US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he wants a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/first-fbi-now-justice-department-probing-jeffrey-epstein-death-242081">full investigation into the circumstances</a> surrounding financier Jeffrey Epstein`s death at a federal detention facility in New York City while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/serious-irregularities-at-prison-where-epstein-died-us-attorney-general-242548">Epstein </a>was found dead on Saturday morning, having apparently hanged himself in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in lower Manhattan.

"Basically what we`re saying is we want an investigation. I want a full investigation, and that`s what I absolutely am demanding. That`s what our attorney general, our great attorney general is doing. He`s doing a full investigation," Trump told reporters in Morristown, New Jersey.

Trump made the comments a day after U.S. Attorney General William Barr vowed to carry on the Epstein investigation even after the wealthy and well-connected money manager`s death. Barr has ordered the Justice Department`s inspector general to look into the matter.

Trump also defended his decision on Saturday to retweet an unfounded conspiracy theory from a conservative comedian named Terrence K. Williams that former President Bill Clinton was involved in Epstein`s death.

"He`s a very highly respected conservative pundit," said of Williams. "He`s a big Trump fan. And that was a retweet. That wasn`t from me. ... So I think I was fine."

Epstein, who once counted Trump and Clinton as friends, was arrested on July 6 and pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking involving dozens of underage girls as young as 14.

The 66-year-old financier had been on suicide watch, but a source familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity said he was not on watch at the time of his death.&nbsp;

At the MCC, two jail guards are required to make separate checks on all prisoners every 30 minutes, but that procedure was not followed overnight, according to the source.

New York City`s medical examiner has said an autopsy on Epstein was completed on Sunday, but the cause of death remained pending. 
A growing chorus of lawmakers has demanded that the government hold responsible people who allegedly helped Epstein engage in sex trafficking.

Senator Ben Sasse, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee, on Tuesday called on Barr to void a 2008 agreement that Epstein entered into with federal prosecutors in Florida that has been widely criticized as too lenient.

Under that deal, Epstein pleaded guilty to state prostitution charges and served 13 months in jail, but was allowed to leave the detention facility regularly for his office.

'Crooked deal'

Some of Epstein`s accusers have called on the federal judge overseeing that case to scrap portions of the agreement, which provided immunity to Epstein`s alleged co-conspirators. In a letter to Barr, Sasse said the agreement should be thrown out altogether.

"This crooked deal cannot stand," and should be voided to "ensure that some measure of justice is finally delivered to Epstein`s victims who have been let down time and time again by their government," Sasse said.

One of the prosecutors involved in the 2008 agreement, Alexander Acosta, resigned as Trump`s labor secretary in July as the Epstein deal came under fresh scrutiny after the financier`s arrest in New York.

Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, and Doug Collins, the panel`s top Republican, on Monday sent a letter to the acting director of the federal Bureau of Prisons regarding Epstein`s death, saying the "competency and rigor of our criminal justice system" have been marred.

The lawmakers said if the allegation about mistakes made at the facility is true, it would demonstrate "severe miscarriages of or deficiencies in inmate protocol and has allowed the deceased to ultimately evade facing justice."

A representative for the agency and its acting director, Hugh Hurwitz, were not immediately available to comment.

The Epstein scandal has also enmeshed Leslie Wexner, the billionaire chairman and chief executive behind Victoria`s Secret and Bath &amp; Body Works parent L Brands Inc , who had previously entrusted Epstein to manage his personal finances and serve as trustee of his charitable foundation.

Wexner recently hired white-collar defense lawyer Mary Jo White, a partner at Debevoise &amp; Plimpton LLP and former US attorney in Manhattan, according to a person familiar with the matter, as scrutiny of Epstein`s finances intensifies.

Wexner has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing.

White, who previously chaired the US Securities and Exchange Commission, has reached out to prosecutors working on the case, the person familiar with the matter said. It was not clear what they discussed.

Neither White nor a representative for Wexner immediately responded to requests for comment. A spokesman for US Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan declined to comment.

Last week, Wexner said Epstein had "misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family."

Wexner also said he and his family had decided Epstein should step back from managing their finances by the fall of 2007 after sexual misconduct allegations emerged, and severed ties after discovering that their money was misused.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he wants a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding financier Jeffrey Epstein`s death at a federal detention facility in New York City while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he wants a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding financier Jeffrey Epstein`s death at a federal detention facility in New York City while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Epstein was found dead on Saturday morning, having apparently hanged himself in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in lower Manhattan. "Basically what we`re saying is we want an investigation. I want a full investigation, and that`s what I absolutely am demanding. That`s what our attorney general, our great attorney general is doing. He`s doing a full investigation," Trump told reporters in Morristown, New Jersey. Trump made the comments a day after U.S. Attorney General William Barr vowed to carry on the Epstein investigation even after the wealthy and well-connected money manager`s death. Barr has ordered the Justice Department`s inspector general to look into the matter. Trump also defended his decision on Saturday to retweet an unfounded conspiracy theory from a conservative comedian named Terrence K. Williams that former President Bill Clinton was involved in Epstein`s death. "He`s a very highly respected conservative pundit," said of Williams. "He`s a big Trump fan. And that was a retweet. That wasn`t from me. ... So I think I was fine." Epstein, who once counted Trump and Clinton as friends, was arrested on July 6 and pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking involving dozens of underage girls as young as 14. The 66-year-old financier had been on suicide watch, but a source familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity said he was not on watch at the time of his death. At the MCC, two jail guards are required to make separate checks on all prisoners every 30 minutes, but that procedure was not followed overnight, according to the source. New York City`s medical examiner has said an autopsy on Epstein was completed on Sunday, but the cause of death remained pending. A growing chorus of lawmakers has demanded that the government hold responsible people who allegedly helped Epstein engage in sex trafficking. Senator Ben Sasse, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee, on Tuesday called on Barr to void a 2008 agreement that Epstein entered into with federal prosecutors in Florida that has been widely criticized as too lenient. Under that deal, Epstein pleaded guilty to state prostitution charges and served 13 months in jail, but was allowed to leave the detention facility regularly for his office. 'Crooked deal' Some of Epstein`s accusers have called on the federal judge overseeing that case to scrap portions of the agreement, which provided immunity to Epstein`s alleged co-conspirators. In a letter to Barr, Sasse said the agreement should be thrown out altogether. "This crooked deal cannot stand," and should be voided to "ensure that some measure of justice is finally delivered to Epstein`s victims who have been let down time and time again by their government," Sasse said. One of the prosecutors involved in the 2008 agreement, Alexander Acosta, resigned as Trump`s labor secretary in July as the Epstein deal came under fresh scrutiny after the financier`s arrest in New York. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, and Doug Collins, the panel`s top Republican, on Monday sent a letter to the acting director of the federal Bureau of Prisons regarding Epstein`s death, saying the "competency and rigor of our criminal justice system" have been marred. The lawmakers said if the allegation about mistakes made at the facility is true, it would demonstrate "severe miscarriages of or deficiencies in inmate protocol and has allowed the deceased to ultimately evade facing justice." A representative for the agency and its acting director, Hugh Hurwitz, were not immediately available to comment. The Epstein scandal has also enmeshed Leslie Wexner, the billionaire chairman and chief executive behind Victoria`s Secret and Bath & Body Works parent L Brands Inc , who had previously entrusted Epstein to manage his personal finances and serve as trustee of his charitable foundation. Wexner recently hired white-collar defense lawyer Mary Jo White, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former US attorney in Manhattan, according to a person familiar with the matter, as scrutiny of Epstein`s finances intensifies. Wexner has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing. White, who previously chaired the US Securities and Exchange Commission, has reached out to prosecutors working on the case, the person familiar with the matter said. It was not clear what they discussed. Neither White nor a representative for Wexner immediately responded to requests for comment. A spokesman for US Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan declined to comment. Last week, Wexner said Epstein had "misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family." Wexner also said he and his family had decided Epstein should step back from managing their finances by the fall of 2007 after sexual misconduct allegations emerged, and severed ties after discovering that their money was misused.

