U.S has planned to deport illegal immigrant families from Sunday, they will specifically target the recently arrived families in America. Watch this video to know more.

U.S to act against illegal immigrants

The leadership crisis is continuing in the world. Despite their economic might, the leadership in Europe, the US, UK, China and Russia are battling severe challenges. Most headlines in global media are about crises in these regions.&nbsp;

If we step back and look at the conflict zones, there are more in the developed world than in emerging economies. The trade flare-up between US and China is not surprising if you look at economic history. North America and Europe have dominated the global economy for so long that they are shaken up by competitive behaviour.&nbsp;

Remember the 1980s when Japan rose to a level when it was buying up companies in the US. The entire country stood up to demonise the rise of Japan amid fears that most American companies would be acquired by the Asian giants.&nbsp;

When the Asian tigers climbed up the economic ladder in the 1990s, there was excitement and anxiety in equal measure. While their rise expanded the markets for Western companies, it also created firms that could successfully compete with American and European giants.&nbsp;

The large conglomerates from South Korea, smart services companies from Singapore and low-cost manufacturing outfits in Philippines offered continuing competition to Western companies.&nbsp;

Europe is facing a crisis caused by Brexit and the looming threat of Russia. Between the self-inflicted problems of UK and Russia’s attempts to take back its old territories, Europe is focused on its own immediate future.&nbsp;

The rise of China has brought back fears of Japan in the minds of the American government. Hence, the US-China trade war. While Japan wanted to build its economic strengths, China is clear about being a global geo-political influence, prompting the US to take on them. European Union (EU) members are split on China since some are keen to take all the support they can for their stagnating economies.&nbsp;

The resulting chaos in the developed world is driving a new wave of leadership to take charge of various regions in the world. They are now reducing the influence of large economies by deciding what is in their own interest.&nbsp;

In Africa, leaders like Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, are showing the way ahead for the continent. Rwanda has emerged as economic dynamo and also a key member of the increasingly cohesive East African Community.

In recent months, it has taken big strides to reduce its dependence on aid while encouraging FDI.&nbsp;

Volkswagen has set up a factory in the country while a plan is being rolled out to convert its capital Kigali into a global financial centre. “We are offering ourselves to the world as proof of concept country. We are inviting companies to test their ideas for Africa in Rwanda. If it works here, it can be scaled up in the region,” Richard Sezibera, foreign minister of Rwanda, told me in a conversation recently.&nbsp;

The reforms for the African Union initiated by President Kagame will help the countries cooperate among themselves. Similarly the Smart Africa initiative of 24 countries triggered by President Kagame is working to use technology and broadband access to create knowledge economies in the region.&nbsp;

Leaders in the African continent realise that overdependence on the EU and the US will be counterproductive. They have to lead their own way if they seek genuine economic independence.&nbsp;

The world was seemingly stable when US and Europe dictated the global economic order. Armed with their economic might and multilateral institutions controlled by them, they were able to create a global market for their products. They were not so open about allowing global products to enter their own market. After spending decades trying to open up emerging markets, the Western economies are busy closing their own.&nbsp;

At the Horasis Global Meeting in Lisbon earlier this year, it was clear that the EU and the US will have to reconcile to a new world order where they would have to give space to leadership from other parts of the world. “While vigorous nationalism is rising, countries should avoid isolation caused by protectionism,” Frank-Jürgen Richter, chairman of Horasis, said.&nbsp;

Globalisation will work only if it inspires goodwill and is conducted transparently, said Jose Manuel Barroso, vice chairman, Goldman Sachs International and former President of the European Commission.&nbsp;

“Currently those who take initiatives are on the extremes, what we need is a more enlightened leadership: not only political, but corporate leadership as well,” he stated.&nbsp;

In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is driving change not just for India, but also countries in the Indian Ocean and the BIMSTEC region. The BIMSTEC countries include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar and Bhutan.&nbsp;

At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Bishkek, Modi made it clear that emerging markets will create their own growth path. While collaboration with western economies will remain important, self-interest will influence economic policies. Modi is pursuing strong relations with China, Russia, EU and US independently, to carve a clear position for India in the world.&nbsp;

The conflict among the economic giants will fester and could even escalate over the next few years. This is now the ideal time for the new wave of leadership to control the destinies of its people, long in the hands of colonial and neo-colonial forces. The billions in Asia and Africa deserve this shift in power.&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-rattling-old-world-order-2762411">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The leadership crisis is continuing in the world. Despite their economic might, the leadership in Europe, the US, UK, China and Russia are battling severe challenges.

The leadership crisis is continuing in the world. Despite their economic might, the leadership in Europe, the US, UK, China and Russia are battling severe challenges. Most headlines in global media are about crises in these regions. If we step back and look at the conflict zones, there are more in the developed world than in emerging economies. The trade flare-up between US and China is not surprising if you look at economic history. North America and Europe have dominated the global economy for so long that they are shaken up by competitive behaviour. Remember the 1980s when Japan rose to a level when it was buying up companies in the US. The entire country stood up to demonise the rise of Japan amid fears that most American companies would be acquired by the Asian giants. When the Asian tigers climbed up the economic ladder in the 1990s, there was excitement and anxiety in equal measure. While their rise expanded the markets for Western companies, it also created firms that could successfully compete with American and European giants. The large conglomerates from South Korea, smart services companies from Singapore and low-cost manufacturing outfits in Philippines offered continuing competition to Western companies. Europe is facing a crisis caused by Brexit and the looming threat of Russia. Between the self-inflicted problems of UK and Russia’s attempts to take back its old territories, Europe is focused on its own immediate future. The rise of China has brought back fears of Japan in the minds of the American government. Hence, the US-China trade war. While Japan wanted to build its economic strengths, China is clear about being a global geo-political influence, prompting the US to take on them. European Union (EU) members are split on China since some are keen to take all the support they can for their stagnating economies. The resulting chaos in the developed world is driving a new wave of leadership to take charge of various regions in the world. They are now reducing the influence of large economies by deciding what is in their own interest. In Africa, leaders like Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, are showing the way ahead for the continent. Rwanda has emerged as economic dynamo and also a key member of the increasingly cohesive East African Community. In recent months, it has taken big strides to reduce its dependence on aid while encouraging FDI. Volkswagen has set up a factory in the country while a plan is being rolled out to convert its capital Kigali into a global financial centre. “We are offering ourselves to the world as proof of concept country. We are inviting companies to test their ideas for Africa in Rwanda. If it works here, it can be scaled up in the region,” Richard Sezibera, foreign minister of Rwanda, told me in a conversation recently. The reforms for the African Union initiated by President Kagame will help the countries cooperate among themselves. Similarly the Smart Africa initiative of 24 countries triggered by President Kagame is working to use technology and broadband access to create knowledge economies in the region. Leaders in the African continent realise that overdependence on the EU and the US will be counterproductive. They have to lead their own way if they seek genuine economic independence. The world was seemingly stable when US and Europe dictated the global economic order. Armed with their economic might and multilateral institutions controlled by them, they were able to create a global market for their products. They were not so open about allowing global products to enter their own market. After spending decades trying to open up emerging markets, the Western economies are busy closing their own. At the Horasis Global Meeting in Lisbon earlier this year, it was clear that the EU and the US will have to reconcile to a new world order where they would have to give space to leadership from other parts of the world. “While vigorous nationalism is rising, countries should avoid isolation caused by protectionism,” Frank-Jürgen Richter, chairman of Horasis, said. Globalisation will work only if it inspires goodwill and is conducted transparently, said Jose Manuel Barroso, vice chairman, Goldman Sachs International and former President of the European Commission. “Currently those who take initiatives are on the extremes, what we need is a more enlightened leadership: not only political, but corporate leadership as well,” he stated. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is driving change not just for India, but also countries in the Indian Ocean and the BIMSTEC region. The BIMSTEC countries include Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar and Bhutan. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Bishkek, Modi made it clear that emerging markets will create their own growth path. While collaboration with western economies will remain important, self-interest will influence economic policies. Modi is pursuing strong relations with China, Russia, EU and US independently, to carve a clear position for India in the world. The conflict among the economic giants will fester and could even escalate over the next few years. This is now the ideal time for the new wave of leadership to control the destinies of its people, long in the hands of colonial and neo-colonial forces. The billions in Asia and Africa deserve this shift in power. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Rattling old world order: Emerging markets should take charge

By Annie Waqar&nbsp;

The most ambitious effort to peacefully constrain the nuclear aspirations of a nation hangs by a thread. Eight years of patient and difficult negotiations to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme were cast aside when president Donald Trump withdrew US support for the deal in May 2018.

Since then, tensions between Iran and the US, a signatory to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – alongside the UK, Germany, France, Russia and China – have escalated. Last November, the US inflamed things further by re-imposing economic sanctions targeting both Iran and the states that trade with it.

The US decision in early May to deploy an aircraft carrier strike force and B-52 bombers, in response to what Washington said was an imminent Iranian plan to attack US assets, has kept tensions at a boil.

Washington stated that the latest show of force was in response to a “campaign” of recent attacks, including a rocket launched into the Green Zone in Baghdad, explosive devices that damaged four tankers near the entrance to the Gulf, and drone attacks by Yemeni rebels on a key Saudi oil pipeline. Iran has denied any association with the incidents.

More recently, the US withdrew waivers which were part of the JCPOA deal with Iran. By revoking the waivers that enabled Iran to ship abroad excess supplies of enriched uranium and heavy water, the US has left the Islamic Republic pondering whether it should continue to comply with certain key parts of the deal.

Iran’s foreign affairs minister, Javed Zarif, and Iraq’s foreign minister, Ali Alhakim, held a joint news conference in May, during which Zarif called on European states to do more to preserve the nuclear deal. Zarif also called the deployment of extra US troops to the Gulf region “extremely dangerous and a threat to international peace and security”.

A supportive Alhakim stated: “The sanctions against sisterly Iran are ineffective and we stand by its side.”

Certainly, sanctions have damaged Iran’s economy. The Iranian currency has hit a record low against the US dollar amid continued economic difficulties following the reimposition of sanctions, and the purchasing power of Iranians has dropped significantly. Indeed, Iran’s economy in 2019 is expected to fall deeper into recession, with estimated negative growth of 5.5 per cent or higher.

Iran’s choice

Tehran has requested that the European signatories to the nuclear accord – France, Germany and the UK – keep the pact alive. The JCPOA sets a 3.67 per cent limit on uranium enhancement (enough to fuel a commercial nuclear plant) and bars Iran from accumulating supplies of more than 300kg of low-enriched uranium and 130 tons of heavy water, a coolant used in nuclear reactors.

Tehran has rightly said the deal agreed to end Iran’s financial isolation in return for the strict limitations on its nuclear activities. But by bolstering sanctions, the US has scared organisations and banks into diminishing, ceasing or avoiding altogether business with Iranian partners, with serious repercussions for Iran’s economy.

Europe, by and large, has supported diplomacy with Iran. It has argued that Trump’s rejection of the deal compromises the pragmatic wing of Iran’s administration and plays into the hands of hardliners. The EU has long had questions about Tehran’s missile program, and its involvement in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, but it has viewed these as separate from the nuclear agreement.

The economic sanctions have certainly put the moderate Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani under pressure, both internationally and domestically. Iranian hardliners argue that Iran surrendered too much in the agreement.

Rouhani has perhaps come up with a clever way of deflecting domestic criticism of him – at least for now – by suggesting that the Islamic Republic hold a referendum over its nuclear program. The official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) stated that Rouhani, who recently was openly chastised by the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made the suggestion at a gathering of senior Iranian editors on May 25.

Khamenei, who has the last say on all issues of state in Iran, has not yet responded to Rouhani’s recent proposition. The Islamic Republic has seen just three referendums since 1979: one on its change from a monarchy to an Islamic republic, and two on its constitution.

A nuclear threat?

In the meantime, Iran has also threatened to quadruple its uranium-enrichment production limit, but stressed that even this uranium would not be enhanced beyond the 3.67 per cent&nbsp;limit set by the JCPOA, making it unsuitable for developing a nuclear weapon. Rouhani has also said that Tehran will keep its excess enriched uranium and heavy water rather than exporting it.

If Europe fails to find a way for business and investors to work with Iran without being penalised by US sanctions, however, Rouhani has said that Iran will begin enriching uranium even further. In principle, this more highly-enriched uranium could be used as the fissile core of a nuclear weapon. This would send Iran back on its way towards making a bomb, and mark the end of the JCPOA.

According to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) most recent quarterly report, Iran’s enriched uranium and heavy water stocks have grown but have not exceeded the ceilings set in the nuclear agreement. This suggests that Iran continues to comply with the JCPOA – for now, at least.

So far, Iran has also abstained from getting entangled in military brinkmanship with the US. But Trump may soon face a tough choice: either engage in a military clash with Iran or return to the JCPOA. The latter may be a u-turn too far for the bellicose president.

