. Votes will be confidential and received by an independent auditor.

“We encourage every NFL player to review the the full collective bargaining agreement and exercise their democratic right to vote,” the union said in a statement.

The distribution took place two weeks after league owners voted their approval of the agreement that’s a product of 10 months of talks between both sides. The NFLPA’s 11-member executive committee initially voted 6-5 against the proposed terms, but last week in Indianapolis during the NFL scouting combine the 32 team representatives narrowly voted in favor of sending the CBA to the full membership for approval. The new rules, if accepted, would be in effect through the 2030 league year.

With the owners unwavering in their favor of a 17-game regular season, players focused more on safeguards for the additional wear and tear and an increased share of the revenue that would grow with the extra game.

Plenty of high-profile players have adamantly spoken out against the proposal, including Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers, Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson, Houston defensive end J.J. Watt, Pittsburgh center Maurkice Pouncey and Minnesota wide receiver Stefon Diggs.

Their primary contention with the terms is that they don’t go far enough to reward and protect the players for the extra game. Pouncey went so far as to announce recently on social media he was arranging a contingency fund with fellow critics Mike Pouncey and Russell Okung that would assist young players in the event of a strike.

There’s no telling how the full vote will turn out, though, with lesser-known and fringe players outnumbering stars. This CBA would give a bigger boost to the rank-and-file players than usual, with a roughly 20% hike to the minimum salary right away, to $610,000. That figure would top $1 million by 2029.


NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said last week he believed the proposal would pass. NFL owners initiated a lockout in 2011 that lasted more than four months, but the two sides came together to reach the current agreement right before training camps were to begin. The last time games were lost to a labor dispute was during the player strike in 1987.

___

More AP NFL coverage: https://apnews.com/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL

Former UAW President Gary Jones charged with corruption
RIPPING OFF MEMBERS JUST LIKE THE REGULAR BOSS GUESS THAT'S WHY THEY CALL EM UNION BOSSES

1 of 2

FILE - In this July 16, 2019, file photo, Gary Jones, United Auto Workers President, speaks during the opening of their contract talks with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in Auburn Hills, Mich. Federal prosecutors have charged the former president of the United Auto Workers with corruption, Thursday, March 5, 2020, alleging he conspired with others at the union to embezzle more than $1 million. Jones quit his post in November 2019. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, File)


DETROIT (AP) — Prosecutors on Thursday charged the former president of the United Auto Workers with corruption, alleging he conspired with others at the union to embezzle more than $1 million.

The federal government has been marching toward Gary Jones for months, after an embarrassing public search of his Detroit-area home and a series of guilty pleas from others in a sweeping investigation of UAW leaders living the high life.

Jones was president for about 1 1/2 years before quitting in November. He was charged with conspiracy in a document titled a criminal “information,” which signals that a guilty plea is likely.

Jones’ attorney, J. Bruce Maffeo, had no comment Thursday afternoon.

Nine union officials and an official’s spouse have pleaded guilty since 2017. The investigation began with the discovery that Fiat Chrysler money from a Fiat Chrysler-UAW job training center was stolen. It then stretched to embezzlement of union funds.

The court filing against Jones describes a scheme to pocket cash and enjoy luxuries, starting in 2010, long before he rose to the presidency. The cost: more than $1 million.

Jones and other officials set up accounts that were supposed to be used for legitimate conference expenses in California. Instead, according to the government, officials used the money to pay for “private villas, high-end liquor and meal expenses, golfing apparel, golf clubs and green fees.”

For example, Jones ordered more than $13,000 worth of cigars from a shop in Arizona in 2015, according to the court document.

The latest person to plead guilty in the scheme was Edward “Nick” Robinson, on Monday. He was based at the UAW’s Region 5 office near St. Louis, which was led by Jones until Jones became UAW president in 2018. The government said Robinson fraudulently obtained $500,000 to $700,000 and gave at least $60,000 to Jones.



UAW official Edward Robinson leaves federal court in Detroit, Monday, March 2, 2020. The former senior official at the United Auto Workers pleaded guilty to conspiring with other labor leaders to steal more than $1 million in dues while enjoying golf, lavish lodging, meals and booze. (Clarence Tabb Jr. /Detroit News via AP)

Vance Pearson, another Jones ally from his time in St. Louis, pleaded guilty in February. He succeeded Jones as head of the regional office.

The UAW expressed disgust about the allegations against Jones, who marched in Detroit’s Labor Day parade in September, just days after agents seized golf clubs and more than $30,000 from his home in Canton Township.

“This is a violation of trust, a violation of the sacred management of union dues, and goes against everything we believe in as a union,” the UAW said.

The union now is led by Rory Gamble, who has promised to reform the culture in the UAW’s top ranks. As part of that effort, a Michigan vacation home built on union property for retired President Dennis Williams is listed for sale at $1.3 million.

The UAW, which is based in Detroit, has about 400,000 members and is best known for representing workers at Fiat Chrysler, General Motors and Ford Motor.

The scandal caused tension between GM and Fiat Chrysler. GM filed a racketeering lawsuit against the rival, alleging it was able to negotiate valuable labor concessions with the UAW in exchange for payoffs at a job training center. Three Fiat Chrysler officials pleaded guilty.
___

Associated Press Auto Writer Tom Krisher contributed to this story.