Trump says he wants full investigation into financier Epstein's death

US President Donald Trump will address the nation on Monday after two shootings left 29 people dead and sparked accusations that his rhetoric was part of the problem.

The rampages turned innocent snippets of everyday life into nightmares of bloodshed: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/walmart-to-keep-selling-guns-despite-recent-shootings-at-its-stores-in-el-paso-240710">20 people were shot dead while shopping at a crowded Walmart</a> in El Paso, Texas on Saturday morning, and nine more outside a bar in a popular nightlife district in Dayton, Ohio just 13 hours later.

Trump will again find himself in the role of consoler-in-chief after a tragedy which he has struggled with in the past when he speaks at 10:00 am (1400 GMT).

Following the shootings, Trump said "hate has no place in our country," but he also blamed mental illness for the violence.

"These are real people that are very, very seriously mentally ill," he said, despite the fact that police have not confirmed this to be the case.

"We have to get it stopped. This has been going on for years... and years in our country," he said.

In Texas, 26 people were wounded, and 27 in Ohio, where the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sister-of-gunman-among-nine-dead-in-ohio-mass-shooting-240691">shooter was killed in roughly 30 seconds</a> by police who were patrolling nearby.

100 round drum magazine

Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl told a news conference that the quick police response was "crucial," preventing the shooter from entering a bar where "there would have been... catastrophic injury and loss of life."

Biehl said the shooter wore a mask and a bullet-proof vest and was armed with an assault rifle fitted with a 100 round drum magazine.

Police named the gunman as a 24-year-old white man called Connor Betts and said his sister was among those killed. She had gone with him to the scene of the shootings.

Six of the nine people shot dead were black, but Biehl said Betts' motive was still unclear.

In Texas, police said the suspect surrendered on a sidewalk near the scene of the massacre. He was described in media reports as a 21-year-old white man named Patrick Crusius.

He was believed to have posted online a manifesto denouncing a "Hispanic invasion" of Texas. El Paso, on the border with Mexico, is majority Latino.

'Amplifying and condoning' hate

Seven of the 20 people killed in the El Paso shooting were Mexican, the country's foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said Sunday.

The manifesto posted shortly before the shooting also praises the killing of 51 Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand in March.

Police said the suspected shooter has been charged with murder offences that can carry the death penalty, and a federal official said investigators are treating the El Paso shooting as a case of domestic terrorism.

At the Walmart in El Paso, terrified shoppers cowered in aisles or ran out of the store as gunfire echoed.

Most of the victims were inside the store but some were also in the parking lot outside, police said.

"Shooting kids and women and men, to him it mostly mattered that they were Hispanic," said Manuel Sanchez, a resident of the city.

These were the 250th and 251st mass shootings this year in the US, according to the Gun Violence Archive, an NGO that defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are wounded or killed.

Despite a string of horrific mass shootings in the US, where gun culture is deep-rooted, efforts to strengthen firearms regulations remain divisive.

The latest two shootings ended a particularly tragic week for gun violence in America: three people died in a shooting at a food festival last Sunday in California, and two more Tuesday in a shooting in a Walmart in Mississippi.

On Twitter, Trump described the El Paso attack as "an act of cowardice."

But critics said the president's habit of speaking in derogatory terms about immigrants is pushing hatred of foreigners into the political mainstream and encouraging white supremacism.

"To pretend that his administration and the hateful rhetoric it spreads doesn't play a role in the kind of violence that we saw yesterday in El Paso is ignorant at best and irresponsible at worst," said the Southern Poverty Law Center, a major civil rights group.

It cited Trump actions like calling Mexican migrants rapists and drug dealers and doing nothing when a crowd at a Trump rally chanted "send her back" about a Somali-born congresswoman.

The Republican mayor of El Paso, Dee Margo, seemed to discount any race element to the Texas shooting, telling Fox News the gunman was "deranged."

But multiple Democratic presidential hopefuls said Trump bears some of the blame for the violence.

"Our president isn't just failing to confront and disarm these domestic terrorists, he is amplifying and condoning their hate," Mayor Pete Buttigieg tweeted.

"Mr President: stop your racist, hateful and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Your language creates a climate which emboldens violent extremists," Senator Bernie Sanders wrote on Twitter.

US President Donald Trump will address the nation on Monday after two shootings left 29 people dead and sparked accusations that his rhetoric was part of the problem.

US President Donald Trump will address the nation on Monday after two shootings left 29 people dead and sparked accusations that his rhetoric was part of the problem. The rampages turned innocent snippets of everyday life into nightmares of bloodshed: 20 people were shot dead while shopping at a crowded Walmart in El Paso, Texas on Saturday morning, and nine more outside a bar in a popular nightlife district in Dayton, Ohio just 13 hours later. Trump will again find himself in the role of consoler-in-chief after a tragedy which he has struggled with in the past when he speaks at 10:00 am (1400 GMT). Following the shootings, Trump said "hate has no place in our country," but he also blamed mental illness for the violence. "These are real people that are very, very seriously mentally ill," he said, despite the fact that police have not confirmed this to be the case. "We have to get it stopped. This has been going on for years... and years in our country," he said. In Texas, 26 people were wounded, and 27 in Ohio, where the shooter was killed in roughly 30 seconds by police who were patrolling nearby. 100 round drum magazine Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl told a news conference that the quick police response was "crucial," preventing the shooter from entering a bar where "there would have been... catastrophic injury and loss of life." Biehl said the shooter wore a mask and a bullet-proof vest and was armed with an assault rifle fitted with a 100 round drum magazine. Police named the gunman as a 24-year-old white man called Connor Betts and said his sister was among those killed. She had gone with him to the scene of the shootings. Six of the nine people shot dead were black, but Biehl said Betts' motive was still unclear. In Texas, police said the suspect surrendered on a sidewalk near the scene of the massacre. He was described in media reports as a 21-year-old white man named Patrick Crusius. He was believed to have posted online a manifesto denouncing a "Hispanic invasion" of Texas. El Paso, on the border with Mexico, is majority Latino. 'Amplifying and condoning' hate Seven of the 20 people killed in the El Paso shooting were Mexican, the country's foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said Sunday. The manifesto posted shortly before the shooting also praises the killing of 51 Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand in March. Police said the suspected shooter has been charged with murder offences that can carry the death penalty, and a federal official said investigators are treating the El Paso shooting as a case of domestic terrorism. At the Walmart in El Paso, terrified shoppers cowered in aisles or ran out of the store as gunfire echoed. Most of the victims were inside the store but some were also in the parking lot outside, police said. "Shooting kids and women and men, to him it mostly mattered that they were Hispanic," said Manuel Sanchez, a resident of the city. These were the 250th and 251st mass shootings this year in the US, according to the Gun Violence Archive, an NGO that defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are wounded or killed. Despite a string of horrific mass shootings in the US, where gun culture is deep-rooted, efforts to strengthen firearms regulations remain divisive. The latest two shootings ended a particularly tragic week for gun violence in America: three people died in a shooting at a food festival last Sunday in California, and two more Tuesday in a shooting in a Walmart in Mississippi. On Twitter, Trump described the El Paso attack as "an act of cowardice." But critics said the president's habit of speaking in derogatory terms about immigrants is pushing hatred of foreigners into the political mainstream and encouraging white supremacism. "To pretend that his administration and the hateful rhetoric it spreads doesn't play a role in the kind of violence that we saw yesterday in El Paso is ignorant at best and irresponsible at worst," said the Southern Poverty Law Center, a major civil rights group. It cited Trump actions like calling Mexican migrants rapists and drug dealers and doing nothing when a crowd at a Trump rally chanted "send her back" about a Somali-born congresswoman. The Republican mayor of El Paso, Dee Margo, seemed to discount any race element to the Texas shooting, telling Fox News the gunman was "deranged." But multiple Democratic presidential hopefuls said Trump bears some of the blame for the violence. "Our president isn't just failing to confront and disarm these domestic terrorists, he is amplifying and condoning their hate," Mayor Pete Buttigieg tweeted. "Mr President: stop your racist, hateful and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Your language creates a climate which emboldens violent extremists," Senator Bernie Sanders wrote on Twitter.