Either way, it is difficult to convince nations to surrender nuclear weapons once they have them. In this case, everything peaceful should be done to ensure that Iran is prevented from acquiring one in the first place.

(Annie Waqar is Lecturer/Academic consultant, University of Westminster) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/iran-nuclear-deal-is-hanging-by-a-thread-so-will-islamic-republic-now-develop-a-bomb-117809">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By Annie Waqar The most ambitious effort to peacefully constrain the nuclear aspirations of a nation hangs by a thread. Eight years of patient and difficult negotiations to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme were cast aside when president Donald Trump withdrew US support for the deal in May 2018.

By Annie Waqar The most ambitious effort to peacefully constrain the nuclear aspirations of a nation hangs by a thread. Eight years of patient and difficult negotiations to reach an agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme were cast aside when president Donald Trump withdrew US support for the deal in May 2018. Since then, tensions between Iran and the US, a signatory to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – alongside the UK, Germany, France, Russia and China – have escalated. Last November, the US inflamed things further by re-imposing economic sanctions targeting both Iran and the states that trade with it. The US decision in early May to deploy an aircraft carrier strike force and B-52 bombers, in response to what Washington said was an imminent Iranian plan to attack US assets, has kept tensions at a boil. Washington stated that the latest show of force was in response to a “campaign” of recent attacks, including a rocket launched into the Green Zone in Baghdad, explosive devices that damaged four tankers near the entrance to the Gulf, and drone attacks by Yemeni rebels on a key Saudi oil pipeline. Iran has denied any association with the incidents. More recently, the US withdrew waivers which were part of the JCPOA deal with Iran. By revoking the waivers that enabled Iran to ship abroad excess supplies of enriched uranium and heavy water, the US has left the Islamic Republic pondering whether it should continue to comply with certain key parts of the deal. Iran’s foreign affairs minister, Javed Zarif, and Iraq’s foreign minister, Ali Alhakim, held a joint news conference in May, during which Zarif called on European states to do more to preserve the nuclear deal. Zarif also called the deployment of extra US troops to the Gulf region “extremely dangerous and a threat to international peace and security”. A supportive Alhakim stated: “The sanctions against sisterly Iran are ineffective and we stand by its side.” Certainly, sanctions have damaged Iran’s economy. The Iranian currency has hit a record low against the US dollar amid continued economic difficulties following the reimposition of sanctions, and the purchasing power of Iranians has dropped significantly. Indeed, Iran’s economy in 2019 is expected to fall deeper into recession, with estimated negative growth of 5.5 per cent or higher. Iran’s choice Tehran has requested that the European signatories to the nuclear accord – France, Germany and the UK – keep the pact alive. The JCPOA sets a 3.67 per cent limit on uranium enhancement (enough to fuel a commercial nuclear plant) and bars Iran from accumulating supplies of more than 300kg of low-enriched uranium and 130 tons of heavy water, a coolant used in nuclear reactors. Tehran has rightly said the deal agreed to end Iran’s financial isolation in return for the strict limitations on its nuclear activities. But by bolstering sanctions, the US has scared organisations and banks into diminishing, ceasing or avoiding altogether business with Iranian partners, with serious repercussions for Iran’s economy. Europe, by and large, has supported diplomacy with Iran. It has argued that Trump’s rejection of the deal compromises the pragmatic wing of Iran’s administration and plays into the hands of hardliners. The EU has long had questions about Tehran’s missile program, and its involvement in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, but it has viewed these as separate from the nuclear agreement. The economic sanctions have certainly put the moderate Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani under pressure, both internationally and domestically. Iranian hardliners argue that Iran surrendered too much in the agreement. Rouhani has perhaps come up with a clever way of deflecting domestic criticism of him – at least for now – by suggesting that the Islamic Republic hold a referendum over its nuclear program. The official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) stated that Rouhani, who recently was openly chastised by the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made the suggestion at a gathering of senior Iranian editors on May 25. Khamenei, who has the last say on all issues of state in Iran, has not yet responded to Rouhani’s recent proposition. The Islamic Republic has seen just three referendums since 1979: one on its change from a monarchy to an Islamic republic, and two on its constitution. A nuclear threat? In the meantime, Iran has also threatened to quadruple its uranium-enrichment production limit, but stressed that even this uranium would not be enhanced beyond the 3.67 per cent limit set by the JCPOA, making it unsuitable for developing a nuclear weapon. Rouhani has also said that Tehran will keep its excess enriched uranium and heavy water rather than exporting it. If Europe fails to find a way for business and investors to work with Iran without being penalised by US sanctions, however, Rouhani has said that Iran will begin enriching uranium even further. In principle, this more highly-enriched uranium could be used as the fissile core of a nuclear weapon. This would send Iran back on its way towards making a bomb, and mark the end of the JCPOA. According to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) most recent quarterly report, Iran’s enriched uranium and heavy water stocks have grown but have not exceeded the ceilings set in the nuclear agreement. This suggests that Iran continues to comply with the JCPOA – for now, at least. So far, Iran has also abstained from getting entangled in military brinkmanship with the US. But Trump may soon face a tough choice: either engage in a military clash with Iran or return to the JCPOA. The latter may be a u-turn too far for the bellicose president. Either way, it is difficult to convince nations to surrender nuclear weapons once they have them. In this case, everything peaceful should be done to ensure that Iran is prevented from acquiring one in the first place. (Annie Waqar is Lecturer/Academic consultant, University of Westminster) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Iran nuclear deal is hanging by a thread

US President Donald Trump has announced tariffs on all Mexico goods. Watch this video to know more.

US President Trump announces tariffs on all Mexico goods

The US military said on Tuesday that it had identified a total of six American troops from 55 boxes of human remains from the 1950-53 Korean War that North Korea handed over last year, even as the Pentagon has said it has given up hope of recovering more of them in the near future.

The US Defense POW/MIA Account Agency (DPAA), which works to recover missing American troops around the world, earlier this month said it had not heard from North Korea since the second US-North Korean summit, held in Hanoi in February, ended with no agreement. The agency said it had suspended efforts for 2019.&nbsp;

After their first summit in June last year, US&nbsp;President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a declaration committing to the recovery of remains of soldiers killed in the war.

In July, North Korea handed over 55 boxes of human remains, a move Trump hailed as evidence of the success of his negotiations with Kim.

On Tuesday, Lieutenant Colonel Ken Hoffman, a spokesman for DPAA, said that four families had been notified of the remains, while two other family notifications were pending. That brings the total service members identified to six from the 55 boxes.

Forensic anthropologists are combing through the remains at a secure facility on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, which acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan visited on Tuesday.

The July transfer coincided with the 65th anniversary of the 1953 armistice that ended fighting between North Korean and Chinese forces and South Korean and US-led forces under the UN Command.

Since July, there has been little progress on resuming the search for the roughly 5,300 Americans believed to be lost in what is now North Korea.

Despite that lack of progress, as recently as April 26 Trump touted the return of the remains and said they "continued to come back."

The two sides remain technically at war because a peace treaty was never signed.

The United States and North Korea conducted joint searches for remains from 1996 until 2005, when Washington halted the operations citing concerns about the safety of its personnel as Pyongyang stepped up its nuclear program.

The US military said on Tuesday that it had identified a total of six American troops from 55 boxes of human remains from the 1950-53 Korean War that North Korea handed over last year, even as the Pentagon has said it has given up hope of recovering more of them in the near future.

The US military said on Tuesday that it had identified a total of six American troops from 55 boxes of human remains from the 1950-53 Korean War that North Korea handed over last year, even as the Pentagon has said it has given up hope of recovering more of them in the near future. The US Defense POW/MIA Account Agency (DPAA), which works to recover missing American troops around the world, earlier this month said it had not heard from North Korea since the second US-North Korean summit, held in Hanoi in February, ended with no agreement. The agency said it had suspended efforts for 2019. After their first summit in June last year, US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a declaration committing to the recovery of remains of soldiers killed in the war. In July, North Korea handed over 55 boxes of human remains, a move Trump hailed as evidence of the success of his negotiations with Kim. On Tuesday, Lieutenant Colonel Ken Hoffman, a spokesman for DPAA, said that four families had been notified of the remains, while two other family notifications were pending. That brings the total service members identified to six from the 55 boxes. Forensic anthropologists are combing through the remains at a secure facility on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, which acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan visited on Tuesday. The July transfer coincided with the 65th anniversary of the 1953 armistice that ended fighting between North Korean and Chinese forces and South Korean and US-led forces under the UN Command. Since July, there has been little progress on resuming the search for the roughly 5,300 Americans believed to be lost in what is now North Korea. Despite that lack of progress, as recently as April 26 Trump touted the return of the remains and said they "continued to come back." The two sides remain technically at war because a peace treaty was never signed. The United States and North Korea conducted joint searches for remains from 1996 until 2005, when Washington halted the operations citing concerns about the safety of its personnel as Pyongyang stepped up its nuclear program.

US military identifies more remains of American war dead handed over by North Korea

Days ahead of an annual holiday when Americans remember those who died while serving in the armed forces, the US Army's Twitter account asked people how their time in the military affected them and received an outpouring of grief.

The question drew some 10,000 replies since it was posted late last week -- many of which were anonymous or included details that could not be independently confirmed, but which paint a harrowing picture of the toll America's wars have taken on those who fought them.

"OEF, OIF PTSD with chronic pain," one Twitter user wrote, using the US military's acronyms for the wars in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-ied-blast-targets-bus-in-kabul-at-least-10-wounded-221867">Afghanistan </a>and Iraq, and the abbreviation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The US launched the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Iraq war in 2003. The conflicts left thousands of American service members dead and many more wounded. US troops are still deployed in both countries to this day.

"My dad came back from fighting in Iraq and was abusive, constantly angry, paranoid, and following that went through a lot of therapy but his mental and physical health is still off and he was definitely changed through all he had been through," another user wrote.

"My son served and did one tour of OEF, he made it back, re-enlisted, and shot himself in the head," said another.

"The 'Combat Cocktail',&nbsp;PTSD, severe depression, anxiety. Isolation. Suicide attempts. Never ending rage. It cost me my relationship with my eldest son and my grandson. It cost some of my men so much more," another Twitter user wrote.

"How did serving impact me? Ask my family." Not all the replies were about the toll taken by combat.

"I was forced to resign my commission while serving in Kuwait during the first Gulf War because I am gay. I received another than honourable discharge despite excellent performance reviews," one man wrote.

Another than honourable discharge is the most severe military administrative dismissal. It can follow a former soldier well into civilian life, leaving them ineligible for benefits and making it difficult to find work.

The Army thanked those who replied to its official account, saying,&nbsp;"Your stories are real, they matter, and they may help others in similar situations."

"As we honour those who paid the ultimate sacrifice this weekend by remembering their service, we are also mindful of the fact that we have to take care of those who came back home with scars we can't see."

Days ahead of an annual holiday when Americans remember those who died while serving in the armed forces, the US Army's Twitter account asked people how their time in the military affected them and received an outpouring of grief.

Days ahead of an annual holiday when Americans remember those who died while serving in the armed forces, the US Army's Twitter account asked people how their time in the military affected them and received an outpouring of grief. The question drew some 10,000 replies since it was posted late last week -- many of which were anonymous or included details that could not be independently confirmed, but which paint a harrowing picture of the toll America's wars have taken on those who fought them. "OEF, OIF PTSD with chronic pain," one Twitter user wrote, using the US military's acronyms for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the abbreviation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The US launched the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Iraq war in 2003. The conflicts left thousands of American service members dead and many more wounded. US troops are still deployed in both countries to this day. "My dad came back from fighting in Iraq and was abusive, constantly angry, paranoid, and following that went through a lot of therapy but his mental and physical health is still off and he was definitely changed through all he had been through," another user wrote. "My son served and did one tour of OEF, he made it back, re-enlisted, and shot himself in the head," said another. "The 'Combat Cocktail', PTSD, severe depression, anxiety. Isolation. Suicide attempts. Never ending rage. It cost me my relationship with my eldest son and my grandson. It cost some of my men so much more," another Twitter user wrote. "How did serving impact me? Ask my family." Not all the replies were about the toll taken by combat. "I was forced to resign my commission while serving in Kuwait during the first Gulf War because I am gay. I received another than honourable discharge despite excellent performance reviews," one man wrote. Another than honourable discharge is the most severe military administrative dismissal. It can follow a former soldier well into civilian life, leaving them ineligible for benefits and making it difficult to find work. The Army thanked those who replied to its official account, saying, "Your stories are real, they matter, and they may help others in similar situations." "As we honour those who paid the ultimate sacrifice this weekend by remembering their service, we are also mindful of the fact that we have to take care of those who came back home with scars we can't see."

US Army Twitter question highlights toll of America's wars

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/indias-tariff-rate-is-unjustified-us-commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-216716">US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross </a>announced Thursday that the US has proposed a new regulation allowing it to impose countervailing duties on imports from countries that seek to undervalue their currencies.