Watchdog: Data on children separated at border may be flawed

FILE- In this Feb. 19, 2019, file photo, children line up to enter a tent at the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children in Homestead, Fla. Despite efforts by the Trump administration to improve communication to track children who are separated from their families at the border, the process is still vulnerable to error and information sharing between agencies is inconsistent, raising questions on the accuracy of current data, a watchdog reported Thursday. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s effort to track children separated from their families at the border is plagued by communication problems that raise questions about the accuracy of the data, a watchdog reported Thursday.

The administration created the tracking system following its “zero tolerance” policy in 2018 where more than 2,500 children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, though the watchdog has estimated that figure could be much higher.

Immigration officials have continued to separate some children from their parents at the border for certain reasons including a parent’s suspected criminal history, and have said the tracking system will help avoid some of the chaos, confusion and trauma suffered by separated children. According to court figures at least 955 children were separated between June 2018 and July 2019.

But that tracking system is flawed, in part because details about whether separation from parents occurred are not automatically transmitted from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which manages the border, to Health and Human Services, which deals with migrant children, the watchdog reported.

In some cases, border officers can trigger an indicator, but are not typically doing so, the watchdog reported. Health and Human Services officials maintain a spreadsheet of separated children, but it still relies on manual entry, and that is “inherently vulnerable to error, raising questions about the accuracy of current data on separated children,” the watchdog reported.

The report also found that Health and Human Services only discovered the 2018 separations were occurring through media reports - in part because there was no communication between agencies. The result was a chaos, with some children languishing in detention well beyond legal limits, others inconsolable in the hands of care providers who had no answers on when parents were returning. Some children were kept waiting in vans for hours in parking lots amid delays in reunification.

“Not knowing what happened to their parents haunted the children,” one care provider told investigators, according to the report. “We couldn’t tell them whether they would ultimately be reunited. It was challenging. We weren’t notified initially about how to connect parents with their kids. The kids had lots of questions, but we had no answers for them.”


Health and Human Services officials said in a letter to the watchdog that it had the best interest of children at heart and was committed to improving, but that family separation is a thorny subject involving the Justice Department, Homeland Security and HHS, and there isn’t a simple fix for some issues.

The 2018 separations occurred in part because some migrant parents were charged criminally with illegal entry and children can’t be put in jail. Curbing immigration is Trump’s signature policy, and his administration was managing a growing crush of migrants moving north to the border; the arrests were an effort in part to dissuade migrants from making the dangerous trek north.

Administration officials initially defended the practice but abandoned it after global outcry from world leaders, religious groups and humanitarian organizations that it was inhumane. A federal court order generally bars further separations unless there are questions about criminal history or the health and safety of the child. Attorneys in the case have argued there are too many unnecessary separations.

The report by the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services was compiled from interviews with and written responses from senior Health officials, interviews with staff at 45 care providers, case reviews from separated children and more than 5,000 documents. It is one of several the inspector general’s office has completed on family separations. In September, it found that the children separated, many already distressed in their home countries or by their journey, showed more fear, feelings of abandonment and post-traumatic stress symptoms than children who were not separated.

Children who are taken from their parents and placed into the care of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for unaccompanied migrant children. They are generally placed into facilities run by care providers until a suitable sponsor can be found. In most cases, the sponsors are parents. During 2018, children were held longer in immigration detention and were also kept longer at facilities because of vast delays in the system.

But when the separations began in 2018, there was no formalized system to track children and their parents across the five government agencies in order reunify them. The report found that inadequate communication, management and planning at Health and Human Services made the situation even worse for many separated children. And in some cases, the officials were not prioritizing the needs of children.

At the time, Health and Human Services officials said they had no notice the separations would occur as a result of the zero tolerance policy pushed by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

But staff warned of a growing increase in the number of separated children as early as 2017, the report found. Separations occurred under previous administrations, but it was rare.

The watchdog says high-ranking officers disregarded “specific, repeated” warnings from staff that the policy would be implemented. And there was no evidence that senior officials “took action to protect children’s interests,” the report found.

Ann Maxwell, the assistant inspector general, said in a press call communication improvements were necessary.

“Clear lines of communications are vital to HHS’ ability to adapt and response to any new developments in immigration policy or practice that could impact children in the future,” she said.

Some key health officials were not convinced that immigration officials would do large-scale separations, and were reluctant to intervene in immigration law enforcement policies, the report found. And the leadership didn’t understand the magnitude of the problem, the report found.

In a letter to the inspector general, HHS officials quibbled over the language in the report that there had been a “family separation policy,” instead noting the separations were the result of other policies meant to manage criminal cases.

“HHS does not have a direct role in shaping upstream immigration enforcement policy,” because the agency “does not have any statutory authority over immigration enforcement policy or implementation,” wrote Lynn Johnson, the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families.

She said the context for evaluating the agency in this realm should be done through that prism. The agency concurred with much of the recommendations by the inspector general, but noted there could be problems in solving inter-agency issues without getting the other agencies on board.