Donald Trump to address the nation after US shootings leave 29 dead

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/chinas-debt-tops-300-of-gdp-now-15-of-global-total-institute-of-international-finance-237113">The Chinese yuan</a> fell to its lowest level against the dollar since August 2010 in morning trade on Monday, fuelling speculation that Beijing is allowing currency depreciation to counter threatened US tariffs.

The offshore currency weakened to 7.1085 to the dollar, days after US President Donald Trump announced a plan to impose fresh tariffs on another $300 billion <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-hit-300-billion-worth-of-chinese-goods-with-10-tariff-donald-trump-240021">in Chinese goods</a>, sharpening trade war tensions between the world's two biggest economies.

The onshore yuan also tumbled, hitting 7.0307 in Monday morning trade to reach its lowest level since 2008.

Both the onshore and offshore yuan breached the 7.0 level against the dollar, which investors see as a key threshold in currency value.

Trump has frequently accused China of artificially devaluing its currency to support its exports charges long denied by Beijing.

The US president jolted global stock markets last week when he issued the threat of more tariffs just a day after US and Chinese trade negotiators revived talks aimed at ending the year-long dispute.

The extra 10 per cent duties Trump threatened to implement from September 1 would mean he has now targeted virtually all of the $500 billion in goods America buys from China every year.

Currency instability

China on Friday threatened to retaliate to any new US tariffs it has already imposed its duties on $110 billion in American goods, almost all of the products it imports from the country.

A report from Bloomberg News said China has also asked its state-owned enterprises to stop buying US farm goods, in a further sign of escalating tensions.

The yuan is not freely convertible and the government limits its movement against the US dollar to a two per cent range on either side of a central parity rate which the People's Bank of China (PBOC) sets each day to reflect the market trends and control volatility.

The daily central rate was at 6.9225 per dollar on Monday, 0.33 per cent weaker from Friday.

"It appears that the tariffs hike suggests the return of tit for tat moves and a suspension of trade talks, and the PBOC sees no need to keep the yuan stable in the near term," Ken Cheung, a senior currency strategist at Mizuho Bank, told Bloomberg News.

In a statement Monday morning, the PBOC said the exchange rate against the US dollar had been "affected by unilateralism and trade protectionism measures and the imposition of tariff increases on China".

The central bank said the yuan remained "stable and strong against the basket of currencies" and said it would "resolutely crack down on short term speculation and maintain stable operation of the foreign exchange market and stabilize market expectations".

It went on to say that it had the "experience, confidence and ability to keep the RMB exchange rate stable at a reasonable and balanced level".

Julian Evans-Pritchard, a senior China economist with Capital Economics, said the PBOC has "effectively weaponized the exchange rate" by linking the currency with the US trade war.

"Given that their goal is presumably to offset some of the impacts from additional US tariffs, they are likely to allow the currency to weaken further, probably by 5-10 per cent over the coming quarters," said Evans-Pritchard.

The Chinese yuan fell to its lowest level against the dollar since August 2010 in morning trade on Monday, fuelling speculation that Beijing is allowing currency depreciation to counter threatened US tariffs.

The Chinese yuan fell to its lowest level against the dollar since August 2010 in morning trade on Monday, fuelling speculation that Beijing is allowing currency depreciation to counter threatened US tariffs. The offshore currency weakened to 7.1085 to the dollar, days after US President Donald Trump announced a plan to impose fresh tariffs on another $300 billion in Chinese goods, sharpening trade war tensions between the world's two biggest economies. The onshore yuan also tumbled, hitting 7.0307 in Monday morning trade to reach its lowest level since 2008. Both the onshore and offshore yuan breached the 7.0 level against the dollar, which investors see as a key threshold in currency value. Trump has frequently accused China of artificially devaluing its currency to support its exports charges long denied by Beijing. The US president jolted global stock markets last week when he issued the threat of more tariffs just a day after US and Chinese trade negotiators revived talks aimed at ending the year-long dispute. The extra 10 per cent duties Trump threatened to implement from September 1 would mean he has now targeted virtually all of the $500 billion in goods America buys from China every year. Currency instability China on Friday threatened to retaliate to any new US tariffs it has already imposed its duties on $110 billion in American goods, almost all of the products it imports from the country. A report from Bloomberg News said China has also asked its state-owned enterprises to stop buying US farm goods, in a further sign of escalating tensions. The yuan is not freely convertible and the government limits its movement against the US dollar to a two per cent range on either side of a central parity rate which the People's Bank of China (PBOC) sets each day to reflect the market trends and control volatility. The daily central rate was at 6.9225 per dollar on Monday, 0.33 per cent weaker from Friday. "It appears that the tariffs hike suggests the return of tit for tat moves and a suspension of trade talks, and the PBOC sees no need to keep the yuan stable in the near term," Ken Cheung, a senior currency strategist at Mizuho Bank, told Bloomberg News. In a statement Monday morning, the PBOC said the exchange rate against the US dollar had been "affected by unilateralism and trade protectionism measures and the imposition of tariff increases on China". The central bank said the yuan remained "stable and strong against the basket of currencies" and said it would "resolutely crack down on short term speculation and maintain stable operation of the foreign exchange market and stabilize market expectations". It went on to say that it had the "experience, confidence and ability to keep the RMB exchange rate stable at a reasonable and balanced level". Julian Evans-Pritchard, a senior China economist with Capital Economics, said the PBOC has "effectively weaponized the exchange rate" by linking the currency with the US trade war. "Given that their goal is presumably to offset some of the impacts from additional US tariffs, they are likely to allow the currency to weaken further, probably by 5-10 per cent over the coming quarters," said Evans-Pritchard.

Chinese yuan falls to weakest level against the dollar since 2010

A year after <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/donald-trump-kim-jong-un-summits-other-aim-was-to-sell-vietnam-model-to-north-korea-208086">President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un</a> met for the first time, they appear committed to a personal bond upon which hopes for peace appear to rest, despite a stalemate in efforts to get Kim to abandon nuclear weapons.

Trump and Kim agreed at the first US-North Korea summit in Singapore to work towards the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, easing fears of war between their countries.

But there has been little progress since then and tension has again been rising recently with North Korea resuming some limited testing of weapons and warning of "truly undesired consequences" if the United States was not more flexible.

But Trump said on Tuesday he had received a "beautiful letter" from Kim.

"I can’t show you the letter obviously, but it was a very personal, very warm, very nice letter," Trump told reporters outside the White House.

Trump, who has tried to convert what he feels is a warm personal relationship with Kim into a diplomatic breakthrough, gave no details, but repeated that he believed North Korea had "tremendous potential".

"I think that something will happen that’s going to be very positive," he said.

North Korea's state media has not mentioned any letter.

The optimism that the two leaders generated in Singapore all but evaporated in February when a second summit, in Vietnam, dramatically fell apart without even a recommitment to the general goals outlined in a statement signed in Singapore.

Since then, North Korea has complained of US sanctions and Kim said he would wait until the end of the year before deciding on whether to take a "new path".

Both sides have said they are open to talks but that the other side needs to change their policy.

The United States says North Korea needs to make verifiable progress toward giving up its nuclear weapons before any sanctions are eased, while North Korea says the United States has done nothing to reward steps already taken.