Under the proposed regulation, "foreign nations would no longer be able to use currency policies to the disadvantage of American workers and businesses," Ross said in a statement.

"This proposed rulemaking is a step toward implementing President (Donald) Trump's campaign promise to address unfair currency practices by our trading partners."

Ross, who did not respond to a request for comment, did not specify which countries would be targeted.

The statement only said that the proposed regulation "identifies the criteria the department would use to determine if countervailing duties should be imposed for currency undervaluation."

Countervailing duties on imports are sometimes imposed against countries to offset any premiums or subsidies given, directly or indirectly, to the fabrication, production or export of merchandise.

Trump often accuses Beijing of deliberately weakening its currency to boost its exports, but his administration has refused several times to officially accuse China of manipulating its currency.

US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced Thursday that the US has proposed a new regulation allowing it to impose countervailing duties on imports from countries that seek to undervalue their currencies.

US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced Thursday that the US has proposed a new regulation allowing it to impose countervailing duties on imports from countries that seek to undervalue their currencies. Under the proposed regulation, "foreign nations would no longer be able to use currency policies to the disadvantage of American workers and businesses," Ross said in a statement. "This proposed rulemaking is a step toward implementing President (Donald) Trump's campaign promise to address unfair currency practices by our trading partners." Ross, who did not respond to a request for comment, did not specify which countries would be targeted. The statement only said that the proposed regulation "identifies the criteria the department would use to determine if countervailing duties should be imposed for currency undervaluation." Countervailing duties on imports are sometimes imposed against countries to offset any premiums or subsidies given, directly or indirectly, to the fabrication, production or export of merchandise. Trump often accuses Beijing of deliberately weakening its currency to boost its exports, but his administration has refused several times to officially accuse China of manipulating its currency.

US considering duties on countries that undervalue currency

China's president has called for technological self-reliance in the escalating rivalry with America, but experts believe Beijing's late start on tech and relatively backward capabilities could make that a mission impossible.

China has no doubt made an amazing transformation, from a former basket case wracked by mass famine and political upheaval to a highly connected society marked by the growing use of renewable energy, a space programme, and bullet trains crisscrossing the country.

But a closer look reveals that while China is adept at assembling foreign technologies into commercially successful products at home, its ability to innovate remains deeply hampered, tech experts said.

Take semiconductors, the building blocks of global digital architecture.

China's government has poured money into an effort to develop its own semiconductors and chip designs but has not been able to close the gap with the US, Japanese and South Korean rivals.

"One way to look at (China's situation) is that someone may be able to make beautiful designs out of Legos, but they don't know how to make the Legos themselves," said Gabriel Chou, Asia chair for World Semiconductor Trade Statistics, a grouping of semiconductor-product companies.

"(China) is aggressively attacking the end-market, such as mobile phones or other consumer products. But semiconductors require many very fundamental science skills" that China struggles with, Chou added.

The risks are now clear following last week's move by Washington to ban Chinese telecom and smartphone giant Huawei's access to critical American chips and other technology.

The ban has thrown the company's future into doubt, causing a number of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-executive-facing-extradition-to-appear-in-canada-court-217056">Huawei</a> partners around the world to bail on the company and emphatically illustrating US tech clout.

&nbsp;Long March&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/get-ready-for-difficult-times-chinas-xi-warns-during-trade-war-220625">President Xi Jinping</a> this week telegraphed his alarm, calling for self-reliance in "key core technologies" while saying China faced a "Long March" against foreign challengers -- a reference to a now-legendary 1934-35 strategic retreat by Communist revolutionaries.

But a state-directed approach is a bad idea, said Paul Triolo, head of geotechnology at the Eurasia Group.

Triolo said the world's top tech companies got where they are because open competition with rivals forced them to develop better products and attract the best human capital.

And being plugged into the world tech ecosystem encouraged them to constantly tailor products to evolving market needs to stay ahead of the pack -- or die.

"It's incredibly hard to wean yourself off foreign suppliers in such a highly market-driven sector where you must be on the cutting edge, and that edge is constantly changing and moving outward," Triolo said.

The very idea of national self-reliance flies in the face of reality, he adds.

Different countries have excelled in different areas and focused on their core competencies to survive, leading to a complex and interconnected global supply chain.

"The US has a lot of dominance, but there are other big players too. China simply can't be an island and recreate a whole globalised technology ecosystem at home," Triolo said.

"To reduce dependence they will have to take a different paradigm from the rest of world and that's tough. It's not something money is going to solve over the short-term."

Software glitch&nbsp;

Software is another glaring weak spot.&nbsp;

As in the rest of the world, there is no viable alternative in China to Microsoft and Apple on personal computing systems -- or to Google's Android or Apple's iOS on mobile phones.

US companies also dominate the Chinese landscape for enterprise software.

The United States suspects Huawei has ties to China's military and fears the company's installation of telecom networks worldwide could put sensitive data at risk. Huawei denies the charges.

But Chinese software shortcomings leave Huawei vulnerable even on these global networks -- the company relies heavily on US software to power them, Triolo said.

"A database has to be really robust and no company in China can do that database software," he said.

China could nonetheless be a formidable player in next-generation technologies like artificial intelligence, driverless cars and automated manufacturing.

Xi's government has singled out such futuristic technologies for state development -- a programme partly responsible for triggering US pushback on tech.

"We believe China is in a commanding position to become a far more influential player in disruptive technologies globally," said Kenny Liew, a tech analyst with Fitch Solutions.

He adds that the US-China tech rivalry "will contribute positively to the global technological landscape."

China's president has called for technological self-reliance in the escalating rivalry with America, but experts believe Beijing's late start on tech and relatively backward capabilities could make that a mission impossible.

China's president has called for technological self-reliance in the escalating rivalry with America, but experts believe Beijing's late start on tech and relatively backward capabilities could make that a mission impossible. China has no doubt made an amazing transformation, from a former basket case wracked by mass famine and political upheaval to a highly connected society marked by the growing use of renewable energy, a space programme, and bullet trains crisscrossing the country. But a closer look reveals that while China is adept at assembling foreign technologies into commercially successful products at home, its ability to innovate remains deeply hampered, tech experts said. Take semiconductors, the building blocks of global digital architecture. China's government has poured money into an effort to develop its own semiconductors and chip designs but has not been able to close the gap with the US, Japanese and South Korean rivals. "One way to look at (China's situation) is that someone may be able to make beautiful designs out of Legos, but they don't know how to make the Legos themselves," said Gabriel Chou, Asia chair for World Semiconductor Trade Statistics, a grouping of semiconductor-product companies. "(China) is aggressively attacking the end-market, such as mobile phones or other consumer products. But semiconductors require many very fundamental science skills" that China struggles with, Chou added. The risks are now clear following last week's move by Washington to ban Chinese telecom and smartphone giant Huawei's access to critical American chips and other technology. The ban has thrown the company's future into doubt, causing a number of Huawei partners around the world to bail on the company and emphatically illustrating US tech clout. Long March President Xi Jinping this week telegraphed his alarm, calling for self-reliance in "key core technologies" while saying China faced a "Long March" against foreign challengers -- a reference to a now-legendary 1934-35 strategic retreat by Communist revolutionaries. But a state-directed approach is a bad idea, said Paul Triolo, head of geotechnology at the Eurasia Group. Triolo said the world's top tech companies got where they are because open competition with rivals forced them to develop better products and attract the best human capital. And being plugged into the world tech ecosystem encouraged them to constantly tailor products to evolving market needs to stay ahead of the pack -- or die. "It's incredibly hard to wean yourself off foreign suppliers in such a highly market-driven sector where you must be on the cutting edge, and that edge is constantly changing and moving outward," Triolo said. The very idea of national self-reliance flies in the face of reality, he adds. Different countries have excelled in different areas and focused on their core competencies to survive, leading to a complex and interconnected global supply chain. "The US has a lot of dominance, but there are other big players too. China simply can't be an island and recreate a whole globalised technology ecosystem at home," Triolo said. "To reduce dependence they will have to take a different paradigm from the rest of world and that's tough. It's not something money is going to solve over the short-term." Software glitch Software is another glaring weak spot. As in the rest of the world, there is no viable alternative in China to Microsoft and Apple on personal computing systems -- or to Google's Android or Apple's iOS on mobile phones. US companies also dominate the Chinese landscape for enterprise software. The United States suspects Huawei has ties to China's military and fears the company's installation of telecom networks worldwide could put sensitive data at risk. Huawei denies the charges. But Chinese software shortcomings leave Huawei vulnerable even on these global networks -- the company relies heavily on US software to power them, Triolo said. "A database has to be really robust and no company in China can do that database software," he said. China could nonetheless be a formidable player in next-generation technologies like artificial intelligence, driverless cars and automated manufacturing. Xi's government has singled out such futuristic technologies for state development -- a programme partly responsible for triggering US pushback on tech. "We believe China is in a commanding position to become a far more influential player in disruptive technologies globally," said Kenny Liew, a tech analyst with Fitch Solutions. He adds that the US-China tech rivalry "will contribute positively to the global technological landscape."

China's tech 'Long March' could be road to nowhere

John Walker Lindh, the&nbsp;American&nbsp;captured in 2001 fighting for the Taliban, is to be&nbsp;released&nbsp;early&nbsp;from&nbsp;federal&nbsp;prison on Thursday as some US&nbsp;lawmakers fear he remains a security risk.

Lindh, photographed as a wild-eyed, bearded 20-year-old at his Afghanistan capture, will leave a federal&nbsp;prison&nbsp;in Terre Haute, Indiana on probation after serving 17 years of a 20-year sentence, according to a&nbsp;prison&nbsp;official.

Now 38, Lindh is among dozens of&nbsp;prisoners set to be&nbsp;released&nbsp;over the next few years after being captured in Iraq and Afghanistan by US&nbsp;forces and convicted of terrorism-related crimes following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

His release brought objections&nbsp;from&nbsp;elected officials who asked why Lindh was being freed early and what training parole officers had to spot radicalization and recidivism among former jihadists.

Leaked US&nbsp;government documents published by Foreign Policy magazine show the federal government as recently as 2016 described Lindh as holding "extremist views."

"What is the current interagency policy, strategy, and process for ensuring that terrorist/extremist offenders successfully reintegrate into society?" asked US&nbsp;Senators Richard Shelby and Margaret Hassan in a letter to the Federal Bureau of&nbsp;Prisons.

Lindh's parents Marilyn Walker and Frank Lindh did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lindh's lawyer Bill Cummings declined to comment.

Melissa Kimberley, a spokeswoman for the Terre Haute&nbsp;prison&nbsp;in Indiana, could not confirm details of Lindh's release other than it would be on&nbsp;Thursday.

US-born Lindh converted&nbsp;from&nbsp;Catholicism to Islam as a teenager. At his 2002 sentencing, he said he travelled to Yemen to learn Arabic and then to Pakistan to study Islam. He said he volunteered as a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-taliban-claims-responsibility-for-quetta-blast-218492">Taliban soldier</a> to help fellow Muslims in their struggle or "jihad." He said he had no intention "to fight against America" and never understood jihad to mean anti-Americanism.

Lindh told the court he condemned "terrorism on every level" and attacks by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden were "completely against Islam."

But a January 2017 report by the US&nbsp;government's National Counterterrorism Center, published by Foreign Policy, said that as of May 2016, Lindh "continued to advocate for global jihad and to write and translate violent extremist texts."

NBC said Lindh wrote a letter to its Los Angeles station KNBC in 2015 expressing support for ISIS, saying the radical Islamist group was fulfilling "a religious obligation to establish a caliphate through armed struggle."

John Walker Lindh, the American captured in 2001 fighting for the Taliban, is to be released early from federal prison on Thursday as some US lawmakers fear he remains a security risk.

John Walker Lindh, the American captured in 2001 fighting for the Taliban, is to be released early from federal prison on Thursday as some US lawmakers fear he remains a security risk. Lindh, photographed as a wild-eyed, bearded 20-year-old at his Afghanistan capture, will leave a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana on probation after serving 17 years of a 20-year sentence, according to a prison official. Now 38, Lindh is among dozens of prisoners set to be released over the next few years after being captured in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces and convicted of terrorism-related crimes following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. His release brought objections from elected officials who asked why Lindh was being freed early and what training parole officers had to spot radicalization and recidivism among former jihadists. Leaked US government documents published by Foreign Policy magazine show the federal government as recently as 2016 described Lindh as holding "extremist views." "What is the current interagency policy, strategy, and process for ensuring that terrorist/extremist offenders successfully reintegrate into society?" asked US Senators Richard Shelby and Margaret Hassan in a letter to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lindh's parents Marilyn Walker and Frank Lindh did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lindh's lawyer Bill Cummings declined to comment. Melissa Kimberley, a spokeswoman for the Terre Haute prison in Indiana, could not confirm details of Lindh's release other than it would be on Thursday. US-born Lindh converted from Catholicism to Islam as a teenager. At his 2002 sentencing, he said he travelled to Yemen to learn Arabic and then to Pakistan to study Islam. He said he volunteered as a Taliban soldier to help fellow Muslims in their struggle or "jihad." He said he had no intention "to fight against America" and never understood jihad to mean anti-Americanism. Lindh told the court he condemned "terrorism on every level" and attacks by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden were "completely against Islam." But a January 2017 report by the US government's National Counterterrorism Center, published by Foreign Policy, said that as of May 2016, Lindh "continued to advocate for global jihad and to write and translate violent extremist texts." NBC said Lindh wrote a letter to its Los Angeles station KNBC in 2015 expressing support for ISIS, saying the radical Islamist group was fulfilling "a religious obligation to establish a caliphate through armed struggle."

'American Taliban' to be released early from federal prison

The United States and its supporters do not dare attack Iran because of its "spirit of resistance", a senior Revolutionary Guards commander was quoted on Wednesday as saying.

Tensions have spiked between Iran and the United States after Washington sent more military forces to the Middle East, including an aircraft carrier, B-52 bombers and Patriot missiles, in a show of force against what US officials say are Iranian threats to its troops and interests in the region.

"If the criminal America and its Western and regional allies don`t dare carry out a face-to-face military attack against our country it is because of the spirit of resistance and sacrifice of the people and youth," Major General Gholamali Rashid said, according to the Fars news agency.

In a Twitter message addressed to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday, an adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the US military deployment to the region was a deliberate provocation.

"You @SecPompeo do not bring warships to our region and call it deterrence. That`s called provocation. It compels Iran to illustrate its own deterrence, which you call provocation. You see the cycle?," the adviser, Hesameddin Ashena, tweeted in English.&nbsp;

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump tweeted, "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!"

The United States and its supporters do not dare attack Iran because of its "spirit of resistance", a senior Revolutionary Guards commander was quoted on Wednesday as saying.

The United States and its supporters do not dare attack Iran because of its "spirit of resistance", a senior Revolutionary Guards commander was quoted on Wednesday as saying. Tensions have spiked between Iran and the United States after Washington sent more military forces to the Middle East, including an aircraft carrier, B-52 bombers and Patriot missiles, in a show of force against what US officials say are Iranian threats to its troops and interests in the region. "If the criminal America and its Western and regional allies don`t dare carry out a face-to-face military attack against our country it is because of the spirit of resistance and sacrifice of the people and youth," Major General Gholamali Rashid said, according to the Fars news agency. In a Twitter message addressed to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday, an adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the US military deployment to the region was a deliberate provocation. "You @SecPompeo do not bring warships to our region and call it deterrence. That`s called provocation. It compels Iran to illustrate its own deterrence, which you call provocation. You see the cycle?," the adviser, Hesameddin Ashena, tweeted in English. On Sunday, US President Donald Trump tweeted, "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!"

US does not dare attack Iran: Revolutionary Guards commander

Is The American Dream Getting Over For People From Other Countries?

Gravitas: Trump's 'Visa' Wall: What It Means

This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning, May 17th 2019

China's top trade negotiator said more talks will be held with the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-ready-for-any-us-attack-foreign-minister-216419"> United States</a> as he revealed what Beijing considers the three main differences keeping the two sides from reaching a deal.

Speaking to reporters in Washington on Friday, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-officials-says-china-trade-talks-constructive-217600">Vice Premier Liu He</a> for the first time gave details on where the negotiations stood following two days of talks with US counterparts, with tariffs and how much China should import from America among the disagreements.

"Negotiations have not broken down, but rather, on the contrary, this is only a normal twist in the negotiations between the two countries, it is inevitable," Liu said.

"Both sides agree they will meet again in Beijing in the future and keep pushing forward the negotiations," he said without giving a date.

Since last year the United States and China have exchanged tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade, gutting US agricultural exports to China and weighing on both countries' manufacturing sectors.

Liu said the two days of talks in the US were "productive".

"We have a consensus in lots of areas but to speak frankly there are areas we have differences on, and we believe these concern big principles," he said.

First, the Chinese side believes all punitive tariffs must be cancelled if an agreement is reached, he said, indicating that it remained under discussion.

Second, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump agreed to a preliminary figure for purchases of US goods when they declared a trade truce in Argentina last year, he said.

"In the end, what is the figure? Now both sides have different views, we think this is a very serious thing that cannot be changed easily," he said.

Third, the text of the agreement must be "balanced" between the two sides, he said, because "any country needs its own dignity."

"We believe these are all big matters of principle, every country has important principles, and we will not make concessions on matters of principle."

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, raised tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods and ordered officials to launch the process to impose customs duties on another $300 billion worth of imports -- almost everything China ships to the US.

'Backtracking'

The negotiations took a downward turn after Trump accused China of reneging on its commitments.&nbsp;

"We believe before we reach a deal, any changes are natural, and inevitable in the whole process," Liu said.

"We don't believe China has backtracked", he said, adding there were just differences on how to phrase the text of the agreement.

Asked about the tariffs that hit $200 billion worth of Chinese goods on Friday, Liu said: "if the US slaps on tariffs, we must respond."

Noting China would exercise restraint, he added, "(we) don't want an unlimited escalation".

Liu compared the negotiations to a marathon: "When you get to the last stage it is comparatively the hardest stage, now we need to hold on, it is the darkness before dawn."

&nbsp;China's economy&nbsp;

Last year the escalating trade tensions with the US pummelled confidence and sent Chinese stock markets sliding about 30 per cent.

Liu, China's top economic official, said the country's economy was improving after bottoming out at the end of last year.

"The most crucial issues are confidence and expectations," he said, "as long as we in our hearts have confidence, we will not be afraid of any difficulties."

"Although there will be some pressure, I believe China's economy will continue to develop smoothly, healthily, in a good state," he said.

China's monetary and fiscal policy has "ample room" to manoeuvre, Liu said.

"We need to rationally approach this, China is not afraid, and the Chinese nation is not afraid," he said

China's top trade negotiator said more talks will be held with the United States as he revealed what Beijing considers the three main differences keeping the two sides from reaching a deal.

China's top trade negotiator said more talks will be held with the United States as he revealed what Beijing considers the three main differences keeping the two sides from reaching a deal. Speaking to reporters in Washington on Friday, Vice Premier Liu He for the first time gave details on where the negotiations stood following two days of talks with US counterparts, with tariffs and how much China should import from America among the disagreements. "Negotiations have not broken down, but rather, on the contrary, this is only a normal twist in the negotiations between the two countries, it is inevitable," Liu said. "Both sides agree they will meet again in Beijing in the future and keep pushing forward the negotiations," he said without giving a date. Since last year the United States and China have exchanged tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade, gutting US agricultural exports to China and weighing on both countries' manufacturing sectors. Liu said the two days of talks in the US were "productive". "We have a consensus in lots of areas but to speak frankly there are areas we have differences on, and we believe these concern big principles," he said. First, the Chinese side believes all punitive tariffs must be cancelled if an agreement is reached, he said, indicating that it remained under discussion. Second, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump agreed to a preliminary figure for purchases of US goods when they declared a trade truce in Argentina last year, he said. "In the end, what is the figure? Now both sides have different views, we think this is a very serious thing that cannot be changed easily," he said. Third, the text of the agreement must be "balanced" between the two sides, he said, because "any country needs its own dignity." "We believe these are all big matters of principle, every country has important principles, and we will not make concessions on matters of principle." President Donald Trump, meanwhile, raised tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods and ordered officials to launch the process to impose customs duties on another $300 billion worth of imports -- almost everything China ships to the US. 'Backtracking' The negotiations took a downward turn after Trump accused China of reneging on its commitments. "We believe before we reach a deal, any changes are natural, and inevitable in the whole process," Liu said. "We don't believe China has backtracked", he said, adding there were just differences on how to phrase the text of the agreement. Asked about the tariffs that hit $200 billion worth of Chinese goods on Friday, Liu said: "if the US slaps on tariffs, we must respond." Noting China would exercise restraint, he added, "(we) don't want an unlimited escalation". Liu compared the negotiations to a marathon: "When you get to the last stage it is comparatively the hardest stage, now we need to hold on, it is the darkness before dawn." China's economy Last year the escalating trade tensions with the US pummelled confidence and sent Chinese stock markets sliding about 30 per cent. Liu, China's top economic official, said the country's economy was improving after bottoming out at the end of last year. "The most crucial issues are confidence and expectations," he said, "as long as we in our hearts have confidence, we will not be afraid of any difficulties." "Although there will be some pressure, I believe China's economy will continue to develop smoothly, healthily, in a good state," he said. China's monetary and fiscal policy has "ample room" to manoeuvre, Liu said. "We need to rationally approach this, China is not afraid, and the Chinese nation is not afraid," he said

China outlines three disagreements in US trade talks

US raises tariffs on Chinese import for goods worth $200 Bn. Watch this video for complete details.

US raises tariffs on Chinese import for goods worth $200 Bn

Three American soldiers and a US contractor were killed when their convoy hit a roadside bomb on Monday near the main US base in Afghanistan. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

4 Americans die in roadside Afghanistan blast, Taliban claims responsiblity

Ford to exit Russian passenger car market

US will lead world in space exploration: Mike Pence

US backed forces seize ISIS camp

Only one in five US&nbsp;taxpayers expect to pay less income tax this year as a result of the tax reform law passed in 2017 by Republicans who promised big savings for everyday Americans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday.

The poll suggested that the tax overhaul, mostly geared to helping businesses, may not be as strong a 2020 campaign talking point as Republicans and President Donald Trump had hoped.

Just prior to approval of the tax reform by the Republican-controlled Congress, Trump said, 'This is going to be one of the great gifts to the middle-income people of this country that they've ever gotten for Christmas'.

The tax overhaul lowered federal income tax rates for individuals as well as for corporations, but it also capped certain deductions, such as for state and local taxes, which could mean that some people will wind up paying more.

The March 6-11 survey found about 21 percent of adults who had either filed their taxes or planned to said 'the new tax plan that Congress recently passed'&nbsp;would let them pay less this year; about 29 percent said they would pay more; 27 percent said there would be no impact; 24 percent said they were not sure.

The responses differed along party lines, with Republican taxpayers more likely than others to expect a tax benefit.

According to the poll, about 33 percent of Republicans said they would pay less tax; 17 percent said they would pay more.

Among Democrats, about 8 percent said they would pay less; about 45 percent said they would pay more.

The $10,000 cap imposed on the deduction of state and local taxes, which was previously unlimited, has been seen having the greatest effect on taxpayers in high-tax states, including New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California, which are all largely Democratic.

The Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll was conducted online in English throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,755 people, including 1,439 who said they either 'already filed'&nbsp;or 'will file'&nbsp;an income tax return. It has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 5 percentage points.

Only one in five US taxpayers expect to pay less income tax this year as a result of the tax reform law passed in 2017 by Republicans who promised big savings for everyday Americans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday.

Only one in five US taxpayers expect to pay less income tax this year as a result of the tax reform law passed in 2017 by Republicans who promised big savings for everyday Americans, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday. The poll suggested that the tax overhaul, mostly geared to helping businesses, may not be as strong a 2020 campaign talking point as Republicans and President Donald Trump had hoped. Just prior to approval of the tax reform by the Republican-controlled Congress, Trump said, 'This is going to be one of the great gifts to the middle-income people of this country that they've ever gotten for Christmas'. The tax overhaul lowered federal income tax rates for individuals as well as for corporations, but it also capped certain deductions, such as for state and local taxes, which could mean that some people will wind up paying more. The March 6-11 survey found about 21 percent of adults who had either filed their taxes or planned to said 'the new tax plan that Congress recently passed' would let them pay less this year; about 29 percent said they would pay more; 27 percent said there would be no impact; 24 percent said they were not sure. The responses differed along party lines, with Republican taxpayers more likely than others to expect a tax benefit. According to the poll, about 33 percent of Republicans said they would pay less tax; 17 percent said they would pay more. Among Democrats, about 8 percent said they would pay less; about 45 percent said they would pay more. The $10,000 cap imposed on the deduction of state and local taxes, which was previously unlimited, has been seen having the greatest effect on taxpayers in high-tax states, including New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California, which are all largely Democratic. The Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll was conducted online in English throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,755 people, including 1,439 who said they either 'already filed' or 'will file' an income tax return. It has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 5 percentage points.

Few Americans see savings from Trump's tax reform: Says poll

By Abdulkader Sinno

The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict.

In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory.

How did we get to this point – and what will be the consequences of such an agreement?

How did we get here?

As a longtime scholar of Afghanistan’s wars and conflict dynamics, I suggest beginning with a bit of history.

The current conflict began when the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11.

It was on Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot to attack the US. The Taliban, the de facto rulers of much of Afghanistan in the wake of a bloody civil war, had given bin Laden and his supporters'&nbsp;shelter.