In the weeks ahead of Wednesday's anniversary of the Singapore summit, North Korean state media has repeatedly warned that the statement signed there was in danger of being rendered meaningless if the United States did not drop demands for North Korea to unilaterally dismantle its nuclear arsenal.

Ups and Downs

According to the Singapore foreign ministry, North Korea's embassy there had been planning an event to commemorate the summit anniversary and invited Singapore officials. But it later cancelled the event.

Still, North Korea has said it "remains unchanged in its stand and will to cherish and implement in good faith" the Singapore statement, which included vague promises to improve relations and eventually pursue the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

The third summit between Trump and Kim was possible but the ball was in Pyongyang's court, White House national security adviser John Bolton said on Tuesday.

Bolton said the United States was continuing its "maximum pressure campaign" because Kim still appeared not to have made "a strategic decision to give up the pursuit of deliverable nuclear weapons."

In a briefing on Monday, US State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said North Korea is "one of the toughest national security challenges" but that US officials are working "diligently" to follow up on North Korea's promise to denuclearise.

"There’s always ups and downs, and we remain confident that Kim Jong Un and his government will see a path for a brighter future for the North Korean people," she told reporters.

"And one year later, that’s what we are still aspiring to and still hoping for while noting, of course, that economic sanctions do remain."

Those sanctions remain a key sticking point, with North Korea calling them illegal after the United States announced it had seized a North Korean cargo ship accused of illicit coal shipments in violation of sanctions.

This month, acting US Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan gave Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe a 32-page book of photographs and satellite images showing North Korean ships evading sanctions of China's coasts, in a bid to secure more sanctions enforcement by Beijing.

In May, Kim oversaw the test launch of new, short-range missiles while giving a cold shoulder to projects planned with South Korea.

The North's leader has maintained his efforts to build diplomatic ties with other countries, meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in April.

Kim sent Putin a congratulatory message on Wednesday saying he believed that "the common understanding and agreements made at our first significant meeting will bear rich fruits".

A year after President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un met for the first time, they appear committed to a personal bond upon which hopes for peace appear to rest, despite a stalemate in efforts to get Kim to abandon nuclear weapons.

A year after President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un met for the first time, they appear committed to a personal bond upon which hopes for peace appear to rest, despite a stalemate in efforts to get Kim to abandon nuclear weapons. Trump and Kim agreed at the first US-North Korea summit in Singapore to work towards the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, easing fears of war between their countries. But there has been little progress since then and tension has again been rising recently with North Korea resuming some limited testing of weapons and warning of "truly undesired consequences" if the United States was not more flexible. But Trump said on Tuesday he had received a "beautiful letter" from Kim. "I can’t show you the letter obviously, but it was a very personal, very warm, very nice letter," Trump told reporters outside the White House. Trump, who has tried to convert what he feels is a warm personal relationship with Kim into a diplomatic breakthrough, gave no details, but repeated that he believed North Korea had "tremendous potential". "I think that something will happen that’s going to be very positive," he said. North Korea's state media has not mentioned any letter. The optimism that the two leaders generated in Singapore all but evaporated in February when a second summit, in Vietnam, dramatically fell apart without even a recommitment to the general goals outlined in a statement signed in Singapore. Since then, North Korea has complained of US sanctions and Kim said he would wait until the end of the year before deciding on whether to take a "new path". Both sides have said they are open to talks but that the other side needs to change their policy. The United States says North Korea needs to make verifiable progress toward giving up its nuclear weapons before any sanctions are eased, while North Korea says the United States has done nothing to reward steps already taken. In the weeks ahead of Wednesday's anniversary of the Singapore summit, North Korean state media has repeatedly warned that the statement signed there was in danger of being rendered meaningless if the United States did not drop demands for North Korea to unilaterally dismantle its nuclear arsenal. Ups and Downs According to the Singapore foreign ministry, North Korea's embassy there had been planning an event to commemorate the summit anniversary and invited Singapore officials. But it later cancelled the event. Still, North Korea has said it "remains unchanged in its stand and will to cherish and implement in good faith" the Singapore statement, which included vague promises to improve relations and eventually pursue the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. The third summit between Trump and Kim was possible but the ball was in Pyongyang's court, White House national security adviser John Bolton said on Tuesday. Bolton said the United States was continuing its "maximum pressure campaign" because Kim still appeared not to have made "a strategic decision to give up the pursuit of deliverable nuclear weapons." In a briefing on Monday, US State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said North Korea is "one of the toughest national security challenges" but that US officials are working "diligently" to follow up on North Korea's promise to denuclearise. "There’s always ups and downs, and we remain confident that Kim Jong Un and his government will see a path for a brighter future for the North Korean people," she told reporters. "And one year later, that’s what we are still aspiring to and still hoping for while noting, of course, that economic sanctions do remain." Those sanctions remain a key sticking point, with North Korea calling them illegal after the United States announced it had seized a North Korean cargo ship accused of illicit coal shipments in violation of sanctions. This month, acting US Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan gave Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe a 32-page book of photographs and satellite images showing North Korean ships evading sanctions of China's coasts, in a bid to secure more sanctions enforcement by Beijing. In May, Kim oversaw the test launch of new, short-range missiles while giving a cold shoulder to projects planned with South Korea. The North's leader has maintained his efforts to build diplomatic ties with other countries, meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in April. Kim sent Putin a congratulatory message on Wednesday saying he believed that "the common understanding and agreements made at our first significant meeting will bear rich fruits".

Trump and Kim one year on: A 'beautiful letter', stalled diplomacy

Oil prices rose on Wednesday after a report of declining US&nbsp;crude inventories and as producer club OPEC seemed to stick to its supply cuts despite pressure from US&nbsp;President Donald Trump.

US&nbsp;West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures were at $55.99 per barrel at 0600 GMT, up 49 cents, or 0.9 per cent, from their last settlement.

International Brent crude futures were at $65.65 per barrel, up 44 cents, or 0.7 per cent from their last close.

US&nbsp;crude oil inventories fell by 4.2 million barrels in the week to February 22, to 444.3 million barrels, the American Petroleum Institute (API) estimated in a weekly report on Tuesday.

Official data will be released by the US&nbsp;Energy Information Administration (EIA) after 1800 GMT on Wednesday.

Oil markets have generally received support this year from supply curbs by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which together with some non-affiliated producers like Russia, known as OPEC+, agreed late last year to cut output by 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) to prop up prices.

And the group has indicated it will continue to withhold supply despite pressure from Trump this week to stop artificially tightening markets.

"Crude oil futures bounced as OPEC members remained firm on planned production cuts despite heightened political pressure from US&nbsp;President Trump early this week," said Benjamin Lu of Singapore-based brokerage Phillip Futures.

Trump tweeted on Monday that oil prices were getting too high for the global economy, asking OPEC to relax its supply cuts.

Despite the OPEC-led curbs, oil remains in ample supply as US&nbsp;crude production has risen by more than 2 million bpd over the past year, to a record 12 million bpd, and because demand growth is low due to a global economic slowdown and improving energy efficiency across industries.

"The OPEC+ production cuts have ... so far failed to create the tightness needed to support a continued rally," said Ole Hansen, head of the commodity strategy at Denmark's Saxo Bank.

Oil prices rose on Wednesday after a report of declining US crude inventories and as producer club OPEC seemed to stick to its supply cuts despite pressure from US President Donald Trump.

Oil prices rose on Wednesday after a report of declining US crude inventories and as producer club OPEC seemed to stick to its supply cuts despite pressure from US President Donald Trump. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures were at $55.99 per barrel at 0600 GMT, up 49 cents, or 0.9 per cent, from their last settlement. International Brent crude futures were at $65.65 per barrel, up 44 cents, or 0.7 per cent from their last close. US crude oil inventories fell by 4.2 million barrels in the week to February 22, to 444.3 million barrels, the American Petroleum Institute (API) estimated in a weekly report on Tuesday. Official data will be released by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) after 1800 GMT on Wednesday. Oil markets have generally received support this year from supply curbs by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which together with some non-affiliated producers like Russia, known as OPEC+, agreed late last year to cut output by 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) to prop up prices. And the group has indicated it will continue to withhold supply despite pressure from Trump this week to stop artificially tightening markets. "Crude oil futures bounced as OPEC members remained firm on planned production cuts despite heightened political pressure from US President Trump early this week," said Benjamin Lu of Singapore-based brokerage Phillip Futures. Trump tweeted on Monday that oil prices were getting too high for the global economy, asking OPEC to relax its supply cuts. Despite the OPEC-led curbs, oil remains in ample supply as US crude production has risen by more than 2 million bpd over the past year, to a record 12 million bpd, and because demand growth is low due to a global economic slowdown and improving energy efficiency across industries. "The OPEC+ production cuts have ... so far failed to create the tightness needed to support a continued rally," said Ole Hansen, head of the commodity strategy at Denmark's Saxo Bank.

Oil prices rise as OPEC resists Trump pressure to ease supply cuts

Federal prosecutors in New York have asked members of President <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-plans-to-nominate-treasurys-malpass-to-lead-world-bank-politico-195200">Donald Trump</a>'s inaugural committee to hand over documents linked to donations and spending, US media reported Monday.

The subpoena from the Manhattan US attorney's office requires the committee to turn over documents related to donors and donations, attendees at committee events, paperwork related to the legal requirements attached to donations as well as the possibility of donations made by foreign nationals, CNN reported.

The network, which said it had obtained a copy of the subpoena, said it showed prosecutors were investigating a wide range of crimes including conspiracy, false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, disclosure violations, violations of laws prohibiting contributions by foreign nations and contributions in the name of another person.

It also specifically seeks all communications with one donor, a Los Angeles venture capitalist named Imaad Zuberi, as well as the firm with which he is affiliated, Avenue Ventures, the Washington Post reported -- though it was not immediately clear why Trump was of particular interest.

"We have just received a subpoena for documents. While we are still reviewing the subpoena, it is our intention to cooperate with the inquiry," a spokesperson for the inauguration told US media.

The inaugural committee's activities have previously been mentioned in court by Rick Gates, who served as a deputy chairman of the inaugural committee and testified it was possible he may have stolen money from the committee through fake expense reports.&nbsp;

Gates has agreed to a plea deal with Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, though it is not clear whether the committee's activities are still being scrutinized in connection with that probe.

Federal prosecutors in New York have asked members of President Donald Trump's inaugural committee to hand over documents linked to donations and spending, US media reported Monday.

Federal prosecutors in New York have asked members of President Donald Trump's inaugural committee to hand over documents linked to donations and spending, US media reported Monday. The subpoena from the Manhattan US attorney's office requires the committee to turn over documents related to donors and donations, attendees at committee events, paperwork related to the legal requirements attached to donations as well as the possibility of donations made by foreign nationals, CNN reported. The network, which said it had obtained a copy of the subpoena, said it showed prosecutors were investigating a wide range of crimes including conspiracy, false statements, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, disclosure violations, violations of laws prohibiting contributions by foreign nations and contributions in the name of another person. It also specifically seeks all communications with one donor, a Los Angeles venture capitalist named Imaad Zuberi, as well as the firm with which he is affiliated, Avenue Ventures, the Washington Post reported -- though it was not immediately clear why Trump was of particular interest. "We have just received a subpoena for documents. While we are still reviewing the subpoena, it is our intention to cooperate with the inquiry," a spokesperson for the inauguration told US media. The inaugural committee's activities have previously been mentioned in court by Rick Gates, who served as a deputy chairman of the inaugural committee and testified it was possible he may have stolen money from the committee through fake expense reports. Gates has agreed to a plea deal with Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, though it is not clear whether the committee's activities are still being scrutinized in connection with that probe.

Trump inaugural committee ordered to hand over documents to prosecutors: Reports

Some rights and advocacy groups have opposed President Donald Trump's decision to nominate chief State Department spokeswoman<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-nominates-ex-fox-news-anchor-nauert-as-un-envoy-182300"> Heather Nauert </a>as America's next envoy to UN, saying she is unqualified&nbsp;and lacks the foreign policy experience crucial for the post.&nbsp;

Trump on Friday picked Nauert to succeed Indian-American<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-continues-to-harbour-terrorists-nikki-haley-182609"> Nikki Haley&nbsp;</a>as US ambassador to the United Nations.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation, called on the Trump administration to withdraw its nomination of Nauert for the position of UN ambassador.

CAIR said Nauert promoted "Islamophobic smears" while employed as a Fox News anchor. It said, in 2013 she criticized special swim classes for a group of Somali-American girls, describing the classes as the "minority becoming the majority at one community pool. Sharia law is now changing everything."&nbsp;

The group said other than her current position as State Department spokesperson, Nauert has no apparent diplomatic or government experience or expertise.&nbsp;

"Heather Nauert does not represent our nation's diversity or its commitment to treating all Americans with equality and respect," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.&nbsp;

The International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), which advances the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls worldwide through advocacy and strengthening women's movements, said the nomination of Nauert as US ambassador to the United Nations "signals a continuation of the Trump administration's regressive policies at the UN.

It said Nauert, currently the State Department spokesperson, is a former anchor on Fox News and has no prior diplomatic experience.&nbsp; 
"Nauert lacks the foreign policy experience and commitment to human rights and multilateralism crucial for this post," IWHC Director of Advocacy and Policy Shannon Kowalski said in a statement.&nbsp;

Critical of US ambassador Haley's record at the UN, IWHC said she "ostracized civil society, removed the US from the Human Rights Council, undermined sexual and reproductive health and rights, and oversaw an overall decline in US leadership at the United Nations.&nbsp;

"Nauert's tenure at the State Department does not indicate that she will take the necessary steps to re-engage with civil society and reignite the United States' commitment to human rights globally, rather than on a politicized basis,&nbsp;it said.&nbsp;

Kowalski added that there is nothing in Nauert's record to suggest that she would restrain the administration's efforts to censor language or to undermine and remove UN commitments on gender equality, sexuality education, and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Some rights and advocacy groups have opposed President Donald Trump's decision to nominate chief State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert as America's next envoy to UN, saying she is unqualified and lacks the foreign policy experience crucial for the post.

Some rights and advocacy groups have opposed President Donald Trump's decision to nominate chief State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert as America's next envoy to UN, saying she is unqualified and lacks the foreign policy experience crucial for the post. Trump on Friday picked Nauert to succeed Indian-American Nikki Haley as US ambassador to the United Nations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation, called on the Trump administration to withdraw its nomination of Nauert for the position of UN ambassador. CAIR said Nauert promoted "Islamophobic smears" while employed as a Fox News anchor. It said, in 2013 she criticized special swim classes for a group of Somali-American girls, describing the classes as the "minority becoming the majority at one community pool. Sharia law is now changing everything." The group said other than her current position as State Department spokesperson, Nauert has no apparent diplomatic or government experience or expertise. "Heather Nauert does not represent our nation's diversity or its commitment to treating all Americans with equality and respect," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. The International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), which advances the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls worldwide through advocacy and strengthening women's movements, said the nomination of Nauert as US ambassador to the United Nations "signals a continuation of the Trump administration's regressive policies at the UN. It said Nauert, currently the State Department spokesperson, is a former anchor on Fox News and has no prior diplomatic experience. "Nauert lacks the foreign policy experience and commitment to human rights and multilateralism crucial for this post," IWHC Director of Advocacy and Policy Shannon Kowalski said in a statement. Critical of US ambassador Haley's record at the UN, IWHC said she "ostracized civil society, removed the US from the Human Rights Council, undermined sexual and reproductive health and rights, and oversaw an overall decline in US leadership at the United Nations. "Nauert's tenure at the State Department does not indicate that she will take the necessary steps to re-engage with civil society and reignite the United States' commitment to human rights globally, rather than on a politicized basis, it said. Kowalski added that there is nothing in Nauert's record to suggest that she would restrain the administration's efforts to censor language or to undermine and remove UN commitments on gender equality, sexuality education, and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Rights groups, advocacy organisations oppose Nauert as America's next envoy to UN

US President Donald Trump on Sunday sent greetings to the world's Jews on the first day of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, while pledging "love and support" for the victims of an attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue in October.