Two months into the US invasion, Taliban state institutions and defensive positions crumbled and the United States formed new state institutions led by Afghans who had fought the Taliban. The US maintained a limited force to fight and capture Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders but otherwise invested little in the Afghan economy or society.

It took the Taliban four years to reconstitute itself as an effective force of insurgents to fight the US and the Afghan government, and they became stronger every year after 2004. As I explain in my research, the United States and the coalition of 42 countries it formed to defeat the resurgent Taliban was poorly organised, abusive and mismanaged.

Since 2001, the US-led coalition has spent $1 trillion dollars and committed a peak of 140,000 troops and 100,000 contractors to an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Taliban. More than 5,000 American soldiers and contractors were killed.

Today, a US force of 14,000 troops and massive US Airforce assets are helping maintain the defensive positions of an Afghan government that is widely considered as one of the most corrupt in the world.

The Taliban are making territorial gains and killing hundreds of regime troops each month, and feel that they are on the cusp of victory.

Militias that recruit from the Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek minorities have rearmed in anticipation of the collapse of the regime in Kabul and fear of a coming civil war with the mostly Pushtun Taliban. Afghanistan is nearing an endgame.

What it means for the Taliban

An agreement between the Taliban and the US would be an impressive accomplishment for the Taliban. From their perspective, it would be their reward for fighting the world’s strongest military power to a stalemate.

They already were rewarded by getting to negotiate directly with the United States, as they have always requested, instead of the Afghan regime which they despise. If the negotiations are successful, they would also be getting precisely what they asked for: an American withdrawal.

In return, they are making a commitment to do something they would likely have done anyway. Al-Qaida’s attack on the US caused the Taliban to lose control of Afghanistan for years. They are not likely to risk having to pay that cost again once they regain control of Kabul, even if they don’t sign an agreement.

What it means for the US 
 
There is little hope for an outright US victory over the Taliban at this point.

The remaining force of 14,000 US troops is mostly meant to shore up Afghan state defences. It is too small to reverse momentum on the battlefield. An agreement and withdrawal would, therefore, be attractive for those who value less military spending and stress on the military, including General John Nicholson, the previous commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The agreement, however, could undermine US reputation in ways big and small. The Obama and Trump administrations never reversed a 2002 Bush executive order that added the Taliban to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, but they have simultaneously pleaded with them to negotiate in spite of claims that Washington does not negotiate with terrorists.

It also signals US weakness and inability to fight a dedicated force of insurgents. Militants elsewhere, including Islamic State leaders, could find this lesson instructive. I believe such an agreement may well be remembered as a turning point in America’s ability to successfully project its military power around the Muslim world.

An agreement could also signal that the US is an unreliable ally that abandons those who side with it. The United States is involved in numerous conflicts worldwide in places as diverse as Syria and Somalia, and many of its local allies would logically recalculate their own commitments after witnessing a US disengagement from Afghanistan.

What happens to the state

As I describe in my book “Organisations at War in Afghanistan,” governments tend to unravel quickly in Afghanistan when foreign support, both military and financial, ceases.

This is precisely what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and stopped their support to the Najib regime in the early 1990s. As I report in greater detail in my book, different regime militias and military units either disintegrated, joined their erstwhile Mujahideen opponents or became independent militias.

Similarly, today’s Afghan state officials at all levels have long hedged their bets by maintaining ties with the Taliban, their nominal opponents and minority militias. If history is any indication, we can expect that entire agencies and units will either fragment or collectively join any of several strongman-led ethnic militias when the rewards of working for the regime stop outweighing the risks of facing the Taliban. Some may even defect to the Taliban. This is expected behaviour in dangerous environments such as Afghanistan, where everyone is expected to have a hedging strategy for survival.

Once the state gets pulled in all directions, Afghanistan will likely degenerate into a civil war very similar to the one that the United States interrupted when it invaded in late 2001. Other countries, including Russia, Iran and India will choose sides to back. I estimate that the Taliban, with their dedicated Pakistani and Arab Gulf backers, will win that conflict, just like they almost did in 2001. We may very well reach a point where we see the 17-year American occupation as merely a futile, bloody and costly interruption of the Afghan civil war.

I consider a US-Taliban agreement to be no more than a face-saving measure to conclude a failed and costly American military intervention. If there is a useful lesson to be learned from this misadventure, it is that leaders of even the world’s mightiest military power need to reconsider the merits of a militarised foreign policy in the Muslim world. US military interventions are stoking resentment and inflaming a perpetual transnational insurgency across Muslim countries. If it doesn’t change its course, the US may very well suffer more defeats such as the one in Afghanistan and will cause even more hurt and damage in other countries along the way.

(Abdulkader Sinno is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies, Indiana University)

(This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-will-come-after-a-us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-111036">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Abdulkader Sinno The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict. In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory.

By Abdulkader Sinno The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict. In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory. How did we get to this point – and what will be the consequences of such an agreement? How did we get here? As a longtime scholar of Afghanistan’s wars and conflict dynamics, I suggest beginning with a bit of history. The current conflict began when the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11. It was on Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot to attack the US. The Taliban, the de facto rulers of much of Afghanistan in the wake of a bloody civil war, had given bin Laden and his supporters' shelter. Two months into the US invasion, Taliban state institutions and defensive positions crumbled and the United States formed new state institutions led by Afghans who had fought the Taliban. The US maintained a limited force to fight and capture Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders but otherwise invested little in the Afghan economy or society. It took the Taliban four years to reconstitute itself as an effective force of insurgents to fight the US and the Afghan government, and they became stronger every year after 2004. As I explain in my research, the United States and the coalition of 42 countries it formed to defeat the resurgent Taliban was poorly organised, abusive and mismanaged. Since 2001, the US-led coalition has spent $1 trillion dollars and committed a peak of 140,000 troops and 100,000 contractors to an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Taliban. More than 5,000 American soldiers and contractors were killed. Today, a US force of 14,000 troops and massive US Airforce assets are helping maintain the defensive positions of an Afghan government that is widely considered as one of the most corrupt in the world. The Taliban are making territorial gains and killing hundreds of regime troops each month, and feel that they are on the cusp of victory. Militias that recruit from the Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek minorities have rearmed in anticipation of the collapse of the regime in Kabul and fear of a coming civil war with the mostly Pushtun Taliban. Afghanistan is nearing an endgame. What it means for the Taliban An agreement between the Taliban and the US would be an impressive accomplishment for the Taliban. From their perspective, it would be their reward for fighting the world’s strongest military power to a stalemate. They already were rewarded by getting to negotiate directly with the United States, as they have always requested, instead of the Afghan regime which they despise. If the negotiations are successful, they would also be getting precisely what they asked for: an American withdrawal. In return, they are making a commitment to do something they would likely have done anyway. Al-Qaida’s attack on the US caused the Taliban to lose control of Afghanistan for years. They are not likely to risk having to pay that cost again once they regain control of Kabul, even if they don’t sign an agreement. What it means for the US There is little hope for an outright US victory over the Taliban at this point. The remaining force of 14,000 US troops is mostly meant to shore up Afghan state defences. It is too small to reverse momentum on the battlefield. An agreement and withdrawal would, therefore, be attractive for those who value less military spending and stress on the military, including General John Nicholson, the previous commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The agreement, however, could undermine US reputation in ways big and small. The Obama and Trump administrations never reversed a 2002 Bush executive order that added the Taliban to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, but they have simultaneously pleaded with them to negotiate in spite of claims that Washington does not negotiate with terrorists. It also signals US weakness and inability to fight a dedicated force of insurgents. Militants elsewhere, including Islamic State leaders, could find this lesson instructive. I believe such an agreement may well be remembered as a turning point in America’s ability to successfully project its military power around the Muslim world. An agreement could also signal that the US is an unreliable ally that abandons those who side with it. The United States is involved in numerous conflicts worldwide in places as diverse as Syria and Somalia, and many of its local allies would logically recalculate their own commitments after witnessing a US disengagement from Afghanistan. What happens to the state As I describe in my book “Organisations at War in Afghanistan,” governments tend to unravel quickly in Afghanistan when foreign support, both military and financial, ceases. This is precisely what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and stopped their support to the Najib regime in the early 1990s. As I report in greater detail in my book, different regime militias and military units either disintegrated, joined their erstwhile Mujahideen opponents or became independent militias. Similarly, today’s Afghan state officials at all levels have long hedged their bets by maintaining ties with the Taliban, their nominal opponents and minority militias. If history is any indication, we can expect that entire agencies and units will either fragment or collectively join any of several strongman-led ethnic militias when the rewards of working for the regime stop outweighing the risks of facing the Taliban. Some may even defect to the Taliban. This is expected behaviour in dangerous environments such as Afghanistan, where everyone is expected to have a hedging strategy for survival. Once the state gets pulled in all directions, Afghanistan will likely degenerate into a civil war very similar to the one that the United States interrupted when it invaded in late 2001. Other countries, including Russia, Iran and India will choose sides to back. I estimate that the Taliban, with their dedicated Pakistani and Arab Gulf backers, will win that conflict, just like they almost did in 2001. We may very well reach a point where we see the 17-year American occupation as merely a futile, bloody and costly interruption of the Afghan civil war. I consider a US-Taliban agreement to be no more than a face-saving measure to conclude a failed and costly American military intervention. If there is a useful lesson to be learned from this misadventure, it is that leaders of even the world’s mightiest military power need to reconsider the merits of a militarised foreign policy in the Muslim world. US military interventions are stoking resentment and inflaming a perpetual transnational insurgency across Muslim countries. If it doesn’t change its course, the US may very well suffer more defeats such as the one in Afghanistan and will cause even more hurt and damage in other countries along the way. (Abdulkader Sinno is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies, Indiana University) (This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US-Taliban deal is a face-saving measure to conclude a failed American military intervention

The US military is about to pull most troops out of Syria, seems set to slash its Afghanistan presence, and is engaged in a contentious mission on the border with Mexico.

Yet the job of overseeing these momentous policies remains vacant -- and President Donald Trump's interim pick is under fire from Republican lawmakers.

The role is being filled by Acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive who was the Pentagon's number two until Jim Mattis quit in December over Trump's Syria withdrawal decision.

Shanahan has made no secret that he'd like to be the next full-on "SecDef" -- as defence secretaries are known in the Pentagon -- but nearly two months into the job, his prospects were called into question this week amid reports of a spat with top US senators over Syria.

According to The Washington Post, influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked Shanahan at a Munich security summit if he had told European allies the US troop presence in Syria would be zero by April 30.

"Yes, that's been our direction," Shanahan reportedly said.

"That's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard," Graham responded.

Shanahan wanted to convince allies to maintain a troop presence in Syria after the US pulls out, but struggled to persuade other countries why they should risk their forces with America gone.

Graham went on to tell Shanahan that if Trump's Syria withdrawal policy endured, "I am now your adversary."

A US official told AFP that Graham's outrage was aimed more at Trump's Syria withdrawal plans than it was at Shanahan himself.

&nbsp;'Shared interests'&nbsp; 
Graham is well-known for his rhetorical flourishes and selective indignation, and Shanahan on Thursday insisted he thinks of him as an "ally."

"We have shared interests, he is a problem solver and I am very confident we will come together with solutions for Syria," Shanahan told Pentagon reporters.

Senator Jim Inhofe, another senior Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has also expressed reservations about Shanahan, and his lack of foreign policy chops got him in hot water with the late Senator John McCain.

At Shanahan's confirmation hearing, a testy McCain said a lack of detail in some of his foreign policy answers was "almost insulting."

Despite all this, experts predict Shanahan, 58, will end up as Trump's nominee for defense secretary anyway.

"Last man standing," Loren Thompson, an expert at the Lexington Institute think tank in Virginia, told AFP.

"Once you eliminate all the other candidates, it's Shanahan by default."

Several high-profile names have been floated in Washington circles, including Graham and fellow Republican Senator Tom Cotton.

But why give up a powerful Senate seat when you've seen Trump chew up then spit out a string of top-level officials -- including former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, former attorney general Jeff Sessions and former White House chief of staff John Kelly?

Additionally, running for a senior government position requires appointees to cut business ties and divest themselves of any stocks that might be seen as causing a conflict.&nbsp;

For many an aspiring SecDef, it's simply not worth it.

"There are both personal and structural uncertainties associated with taking the Pentagon's top job," Thompson noted.

"The president's personality might lead him to lose his affinity" for a Pentagon chief, he added.

For now, Shanahan remains in Trump's good books in part because he is not like his predecessor Mattis, who often pushed back against the president.

While critics have said Shanahan may to be too much of a rubber stamp for Trump, being a faithful advocate for the president's policies will help him stay in the job.

And besides, the defense secretary's role is to implement a president's agenda.