"Melania and I send our warmest greetings to our Jewish brothers and sisters in the United States, in Israel, and around the world celebrating Hanukkah," Trump, whose daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner are Jewish, said in a statement.

"We remember all those from the Tree of Life —- Or L'Simcha Congregation -- whose lives were tragically taken in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this past October.

"As one Nation, we pledge our continued love and support for the victims, their families, and the community, and we pray that the victims' families find some measure of peace and comfort during this holiday season."

Every year, the White House lights a giant menorah over the festival's eight days.

US President Donald Trump on Sunday sent greetings to the world's Jews on the first day of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, while pledging "love and support" for the victims of an attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue in October.

US President Donald Trump on Sunday sent greetings to the world's Jews on the first day of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, while pledging "love and support" for the victims of an attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue in October. "Melania and I send our warmest greetings to our Jewish brothers and sisters in the United States, in Israel, and around the world celebrating Hanukkah," Trump, whose daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner are Jewish, said in a statement. "We remember all those from the Tree of Life —- Or L'Simcha Congregation -- whose lives were tragically taken in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, this past October. "As one Nation, we pledge our continued love and support for the victims, their families, and the community, and we pray that the victims' families find some measure of peace and comfort during this holiday season." Every year, the White House lights a giant menorah over the festival's eight days.

Trump pledges 'love and support' to Pittsburgh synagogue victims on Hannukah

US President Donald Trump said Saturday he will soon notify Congress that he plans to end the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-trudeau-and-enrique-pena-sign-mexico-canada-agreement-replace-nafta-180510">NAFTA agreement </a>with Mexico and Canada in favour of a new regional trade deal, setting up a potential clash on Capitol Hill.

Trump, travelling home from a G20 summit in Argentina, told reporters aboard Air Force One that he would give formal notice to Congress on "terminating" NAFTA "within a relatively short period of time."

That would trigger a six-month waiting period before the US could leave the pact during that time, US lawmakers would be asked to approve the new deal signed on Friday with America's neighbours.

Trump says the new pact is known in Washington as the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-mexico-reach-nafta-deal-as-pressure-turns-to-canada-161949"> US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)</a> will help US workers, especially in the auto industry, and better safeguard intellectual property.

'We get rid of NAFTA. It's been a disaster for the United States,'&nbsp;said Trump, who insisted that the North American Free Trade Agreement, in place for nearly a quarter-century, was a killer of American jobs.

'That'll be terminated so Congress will have a choice of the USMCA or pre-NAFTA, which worked very well,'&nbsp;the Republican president said.

The signing of USMCA was a victory for Trump, following months of tense and difficult negotiations with Ottawa and Mexico City.

Trump said Friday that he did not foresee a problem with getting congressional approval, but some Democrats who will control the US House of Representatives as of January have expressed skepticism.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/nancy-pelosi-seen-closing-in-on-us-house-speakership-179832">Nancy Pelosi</a>, the frontrunner to regain her position as Speaker of the House, on Friday called the deal a 'work in progress.'

'What isn't in it yet are enough enforcement reassurances regarding workers'&nbsp;and the environment, she told a press conference.

'This is not something that we have a piece of paper where we can say yes or no to it,' said Pelosi, who added that Mexico had not yet passed a law on wages and working conditions.

The new deal also requires legislative approval in Canada and Mexico.

US President Donald Trump said Saturday he will soon notify Congress that he plans to end the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada in favour of a new regional trade deal, setting up a potential clash on Capitol Hill.

US President Donald Trump said Saturday he will soon notify Congress that he plans to end the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada in favour of a new regional trade deal, setting up a potential clash on Capitol Hill. Trump, travelling home from a G20 summit in Argentina, told reporters aboard Air Force One that he would give formal notice to Congress on "terminating" NAFTA "within a relatively short period of time." That would trigger a six-month waiting period before the US could leave the pact during that time, US lawmakers would be asked to approve the new deal signed on Friday with America's neighbours. Trump says the new pact is known in Washington as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will help US workers, especially in the auto industry, and better safeguard intellectual property. 'We get rid of NAFTA. It's been a disaster for the United States,' said Trump, who insisted that the North American Free Trade Agreement, in place for nearly a quarter-century, was a killer of American jobs. 'That'll be terminated so Congress will have a choice of the USMCA or pre-NAFTA, which worked very well,' the Republican president said. The signing of USMCA was a victory for Trump, following months of tense and difficult negotiations with Ottawa and Mexico City. Trump said Friday that he did not foresee a problem with getting congressional approval, but some Democrats who will control the US House of Representatives as of January have expressed skepticism. Nancy Pelosi, the frontrunner to regain her position as Speaker of the House, on Friday called the deal a 'work in progress.' 'What isn't in it yet are enough enforcement reassurances regarding workers' and the environment, she told a press conference. 'This is not something that we have a piece of paper where we can say yes or no to it,' said Pelosi, who added that Mexico had not yet passed a law on wages and working conditions. The new deal also requires legislative approval in Canada and Mexico.

Trump says will formally terminate NAFTA soon

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/cia-has-concluded-saudi-crown-prince-ordered-journalists-killing-report-177782">CIA has concluded Saudi crown prince ordered journalist's killing: Report</a>

The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, the Washington Post reported on Friday, a finding that contradicts Saudi government assertions that he was not involved.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/over-1000-missing-71-dead-in-california-wildfire-177802">Over 1000 missing, 71 dead in California wildfire</a>

The number of people missing in a devastating wildfire in northern California jumped to more than 1,000 on Friday, authorities said, as the remains of eight other victims were found by rescuers.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-explosion-in-karachi-kills-two-injures-eight-177790">Pakistan: Explosion in Karachi kills 2, injures 8</a>

A bomb killed at least two people and wounded eight others in Pakistan's port city of Karachi Friday, police and hospital officials said.

The blast reportedly damaged buildings and triggered panic in the densely populated Malir district.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-embraces-maldives-as-new-leader-mohamed-solih-takes-office-china-out-of-favour-177785">PM Modi embraces </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-embraces-maldives-as-new-leader-mohamed-solih-takes-office-china-out-of-favour-177785">Maldives</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-modi-embraces-maldives-as-new-leader-mohamed-solih-takes-office-china-out-of-favour-177785"> as new leader Mohamed Solih takes office, China out of favour</a>

Maldives' President-elect Ibrahim Mohamed Solih takes office on Saturday, seeking help from India and the United States to climb out from under a mountain of Chinese debt that his predecessor racked up in a breakneck development of the coral islands.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-orders-white-house-to-restore-press-pass-to-cnns-acosta-177783">US judge orders White House to restore press pass to CNN's Acosta</a>

A US judge on Friday ordered the White House to temporarily restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass, which was revoked after a contentious news conference last week with President Donald Trump.

The White House withdrew Acosta's credentials on November 7 in an escalation of the Republican president's attacks on news organizations, who he has called enemies of the people.

CIA has concluded Saudi crown prince ordered journalist's killing: Report The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, the Washington Post reported on Friday, a finding that contradicts Saudi government assertions that he was not involved.

CIA has concluded Saudi crown prince ordered journalist's killing: Report The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, the Washington Post reported on Friday, a finding that contradicts Saudi government assertions that he was not involved. Over 1000 missing, 71 dead in California wildfire The number of people missing in a devastating wildfire in northern California jumped to more than 1,000 on Friday, authorities said, as the remains of eight other victims were found by rescuers. Pakistan: Explosion in Karachi kills 2, injures 8 A bomb killed at least two people and wounded eight others in Pakistan's port city of Karachi Friday, police and hospital officials said. The blast reportedly damaged buildings and triggered panic in the densely populated Malir district. PM Modi embraces Maldives as new leader Mohamed Solih takes office, China out of favour Maldives' President-elect Ibrahim Mohamed Solih takes office on Saturday, seeking help from India and the United States to climb out from under a mountain of Chinese debt that his predecessor racked up in a breakneck development of the coral islands. US judge orders White House to restore press pass to CNN's Acosta A US judge on Friday ordered the White House to temporarily restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass, which was revoked after a contentious news conference last week with President Donald Trump. The White House withdrew Acosta's credentials on November 7 in an escalation of the Republican president's attacks on news organizations, who he has called enemies of the people.

News brief: Big stories of the day

WION CHAT: Siddhant Sibbal on India-US trade deals

It's not only the thousands on the other side of the border who are struggling to enter the US. Now, a couple of thousands inside the United States face a threat.

If Trump will have his way, even the people born in the US will have a hard time getting <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-birthright-citizenship-guarantee-of-the-14th-amendment-174507">US citizenship</a>.&nbsp;

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-says-he-plans-to-scrap-birthright-citizenship-174438">US Constitution</a> does not guarantee the right to citizenship to everyone born in the country, an assertion that runs counter to the long-established legal interpretation of the document.

"So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other. It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Many legal scholars agree....." Trump wrote in a Twitter post six days before U.S. congressional elections.

The Constitution's 14th Amendment, added after the Civil War, grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil and was intended to give constitutional protections to former slaves. But some Republicans, including Trump, say it creates an incentive for people to enter the country illegally to have children.

Trump said that he will bring an executive order to end citizenship by birth -- that is, granting citizenship to someone by virtue of the fact that he or she was born on American soil.&nbsp;

With just five days to go for the US to vote in the mid-term elections, Trump is attempting to sway voters in favour of the Republican party.

But legal experts say it is easier said than done.&nbsp;

Unlike some other countries, in the US birth-right citizenship is embedded in the constitution which means that to end this kind of citizenship, Trump will have to amend the constitution.&nbsp;

US citizenship through birth comes via the 14th amendment of the US constitution. The amendment was ratified after the civil war to secure US &nbsp;citizenship for newly freed black slaves.

so can Donald Trump really end birth-right citizenship? &nbsp;Legal experts believe he cannot.&nbsp;

An executive order by Trump will be judicially challenged and there are many articles in the US constitution that would make a fight against the citizenship clause difficult.&nbsp;

Some argue that while the president can order the employees of federal agencies to interpret citizenship more narrowly, the president will inevitably invite legal challenges from people whose citizenship is being denied.&nbsp;

The case would eventually land at the doorstep of the US top court, which has upheld the principle of birthright citizenship for over a century now.

It's not only the thousands on the other side of the border who are struggling to enter the US. Now, a couple of thousands inside the United States face a threat.

It's not only the thousands on the other side of the border who are struggling to enter the US. Now, a couple of thousands inside the United States face a threat. If Trump will have his way, even the people born in the US will have a hard time getting US citizenship. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the US Constitution does not guarantee the right to citizenship to everyone born in the country, an assertion that runs counter to the long-established legal interpretation of the document. "So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other. It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Many legal scholars agree....." Trump wrote in a Twitter post six days before U.S. congressional elections. The Constitution's 14th Amendment, added after the Civil War, grants citizenship to anyone born on American soil and was intended to give constitutional protections to former slaves. But some Republicans, including Trump, say it creates an incentive for people to enter the country illegally to have children. Trump said that he will bring an executive order to end citizenship by birth -- that is, granting citizenship to someone by virtue of the fact that he or she was born on American soil. With just five days to go for the US to vote in the mid-term elections, Trump is attempting to sway voters in favour of the Republican party. But legal experts say it is easier said than done. Unlike some other countries, in the US birth-right citizenship is embedded in the constitution which means that to end this kind of citizenship, Trump will have to amend the constitution. US citizenship through birth comes via the 14th amendment of the US constitution. The amendment was ratified after the civil war to secure US citizenship for newly freed black slaves. so can Donald Trump really end birth-right citizenship? Legal experts believe he cannot. An executive order by Trump will be judicially challenged and there are many articles in the US constitution that would make a fight against the citizenship clause difficult. Some argue that while the president can order the employees of federal agencies to interpret citizenship more narrowly, the president will inevitably invite legal challenges from people whose citizenship is being denied. The case would eventually land at the doorstep of the US top court, which has upheld the principle of birthright citizenship for over a century now.

Can Donald Trump end US birthright citizenship?

A&nbsp;man who reportedly travelled with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's entourage to the United States walked into the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul when&nbsp;Jamal Khashoggi vanished from there, according to a pro-government Turkish newspaper that&nbsp;published surveillance video images in connection with the incident.&nbsp;

The Sabah newspaper's report the man was later seen outside the Saudi consul general's home, checking out of a Turkish hotel and leaving Turkey on October 2, the report added.

Images shot by the Houston Chronicle later distributed by The Associated Press show the same man was in Prince Mohammed's entourage when he visited a Houston subdivision in April to see rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Harvey.

According to&nbsp;AP, it&nbsp;couldn't verify the man's identity. The news agency said that Saudi Arabia did not&nbsp;respond to repeated requests for comment on the video.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, America has asked Turkey for an audio recording in the suspected murder of Jamal Khashoggi, US President Donald Trump has said as he sought a full report from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the dissident Saudi journalist's mysterious disappearance.

Speaking to reporters at the&nbsp;White House, Trump said that&nbsp;he had asked Turkey for the audio that gives a clue of the alleged brutal killing of Khashoggi.

"We've asked for it if it exists," he was quoted as saying as per PTI.

The New York Times, citing the content of the audio made available through its Turkish sources, said the audio gave a detailed account of the alleged brutal murder of Khashoggi.

"I'm not sure yet that it exists. Probably does. Possibly does. I'll have a full report on that from Mike when he comes back," Trump said, referring to his meeting with Mike Pompeo on Thursday on his return from Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

"That's going to be the first question I ask him," he said.

On his way back from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Pompeo refused to comment on the existence of the audio tape. 
&nbsp;

A man who reportedly travelled with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's entourage to the United States walked into the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul when Jamal Khashoggi vanished from there, according to a pro-government Turkish newspaper that published surveillance video images in connection with the incident.

A man who reportedly travelled with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's entourage to the United States walked into the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul when Jamal Khashoggi vanished from there, according to a pro-government Turkish newspaper that published surveillance video images in connection with the incident. The Sabah newspaper's report the man was later seen outside the Saudi consul general's home, checking out of a Turkish hotel and leaving Turkey on October 2, the report added. Images shot by the Houston Chronicle later distributed by The Associated Press show the same man was in Prince Mohammed's entourage when he visited a Houston subdivision in April to see rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Harvey. According to AP, it couldn't verify the man's identity. The news agency said that Saudi Arabia did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the video. Meanwhile, America has asked Turkey for an audio recording in the suspected murder of Jamal Khashoggi, US President Donald Trump has said as he sought a full report from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the dissident Saudi journalist's mysterious disappearance. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said that he had asked Turkey for the audio that gives a clue of the alleged brutal killing of Khashoggi. "We've asked for it if it exists," he was quoted as saying as per PTI. The New York Times, citing the content of the audio made available through its Turkish sources, said the audio gave a detailed account of the alleged brutal murder of Khashoggi. "I'm not sure yet that it exists. Probably does. Possibly does. I'll have a full report on that from Mike when he comes back," Trump said, referring to his meeting with Mike Pompeo on Thursday on his return from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. "That's going to be the first question I ask him," he said. On his way back from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Pompeo refused to comment on the existence of the audio tape.