"If you're part of a cabinet and you have views that you can't reconcile with the executive .... you have two choices," David Johnson, an analyst at the RAND Corporation, told AFP.

"Either you change your perspective or you resign -- and that's what Mattis did."

The US military is about to pull most troops out of Syria, seems set to slash its Afghanistan presence, and is engaged in a contentious mission on the border with Mexico.

The US military is about to pull most troops out of Syria, seems set to slash its Afghanistan presence, and is engaged in a contentious mission on the border with Mexico. Yet the job of overseeing these momentous policies remains vacant -- and President Donald Trump's interim pick is under fire from Republican lawmakers. The role is being filled by Acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive who was the Pentagon's number two until Jim Mattis quit in December over Trump's Syria withdrawal decision. Shanahan has made no secret that he'd like to be the next full-on "SecDef" -- as defence secretaries are known in the Pentagon -- but nearly two months into the job, his prospects were called into question this week amid reports of a spat with top US senators over Syria. According to The Washington Post, influential Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked Shanahan at a Munich security summit if he had told European allies the US troop presence in Syria would be zero by April 30. "Yes, that's been our direction," Shanahan reportedly said. "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard," Graham responded. Shanahan wanted to convince allies to maintain a troop presence in Syria after the US pulls out, but struggled to persuade other countries why they should risk their forces with America gone. Graham went on to tell Shanahan that if Trump's Syria withdrawal policy endured, "I am now your adversary." A US official told AFP that Graham's outrage was aimed more at Trump's Syria withdrawal plans than it was at Shanahan himself. 'Shared interests' Graham is well-known for his rhetorical flourishes and selective indignation, and Shanahan on Thursday insisted he thinks of him as an "ally." "We have shared interests, he is a problem solver and I am very confident we will come together with solutions for Syria," Shanahan told Pentagon reporters. Senator Jim Inhofe, another senior Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, has also expressed reservations about Shanahan, and his lack of foreign policy chops got him in hot water with the late Senator John McCain. At Shanahan's confirmation hearing, a testy McCain said a lack of detail in some of his foreign policy answers was "almost insulting." Despite all this, experts predict Shanahan, 58, will end up as Trump's nominee for defense secretary anyway. "Last man standing," Loren Thompson, an expert at the Lexington Institute think tank in Virginia, told AFP. "Once you eliminate all the other candidates, it's Shanahan by default." Several high-profile names have been floated in Washington circles, including Graham and fellow Republican Senator Tom Cotton. But why give up a powerful Senate seat when you've seen Trump chew up then spit out a string of top-level officials -- including former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, former attorney general Jeff Sessions and former White House chief of staff John Kelly? Additionally, running for a senior government position requires appointees to cut business ties and divest themselves of any stocks that might be seen as causing a conflict. For many an aspiring SecDef, it's simply not worth it. "There are both personal and structural uncertainties associated with taking the Pentagon's top job," Thompson noted. "The president's personality might lead him to lose his affinity" for a Pentagon chief, he added. For now, Shanahan remains in Trump's good books in part because he is not like his predecessor Mattis, who often pushed back against the president. While critics have said Shanahan may to be too much of a rubber stamp for Trump, being a faithful advocate for the president's policies will help him stay in the job. And besides, the defense secretary's role is to implement a president's agenda. "If you're part of a cabinet and you have views that you can't reconcile with the executive .... you have two choices," David Johnson, an analyst at the RAND Corporation, told AFP. "Either you change your perspective or you resign -- and that's what Mattis did."

How Shanahan may end up as permanent Pentagon chief

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he wants North Korea to end its nuclear program, but has <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/north-koreas-kim-to-travel-to-vietnam-for-trump-summit-by-train-could-take-him-over-2-days-to-get-there-198471">no pressing time schedule for this</a>, as he dispatched his special envoy to finalise preparations for a second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un next week.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said sanctions against North Korea would remain in place in the meantime and noted Pyongyang's freeze in nuclear and missile testing since 2017.

"I'm in no rush. There's no testing. As long as there is no testing, I'm in no rush. If there's testing, that's another deal," he said. "I'd just like to see ultimately denuclearisation of North Korea."

US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said of Kim last week it was "time for him to deliver," but the Trump administration has moved away from demands that North Korea give up its nuclear weapons immediately and has appeared to adopt a more gradual, reciprocal approach Pyongyang has insisted on.

The US&nbsp;State Department said US&nbsp;special representative for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, was travelling to Hanoi on Tuesday to continue preparations for Trump's second summit with Kim scheduled for Feb. 27-28 in the Vietnamese capital.

Biegun spent three days in North Korea from Feb. 6-8, a trip he said was aimed at agreeing on "concrete deliverables" for the summit.

The State Department offered no sign of any specific progress after those talks but said Biegun agreed to hold further meetings with his counterpart Kim Hyok Chol before summit. State Department spokesman Robert Palladino told a news briefing on Tuesday he had no details of the meetings the envoy would have in Hanoi.

Biegun said after his North Korea visit his talks had been "productive" but there was "hard work to do" before the summit.

The United States has been demanding that North Korea give up a nuclear weapons program that threatens the United States, and Trump has been eager for a second summit even though a first meeting in Singapore in June meeting produced only vague commitments from Kim and little concrete progress since.

SANCTIONS

North Korea has been seeking a lifting of punishing U.S.-led sanctions, a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War and security guarantees.

Asked whether Washington would consider lifting sanctions, Palladino said: "We've been clear on sanctions. These are the world's sanctions and that is something that ... will continue to be maintained until we've achieved our final result of a fully, finally verified denuclearisation."

However, he then added: "But I don't want to get ahead on ... any further details on what's being negotiated regarding that question."

Palladino did not respond directly when asked about reports that the two sides were discussing the exchange of liaison officers and declaring an end to the 1950-53 Korean War.

"I am not going to get ahead of diplomatic conversations, or ahead of the president. A lot of things are being discussed and we are very much looking forward to next week," he said.

Pompeo said last week that Washington aimed to "get as far down the road as we can" with North Korea in the next two weeks and that Biogen's team would discuss all issues covered in Singapore.

Asked on Thursday how important a formal end of the Korean War was in the discussions, Pompeo said: "It's something we've had a lot of talks about."

He said Trump and Kim would also be looking at the "denuclearisation pillar they agreed to" in Singapore and how to reduce tension and military risk "so we can get peace and security on the peninsula as well."

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump spoke with South Korean President Moon Javelin about the summit and he plans to talk to Japanese Prime Minister Shin Abe on Wednesday.

Moon told Trump his country was willing to open economic engagement with North Korea if it will hasten Pyongyang's denuclearisation, Moon's office said.

The Trump administration has been wary of Moon's eagerness to resume such engagement, fearing a weakening of pressure on Pyongyang will give it no incentive to give up its weapons.

Moon and Kim have held multiple summits in the past year and agreed to cooperate on everything from reducing border tensions to launching a joint bid for the 2032 Olympics.

But plans for economic projects, such as allowing South Korean tourists to visit North Korea, have been on hold while the United States keeps its sanctions in place.

While praising Trump's "leadership and firm resolve," Moon said he was ready to undertake anything from reconnecting rail and road links between the two Korea to other inter-Korean economic cooperation to help on denuclearisation, according to Moon's spokesman.

"We're determined to take up that role if President Trump asks, if that's the way to lessen the U.S. burden," Moon said.

Earlier this month, two influential U.S. senators, Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Robert Menendez, wrote to Pompeo warning that Kim was seeking to drive a wedge between Washington and Seoul and warning against a premature relaxation of pressure on North Korea.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he wants North Korea to end its nuclear program, but has no pressing time schedule for this, as he dispatched his special envoy to finalise preparations for a second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un next week.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he wants North Korea to end its nuclear program, but has no pressing time schedule for this, as he dispatched his special envoy to finalise preparations for a second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un next week. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said sanctions against North Korea would remain in place in the meantime and noted Pyongyang's freeze in nuclear and missile testing since 2017. "I'm in no rush. There's no testing. As long as there is no testing, I'm in no rush. If there's testing, that's another deal," he said. "I'd just like to see ultimately denuclearisation of North Korea." US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said of Kim last week it was "time for him to deliver," but the Trump administration has moved away from demands that North Korea give up its nuclear weapons immediately and has appeared to adopt a more gradual, reciprocal approach Pyongyang has insisted on. The US State Department said US special representative for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, was travelling to Hanoi on Tuesday to continue preparations for Trump's second summit with Kim scheduled for Feb. 27-28 in the Vietnamese capital. Biegun spent three days in North Korea from Feb. 6-8, a trip he said was aimed at agreeing on "concrete deliverables" for the summit. The State Department offered no sign of any specific progress after those talks but said Biegun agreed to hold further meetings with his counterpart Kim Hyok Chol before summit. State Department spokesman Robert Palladino told a news briefing on Tuesday he had no details of the meetings the envoy would have in Hanoi. Biegun said after his North Korea visit his talks had been "productive" but there was "hard work to do" before the summit. The United States has been demanding that North Korea give up a nuclear weapons program that threatens the United States, and Trump has been eager for a second summit even though a first meeting in Singapore in June meeting produced only vague commitments from Kim and little concrete progress since. SANCTIONS North Korea has been seeking a lifting of punishing U.S.-led sanctions, a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War and security guarantees. Asked whether Washington would consider lifting sanctions, Palladino said: "We've been clear on sanctions. These are the world's sanctions and that is something that ... will continue to be maintained until we've achieved our final result of a fully, finally verified denuclearisation." However, he then added: "But I don't want to get ahead on ... any further details on what's being negotiated regarding that question." Palladino did not respond directly when asked about reports that the two sides were discussing the exchange of liaison officers and declaring an end to the 1950-53 Korean War. "I am not going to get ahead of diplomatic conversations, or ahead of the president. A lot of things are being discussed and we are very much looking forward to next week," he said. Pompeo said last week that Washington aimed to "get as far down the road as we can" with North Korea in the next two weeks and that Biogen's team would discuss all issues covered in Singapore. Asked on Thursday how important a formal end of the Korean War was in the discussions, Pompeo said: "It's something we've had a lot of talks about." He said Trump and Kim would also be looking at the "denuclearisation pillar they agreed to" in Singapore and how to reduce tension and military risk "so we can get peace and security on the peninsula as well." Earlier on Tuesday, Trump spoke with South Korean President Moon Javelin about the summit and he plans to talk to Japanese Prime Minister Shin Abe on Wednesday. Moon told Trump his country was willing to open economic engagement with North Korea if it will hasten Pyongyang's denuclearisation, Moon's office said. The Trump administration has been wary of Moon's eagerness to resume such engagement, fearing a weakening of pressure on Pyongyang will give it no incentive to give up its weapons. Moon and Kim have held multiple summits in the past year and agreed to cooperate on everything from reducing border tensions to launching a joint bid for the 2032 Olympics. But plans for economic projects, such as allowing South Korean tourists to visit North Korea, have been on hold while the United States keeps its sanctions in place. While praising Trump's "leadership and firm resolve," Moon said he was ready to undertake anything from reconnecting rail and road links between the two Korea to other inter-Korean economic cooperation to help on denuclearisation, according to Moon's spokesman. "We're determined to take up that role if President Trump asks, if that's the way to lessen the U.S. burden," Moon said. Earlier this month, two influential U.S. senators, Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Robert Menendez, wrote to Pompeo warning that Kim was seeking to drive a wedge between Washington and Seoul and warning against a premature relaxation of pressure on North Korea.

Trump says he's 'in no rush' for North Korea to denuclearise

Grammy nominee 21 Savage was arrested in Atlanta on Sunday by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox. &nbsp;According to the agency, the rapper was arrested on charges of being in America illegally.&nbsp;

According to ICE, the rapper is originally a citizen of the UK and that he entered the US legally in July 2005 when he was still a minor. But did not leave after his when his nonimmigrant visa expired in July 2006.&nbsp;

The rapper, whose real name is Shayaabin Abraham-Joseph has been in the US illegally since 2006.&nbsp;

"Mr. Abraham-Joseph is presently in ICE custody in Georgia and has been placed into removal proceedings before the federal immigration courts," ICE said in a statement. "ICE will now await the outcome of his case before a federal immigration judge to determine future actions."

An attorney for Abraham-Joseph said his representatives were working to secure his release.

"We are working diligently to get Mr. Abraham-Joseph out of detention while we work with the authorities to clear up any misunderstandings," Dina LaPolt said in a statement to CNN. "Mr. Abraham-Joseph is a role model to the young people in this country, especially in Atlanta, Georgia, and is actively working in the community leading programs to help underprivileged youths in financial literacy."

Earlier, Abraham-Joseph was also convicted on felony drug charges in October 2014 in Georgia.&nbsp;

The rapper's arrest sent shock waves among his fans, who have till now associated him with Atlanta and its music scene. He had said earlier that '21' in his name was a reference to a street gang in Decatur and his songs even referred to his past in East Atlanta. 
&nbsp; 
21 Savage features on the song 'Rockstar' by Post Malone, which was nominated for Record of the Year and Best Rap Performance at the Grammys.

Grammy nominee 21 Savage was arrested in Atlanta on Sunday by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox. According to the agency, the rapper was arrested on charges of being in America illegally.

Grammy nominee 21 Savage was arrested in Atlanta on Sunday by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox. According to the agency, the rapper was arrested on charges of being in America illegally. According to ICE, the rapper is originally a citizen of the UK and that he entered the US legally in July 2005 when he was still a minor. But did not leave after his when his nonimmigrant visa expired in July 2006. The rapper, whose real name is Shayaabin Abraham-Joseph has been in the US illegally since 2006. "Mr. Abraham-Joseph is presently in ICE custody in Georgia and has been placed into removal proceedings before the federal immigration courts," ICE said in a statement. "ICE will now await the outcome of his case before a federal immigration judge to determine future actions." An attorney for Abraham-Joseph said his representatives were working to secure his release. "We are working diligently to get Mr. Abraham-Joseph out of detention while we work with the authorities to clear up any misunderstandings," Dina LaPolt said in a statement to CNN. "Mr. Abraham-Joseph is a role model to the young people in this country, especially in Atlanta, Georgia, and is actively working in the community leading programs to help underprivileged youths in financial literacy." Earlier, Abraham-Joseph was also convicted on felony drug charges in October 2014 in Georgia. The rapper's arrest sent shock waves among his fans, who have till now associated him with Atlanta and its music scene. He had said earlier that '21' in his name was a reference to a street gang in Decatur and his songs even referred to his past in East Atlanta. 21 Savage features on the song 'Rockstar' by Post Malone, which was nominated for Record of the Year and Best Rap Performance at the Grammys.

Rapper 21 Savage arrested for staying in America as an illegal immigrant

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-us-hit-by-hysteria-since-dropping-nuclear-deal-189680">Iran's President Hassan Rouhan</a>i slammed his critics on Wednesday, defending the political achievements of a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/anti-nuclear-deal-momentum-is-growing-in-iran-190888"> landmark 2015 nuclear dea</a>l and calling the US an "oath-breaker".

"One should not condemn the government or the great Islamic system instead of America — this is the greatest damage that can be done," he said on state TV.

Hardliners have repeatedly hammered the 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers since the early stages of negotiations, calling it a fool's errand and a deception.

They contend that Iran has gained nothing from the agreement despite complying with its restrictions on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme, intensifying their criticism after Washington withdrew from the treaty last year.

Speaking during an annual ceremony of allegiance to the late founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Rouhani said: "America has not been an oath-breaker only to us, but also to Europe, China, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."

President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the deal — technically called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — last May, reimposing punishing sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Washington also withdrew from the TPP trade agreement in 2016, the Paris Agreement on climate change control the next year and forced Canada and Mexico to renegotiate and sign a new deal in 2018 replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The other parties to the Iran nuclear deal — Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia along with the European Union — have insisted it remains in force and is working.

Rouhani took another jab at opponents who have criticised Iranian diplomats' lack of foresight over not predicting the US withdrawal.

"No agreement is based on whether the other party remains, but the main basis is the country's interests," he said.

He ended his speech by calling for "unity", saying Khomeini's main concern was not foreign forces but domestic "discord". 
&nbsp;

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani slammed his critics on Wednesday, defending the political achievements of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal and calling the US an "oath-breaker".

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani slammed his critics on Wednesday, defending the political achievements of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal and calling the US an "oath-breaker". "One should not condemn the government or the great Islamic system instead of America — this is the greatest damage that can be done," he said on state TV. Hardliners have repeatedly hammered the 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers since the early stages of negotiations, calling it a fool's errand and a deception. They contend that Iran has gained nothing from the agreement despite complying with its restrictions on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme, intensifying their criticism after Washington withdrew from the treaty last year. Speaking during an annual ceremony of allegiance to the late founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Rouhani said: "America has not been an oath-breaker only to us, but also to Europe, China, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)." President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the deal — technically called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — last May, reimposing punishing sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Washington also withdrew from the TPP trade agreement in 2016, the Paris Agreement on climate change control the next year and forced Canada and Mexico to renegotiate and sign a new deal in 2018 replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement. The other parties to the Iran nuclear deal — Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia along with the European Union — have insisted it remains in force and is working. Rouhani took another jab at opponents who have criticised Iranian diplomats' lack of foresight over not predicting the US withdrawal. "No agreement is based on whether the other party remains, but the main basis is the country's interests," he said. He ended his speech by calling for "unity", saying Khomeini's main concern was not foreign forces but domestic "discord".

US oath-breaker not only to us, but also to Europe, China, NAFTA and TPP: Rouhani

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/america-has-no-plan-as-it-pulls-out-of-syria-ex-us-envoy-191681">America has 'no plan' as it pulls out of Syria: Ex-US envoy</a>

The United States has no plan for Syria as it proceeds with President Donald Trump's order to pull American troops out of the country, a top official who quit in protest at the policy said on Sunday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-uk-pm-may-to-unveil-plan-b-today-191683">Brexit: UK PM May to unveil 'Plan B' today</a>

British Prime Minister Theresa May unveils her Brexit "Plan B" to parliament on Monday after MPs shredded her EU divorce deal, deepening the political gridlock 10 weeks from departure day.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/china-economy-grew-at-slowest-pace-in-28-years-in-2018-191687">China economy grew at </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/china-economy-grew-at-slowest-pace-in-28-years-in-2018-191687">slowest</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/china-economy-grew-at-slowest-pace-in-28-years-in-2018-191687"> pace in 28 years in 2018</a>

China's economy grew at its slowest pace in almost three decades in 2018, losing more steam in the last quarter as it battles to quell massive debt and a US trade war, official data showed Monday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/worlds-26-richest-people-own-as-much-wealth-as-poorer-50-of-humanity-oxfam-191680">World's 26 richest people own as much wealth as poorer 50% of humanity: Oxfam</a>

The world's 26 richest people own the same wealth as the poorest half of humanity, Oxfam said Monday, urging governments to hike taxes on the wealthy to fight soaring inequality.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/israel-says-it-has-again-hit-iranian-targets-in-syria-191685">Israel says it has again hit Iranian targets in Syria</a>

Israel's military said it carried out strikes on Iranian targets in Syria early Monday after it intercepted a rocket fired from Syrian territory hours before. It said in a statement it was "currently striking" the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force in Syria and warned Syria's military against "attempting to harm Israeli territory or forces".

America has 'no plan' as it pulls out of Syria: Ex-US envoy The United States has no plan for Syria as it proceeds with President Donald Trump's order to pull American troops out of the country, a top official who quit in protest at the policy said on Sunday.

America has 'no plan' as it pulls out of Syria: Ex-US envoy The United States has no plan for Syria as it proceeds with President Donald Trump's order to pull American troops out of the country, a top official who quit in protest at the policy said on Sunday. Brexit: UK PM May to unveil 'Plan B' today British Prime Minister Theresa May unveils her Brexit "Plan B" to parliament on Monday after MPs shredded her EU divorce deal, deepening the political gridlock 10 weeks from departure day. China economy grew at slowest pace in 28 years in 2018 China's economy grew at its slowest pace in almost three decades in 2018, losing more steam in the last quarter as it battles to quell massive debt and a US trade war, official data showed Monday. World's 26 richest people own as much wealth as poorer 50% of humanity: Oxfam The world's 26 richest people own the same wealth as the poorest half of humanity, Oxfam said Monday, urging governments to hike taxes on the wealthy to fight soaring inequality. Israel says it has again hit Iranian targets in Syria Israel's military said it carried out strikes on Iranian targets in Syria early Monday after it intercepted a rocket fired from Syrian territory hours before. It said in a statement it was "currently striking" the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force in Syria and warned Syria's military against "attempting to harm Israeli territory or forces".

News brief: Big stories of the day

Some weeks ago, it was dismaying to hear the story of a young man from South India, who experienced first hand the sorrow that “Buy American Hire American” is causing in Trump’s not so united - United States of America.&nbsp;

After finishing his engineering in this country, he secured admission to a well-known business school in Texas, finished his MBA and got a job in a good oil company. His H-1B visa came through, his job was secure and he came back to India to get married and returned to the US to pursue the great American dream.&nbsp;

And then his luck turned. He got a query from the authorities that his qualification was not unique enough for him to be hired over a local American and in spite of supporting documents from his employers, his visa was overturned and he was asked to return to India.

This happened a year ago and in the ensuing 12 months, the visa situation has turned gloomier with every passing month. Readers would recall that in November the Trump Administration announced an amendment to the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that requires prospective employers of people entering the US on H-1B visas to disclose all intended places of employment, including any proposed short-term assignments and a large amount of information on the company status.

These comprised identification of secondary entities and locations and the number of H-1B visa workers currently employed in the firm and at third-party work sites of the firm.&nbsp;

There has also been an introduction of legislation by two US lawmakers that seeks to revoke the work authorisation given by the Obama Administration to spouses of H-1B visa holders, making it difficult for career-minded spouses to stay in the US, causing rifts in families seeking to settle in the US.

Amidst these dark clouds over the prospects of tens of thousands of Indian tech aspirants, a sudden ray of hope has come through in the form of a surprising proposal of a merit-based method of awarding visas in future.&nbsp;

Companies are required to register their manpower demand petitions in advance and while the numerical limit of H1-Bs in a year would continue to be capped at 65,000, the first 20,000 petitions filed on behalf of applicants with a US Masters’ degree or higher qualification would be considered after that and exempt from the cap.

The significant benefit of the proposed changes by the Department of Homeland Security are that the selection order would count all normal petitions as needed till the cap is reached and then separately consider registrations or petitions for the advanced degree exemption.&nbsp;

The implication of this is that while advanced degree holders will have a very high chance of qualifying, it would not limit the selection of people under the normal petition scheme.&nbsp;

This may result in an overall increase of persons admitted with advanced degrees and also reduce overall costs for petitioners and improve process efficiency for the immigration agencies, all excellent developments for the growing IT companies and the industry as a whole.

What do all these policy flip-flops and frequent announcements on the visa process imply for the prospects of four million people who are already work in the Indian tech sector and the ten million and more youngsters in engineering and other degree programmes around the country, who have shunned manufacturing and other services jobs in the past couple of decades in favour of the granite and glass, air-conditioned environments and global opportunities available in the IT and IT-enabled services industry.&nbsp;

One is sorry to sound cautious and maybe even alarmist but neither the US nor Europe is ever going to provide an easy passage to mediocre candidates who want to run away from the intensely competitive environment that prevails in academics and jobs in our country and seek easier job options in greener pastures.&nbsp;

The new visa regime will certainly make it easier for exceptional candidates who study in America’s best graduate schools to work and stay there. We have seen in our own family that kids going through Stanford, Yale and Harvard have been welcomed with open arms through the visa, green card and citizenship process in the US.&nbsp;

But for every dozen of these bright sparks, there are hundreds who spend hard earned family money on average engineering colleges in India and mediocre tech and business programmes in the US only to meet closed visa doors at the end.&nbsp;

These are the folks who need to think twice before they throw large rupee chunks towards the chase for dollars.

A word of advice after this note of caution. For many young folks who have not been able to make it to the best institutions in India for their graduate degree, if the money is there it may be best to do a short course in the US and use that as a stepping stone to get into an excellent institution for formal graduate school qualifications.&nbsp;

And that is only if the American dream is still irresistible! Many of us who have built successful careers in India and still travelled all over the world, may inspire you to just work in India and succeed as well! Choose wisely and be happy.

 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-good-news-for-indian-techies-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-2707574">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Some weeks ago, it was dismaying to hear the story of a young man from South India, who experienced first hand the sorrow that “Buy American Hire American” is causing in Trump’s not so united - United States of America.

Some weeks ago, it was dismaying to hear the story of a young man from South India, who experienced first hand the sorrow that “Buy American Hire American” is causing in Trump’s not so united - United States of America. After finishing his engineering in this country, he secured admission to a well-known business school in Texas, finished his MBA and got a job in a good oil company. His H-1B visa came through, his job was secure and he came back to India to get married and returned to the US to pursue the great American dream. And then his luck turned. He got a query from the authorities that his qualification was not unique enough for him to be hired over a local American and in spite of supporting documents from his employers, his visa was overturned and he was asked to return to India. This happened a year ago and in the ensuing 12 months, the visa situation has turned gloomier with every passing month. Readers would recall that in November the Trump Administration announced an amendment to the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that requires prospective employers of people entering the US on H-1B visas to disclose all intended places of employment, including any proposed short-term assignments and a large amount of information on the company status. These comprised identification of secondary entities and locations and the number of H-1B visa workers currently employed in the firm and at third-party work sites of the firm. There has also been an introduction of legislation by two US lawmakers that seeks to revoke the work authorisation given by the Obama Administration to spouses of H-1B visa holders, making it difficult for career-minded spouses to stay in the US, causing rifts in families seeking to settle in the US. Amidst these dark clouds over the prospects of tens of thousands of Indian tech aspirants, a sudden ray of hope has come through in the form of a surprising proposal of a merit-based method of awarding visas in future. Companies are required to register their manpower demand petitions in advance and while the numerical limit of H1-Bs in a year would continue to be capped at 65,000, the first 20,000 petitions filed on behalf of applicants with a US Masters’ degree or higher qualification would be considered after that and exempt from the cap. The significant benefit of the proposed changes by the Department of Homeland Security are that the selection order would count all normal petitions as needed till the cap is reached and then separately consider registrations or petitions for the advanced degree exemption. The implication of this is that while advanced degree holders will have a very high chance of qualifying, it would not limit the selection of people under the normal petition scheme. This may result in an overall increase of persons admitted with advanced degrees and also reduce overall costs for petitioners and improve process efficiency for the immigration agencies, all excellent developments for the growing IT companies and the industry as a whole. What do all these policy flip-flops and frequent announcements on the visa process imply for the prospects of four million people who are already work in the Indian tech sector and the ten million and more youngsters in engineering and other degree programmes around the country, who have shunned manufacturing and other services jobs in the past couple of decades in favour of the granite and glass, air-conditioned environments and global opportunities available in the IT and IT-enabled services industry. One is sorry to sound cautious and maybe even alarmist but neither the US nor Europe is ever going to provide an easy passage to mediocre candidates who want to run away from the intensely competitive environment that prevails in academics and jobs in our country and seek easier job options in greener pastures. The new visa regime will certainly make it easier for exceptional candidates who study in America’s best graduate schools to work and stay there. We have seen in our own family that kids going through Stanford, Yale and Harvard have been welcomed with open arms through the visa, green card and citizenship process in the US. But for every dozen of these bright sparks, there are hundreds who spend hard earned family money on average engineering colleges in India and mediocre tech and business programmes in the US only to meet closed visa doors at the end. These are the folks who need to think twice before they throw large rupee chunks towards the chase for dollars. A word of advice after this note of caution. For many young folks who have not been able to make it to the best institutions in India for their graduate degree, if the money is there it may be best to do a short course in the US and use that as a stepping stone to get into an excellent institution for formal graduate school qualifications. And that is only if the American dream is still irresistible! Many of us who have built successful careers in India and still travelled all over the world, may inspire you to just work in India and succeed as well! Choose wisely and be happy. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Good news for Indian techies: Light at the end of the tunnel

A massive winter storm rolled eastward to the mid-Atlantic United States on Sunday (January 13) after dropping more than a foot of snow on parts of the Midwest and killing at least 7 people in highway accidents on Saturday.

Millions of Americans in ten states and Washington, DC were under a winter storm warning or advisory on Sunday.

It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city.

Washington was forecast to receive almost a half foot of snow, forcing airlines to cancel over one hundred flights leaving Reagan National Airport on Sunday morning.

It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city.

A massive winter storm rolled eastward to the mid-Atlantic United States on Sunday (January 13) after dropping more than a foot of snow on parts of the Midwest and killing at least 7 people in highway accidents on Saturday. Millions of Americans in ten states and Washington, DC were under a winter storm warning or advisory on Sunday. It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city. Washington was forecast to receive almost a half foot of snow, forcing airlines to cancel over one hundred flights leaving Reagan National Airport on Sunday morning.

Watch: Winter storm hits Washington; at least 7 dead

American television personality Bethenny Frankel has revealed that she is facing a bit of trouble with her memory and vision due to an allergic reaction after eating fish.

'The Real Housewives of New York City' star sought advice from her fans on her Twitter handle.

"Well tweeps, you're usually smarter than anyone and I keep researching and cannot find out. Can anaphylactic shock affect memory or vision afterwards? I had 20/20 (vision) and it does not appear to be the case now," the 48-year-old star wrote.

"I am getting it all checked out this week but you have all the answers," she added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Well tweeps, you’re usually smarter than anyone &amp; I keep researching &amp; cannot find out. Can anaphylactic shock affect memory or vision afterwards? I had 20 20 &amp; it does not appear to be the case now. I am getting it all checked out this week but you have all the answers.
— Bethenny Frankel (@Bethenny) <a href="https://twitter.com/Bethenny/status/1083199264422006785?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Further, consoling the star and giving her piece of advice, fans wrote, "Pls do speak to your doc/allergist! There are some cases of cognitive issues and eye problems after anaphylaxis. Studies relate this to loss of oxygen to the brain during the reaction," a Twitter user wrote.

"Lack of blood flow from shock can affect vision so sorry," another Twitter user advised.

The star has a rare fish allergy and has been experiencing a traumatic reaction since mid-December. She feels unconscious for 15 minutes after eating a bowl of soup.

"I couldn`t talk, see, thought I had a stroke and dying and told if 5 mins later I'd be dead, 911 and (EpiPen) saved me," she further added.

It's not the first time when the 'Shark Tank' star is experiencing allergic reactions, she had a similar experience when she was traveling in a plane where fish was served.

"Called airline to say I have a fish allergy. Got on and they're serving bass," she tweeted.

"They couldn't serve it they said. Then they were turning around which I protested it would delay people. Cabin asked to not serve it and pilot made an announcement to plane. That was fun. #epilife" she acknowledged.

Moreover, on New Year's Day, the star also re-tweeted a story of an 11-year-old boy who possibly died of an allergic reaction from the smell of cooking fish.

American television personality Bethenny Frankel has revealed that she is facing a bit of trouble with her memory and vision due to an allergic reaction after eating fish.

American television personality Bethenny Frankel has revealed that she is facing a bit of trouble with her memory and vision due to an allergic reaction after eating fish. 'The Real Housewives of New York City' star sought advice from her fans on her Twitter handle. "Well tweeps, you're usually smarter than anyone and I keep researching and cannot find out. Can anaphylactic shock affect memory or vision afterwards? I had 20/20 (vision) and it does not appear to be the case now," the 48-year-old star wrote. "I am getting it all checked out this week but you have all the answers," she added. Well tweeps, you’re usually smarter than anyone & I keep researching & cannot find out. Can anaphylactic shock affect memory or vision afterwards? I had 20 20 & it does not appear to be the case now. I am getting it all checked out this week but you have all the answers. — Bethenny Frankel (@Bethenny) January 10, 2019 × Further, consoling the star and giving her piece of advice, fans wrote, "Pls do speak to your doc/allergist! There are some cases of cognitive issues and eye problems after anaphylaxis. Studies relate this to loss of oxygen to the brain during the reaction," a Twitter user wrote. "Lack of blood flow from shock can affect vision so sorry," another Twitter user advised. The star has a rare fish allergy and has been experiencing a traumatic reaction since mid-December. She feels unconscious for 15 minutes after eating a bowl of soup. "I couldn`t talk, see, thought I had a stroke and dying and told if 5 mins later I'd be dead, 911 and (EpiPen) saved me," she further added. It's not the first time when the 'Shark Tank' star is experiencing allergic reactions, she had a similar experience when she was traveling in a plane where fish was served. "Called airline to say I have a fish allergy. Got on and they're serving bass," she tweeted. "They couldn't serve it they said. Then they were turning around which I protested it would delay people. Cabin asked to not serve it and pilot made an announcement to plane. That was fun. #epilife" she acknowledged. Moreover, on New Year's Day, the star also re-tweeted a story of an 11-year-old boy who possibly died of an allergic reaction from the smell of cooking fish.

Bethenny Frankel experiences allergic reactions, seeks advice from fans

Top congressional Democrats on Tuesday accused <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/we-have-to-build-the-wall-trump-on-ending-shutdown-188587">President Donald Trump of holding Americans "hostage"</a> by refusing to strike a deal to fund shuttered government agencies and using fear mongering to justify his demand for his much-hyped border wall.

"President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must re-open the government," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a curt rebuttal to Trump's address to the nation minutes earlier, in which he declared the situation on the southern border a "crisis of the heart."

The political impasse over Trump's border wall demand — and <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-vice-president-mike-pence-meets-with-democratic-aides-to-discuss-shutdown-impasse-188469">the divided Congress's refusal to fund it </a>— has kept key government agencies closed for the past 18 days, with few signs that a breakthrough is imminent.

And with Democrats reclaiming the majority in the House of Representatives, Trump has lost his monopoly on congressional power that could have helped him reach an agreement with lawmakers.

About 800,000 federal workers, and many more contractors, are not being paid, but Trump said that problem could be resolved swiftly if Democrats simply "fund border security."

In a sombre appeal to the nation, Trump spoke of Americans who have been "savagely murdered in cold blood" by immigrants who crossed illegally into the United States.

"How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?" he pleaded.

The Democrats rejected Trump's fear-mongering as "misinformation and even malice," with Pelosi blasting the president's "obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall."

Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer, standing with Pelosi in the US Capitol, accused Trump of throwing a "temper tantrum" over the border, where he "appealed to fear, not facts."

"No president should pound the table and demand he gets his way or else the government shuts down, hurting millions of Americans who are treated as leverage," Schumer said.

"The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a 30-foot wall," he concluded.

Rank-and-file lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle weighed in quickly on social media, with Republicans praising Trump for outlining the facts of a national security crisis on the border and Democrats attacking him for misleading and dividing Americans.

"Throughout history, presidents have used an Oval Office address to bring the country together," tweeted Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

"Tonight, Trump used it to stoke fear and division."

The political impasse over Trump's border wall demand and the divided Congress's refusal to fund it has kept key government agencies closed for the past 18 days.

Top congressional Democrats on Tuesday accused President Donald Trump of holding Americans "hostage" by refusing to strike a deal to fund shuttered government agencies and using fear mongering to justify his demand for his much-hyped border wall. "President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must re-open the government," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a curt rebuttal to Trump's address to the nation minutes earlier, in which he declared the situation on the southern border a "crisis of the heart." The political impasse over Trump's border wall demand — and the divided Congress's refusal to fund it — has kept key government agencies closed for the past 18 days, with few signs that a breakthrough is imminent. And with Democrats reclaiming the majority in the House of Representatives, Trump has lost his monopoly on congressional power that could have helped him reach an agreement with lawmakers. About 800,000 federal workers, and many more contractors, are not being paid, but Trump said that problem could be resolved swiftly if Democrats simply "fund border security." In a sombre appeal to the nation, Trump spoke of Americans who have been "savagely murdered in cold blood" by immigrants who crossed illegally into the United States. "How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?" he pleaded. The Democrats rejected Trump's fear-mongering as "misinformation and even malice," with Pelosi blasting the president's "obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall." Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer, standing with Pelosi in the US Capitol, accused Trump of throwing a "temper tantrum" over the border, where he "appealed to fear, not facts." "No president should pound the table and demand he gets his way or else the government shuts down, hurting millions of Americans who are treated as leverage," Schumer said. "The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a 30-foot wall," he concluded. Rank-and-file lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle weighed in quickly on social media, with Republicans praising Trump for outlining the facts of a national security crisis on the border and Democrats attacking him for misleading and dividing Americans. "Throughout history, presidents have used an Oval Office address to bring the country together," tweeted Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "Tonight, Trump used it to stoke fear and division."

Watch: Stop holding Americans hostage over shutdown, Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Trump

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-sanctions-are-economic-terrorism-says-iran-president-rouhani-182402">President Hassan Rouhani </a>presented an annual state budget of 4,700 trillion rials ($47 billion at the free market rate) to parliament on Tuesday, saying <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-seeks-regional-front-against-us-economic-terrorism-182445">US sanctions would affect Iranians`</a> lives and growth but not bring the government to its knees.

"America`s goal is to bring Iran`s Islamic system to its knees... and it will fail in this, but sanctions will no doubt affect people`s lives, and the country`s development and economic growth," Rouhani told parliament in a speech carried live on state television.

He gave the value of the draft budget at about 4,700 trillion rials for the next Iranian year which starts on March 21, 2019.

President Hassan Rouhani presented an annual state budget of 4,700 trillion rials ($47 billion at the free market rate) to parliament on Tuesday, saying US sanctions would affect Iranians` lives and growth but not bring the government to its knees.

President Hassan Rouhani presented an annual state budget of 4,700 trillion rials ($47 billion at the free market rate) to parliament on Tuesday, saying US sanctions would affect Iranians` lives and growth but not bring the government to its knees. "America`s goal is to bring Iran`s Islamic system to its knees... and it will fail in this, but sanctions will no doubt affect people`s lives, and the country`s development and economic growth," Rouhani told parliament in a speech carried live on state television. He gave the value of the draft budget at about 4,700 trillion rials for the next Iranian year which starts on March 21, 2019.

President Rouhani presents Iran budget, says US sanctions to hit lives, growth

america

America, News on America, stories on America, articles on America, America stories at Wion, America news, America latest news