Man linked to Saudi Prince Salman at consulate when Jamal Khashoggi vanished

By Scott Shackelford and Matthew Sussex

In the drumbeat of reports about Russian attempts to undermine US democratic institutions with trolls, Twitter bots and cyber attacks on congressional candidates, it is easy to forget that the problem of election security is not isolated to the United States, and extends far beyond safeguarding insecure voting machines.

Consider Australia, which has been grappling with repeated Chinese attempts to interfere with its political system. One 2018 report, for example, found that the Chinese have infiltrated “every layer of Australian Government, right down to local councils.” 
 
That’s why a group of academics and policymakers from Indiana University and the Australian National University recently met to discuss how we might make democracy harder to hack. We found that we had far more to work on together than we had anticipated.

Protecting a diverse, widespread system

In the wake of the 2016 US elections, scholars, government officials and concerned citizens are debating how to mitigate the risk of foreign groups targeting the election machinery upon which democratic societies are built.

Vulnerabilities are widespread across the thousands of largely locally managed systems that together comprise US election infrastructure. These vulnerabilities include voting machines that in some cases still have no paper trails and are often running “severely outdated operating systems like Windows XP,” which has not been patched since 2014.

But that is just a taste of the parade of horribles against which people must inoculate the election system. Other risks include hacked tabulation systems, which was a major concern in the 2017 Dutch elections, as well as compromised media outlets, as in Ukraine.

What’s been done so far? 
 
Since 2016, the US government has made progress in protecting democratic institutions. In January 2017, for example, the US Department of Homeland Security reclassified elections as critical infrastructure, which has helped to focus attention on the issue. Congress has also appropriated $380 million to help speed the purchase of new, more secure voting machines.

In addition, local and state election officials have a new way to get up-to-date cyber threat information from the federal government. But further progress has stalled, including the Secure Elections Act, which would, among other things, ensure that every vote cast in the US is on a verifiable paper ballot.

What more should Americans be doing, and what can Australia teach us?

Protecting democracy down under

Threats to Australia’s democracy differ in several key respects from those facing the US. To begin with, voting is mandatory in Australia, so there aren’t thorny political battles over who is allowed to vote. The major parties also agree on electoral boundaries so as to prevent gerrymandering.

Voting itself is different, too. When Australian voters enter a booth, they use paper forms, which are tallied by hand. And the election process is overseen by a central federally mandated body, the Australian Electoral Commission. This contrasts significantly to the US, where voting processes and infrastructure are heavily privatized, using antiquated technologies, though various constituencies have experimented with different forms of electronic voting.

With centralised operations, the Australian government has more control over the voting process and less need to worry about local variations that might threaten its integrity. At the same, such centralization makes for a tempting target.

Lessons from afar

Both countries do have reasons to worry, though. Their shared concerns include manipulation of public opinion via social media; alleged foreign influence over politicians; diminished public confidence around trust, privacy and data; and overseas ownership of news outlets. Fixing these depends much more on addressing human shortcomings than vulnerabilities in digital systems or formal institutions.

Australia also recognises that political parties are potential targets – as the US found out when the Democratic National Committee’s emails were hacked in 2016 – as well as the lesser-known hack of Republican National Committee emails.

Australia is also working to reduce foreign influence in other aspects of its political and business activities. Like the US, Australia has passed tough new foreign agent registration laws with bipartisan support. It has also blocked attempts by Chinese firms to buy controlling stakes in resource companies or large amounts of agricultural and urban land. And it recently excluded the Chinese tech giant Huawei from bidding to provide an Australian 5G mobile data network, citing a potential threat to national security.

And Australia has decided to invest early to guard against future information warfare, such as micro-targeting audiences with tailor-made messaging and machine learning-enhanced deep fake videos. The country has assigned top government officials to focus on cyber threats and begun an effort to ask all citizens to improve their cybersecurity.

Protecting political parties and citizens? 
 
The US&nbsp;has not yet followed Australia’s lead in providing government cyberdefense for political parties. Other aspects of civil society are also left undefended. Hackers have stolen public servants’ data, making them vulnerable to blackmail or fraud. Think tanks and research centers, as well as businesses, have data and other documents that are tempting targets. 
 
The US&nbsp;could do more, perhaps even designating citizens themselves as critical to society and in need of government support and protection against hacking and other online threats. That would acknowledge the many efforts underway to influence voters with false and misleading information.

By taking a lead from Australia – and by learning from successes and failures there, and in other countries – the US could find ways to protect democracy at home and abroad. 
 
(Scott Shackelford is Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics, Indiana University; &nbsp;Matthew Sussex is Academic Director, National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australia-can-help-the-us-make-democracy-harder-to-hack-102954">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 Scott Shackelford and Matthew Sussex In the drumbeat of reports about Russian attempts to undermine US democratic institutions with trolls, Twitter bots and cyber attacks on congressional candidates, it is easy to forget that the problem of election security is not isolated to the United States, and extends far beyond safeguarding insecure voting machines.

By Scott Shackelford and Matthew Sussex In the drumbeat of reports about Russian attempts to undermine US democratic institutions with trolls, Twitter bots and cyber attacks on congressional candidates, it is easy to forget that the problem of election security is not isolated to the United States, and extends far beyond safeguarding insecure voting machines. Consider Australia, which has been grappling with repeated Chinese attempts to interfere with its political system. One 2018 report, for example, found that the Chinese have infiltrated “every layer of Australian Government, right down to local councils.” That’s why a group of academics and policymakers from Indiana University and the Australian National University recently met to discuss how we might make democracy harder to hack. We found that we had far more to work on together than we had anticipated. Protecting a diverse, widespread system In the wake of the 2016 US elections, scholars, government officials and concerned citizens are debating how to mitigate the risk of foreign groups targeting the election machinery upon which democratic societies are built. Vulnerabilities are widespread across the thousands of largely locally managed systems that together comprise US election infrastructure. These vulnerabilities include voting machines that in some cases still have no paper trails and are often running “severely outdated operating systems like Windows XP,” which has not been patched since 2014. But that is just a taste of the parade of horribles against which people must inoculate the election system. Other risks include hacked tabulation systems, which was a major concern in the 2017 Dutch elections, as well as compromised media outlets, as in Ukraine. What’s been done so far? Since 2016, the US government has made progress in protecting democratic institutions. In January 2017, for example, the US Department of Homeland Security reclassified elections as critical infrastructure, which has helped to focus attention on the issue. Congress has also appropriated $380 million to help speed the purchase of new, more secure voting machines. In addition, local and state election officials have a new way to get up-to-date cyber threat information from the federal government. But further progress has stalled, including the Secure Elections Act, which would, among other things, ensure that every vote cast in the US is on a verifiable paper ballot. What more should Americans be doing, and what can Australia teach us? Protecting democracy down under Threats to Australia’s democracy differ in several key respects from those facing the US. To begin with, voting is mandatory in Australia, so there aren’t thorny political battles over who is allowed to vote. The major parties also agree on electoral boundaries so as to prevent gerrymandering. Voting itself is different, too. When Australian voters enter a booth, they use paper forms, which are tallied by hand. And the election process is overseen by a central federally mandated body, the Australian Electoral Commission. This contrasts significantly to the US, where voting processes and infrastructure are heavily privatized, using antiquated technologies, though various constituencies have experimented with different forms of electronic voting. With centralised operations, the Australian government has more control over the voting process and less need to worry about local variations that might threaten its integrity. At the same, such centralization makes for a tempting target. Lessons from afar Both countries do have reasons to worry, though. Their shared concerns include manipulation of public opinion via social media; alleged foreign influence over politicians; diminished public confidence around trust, privacy and data; and overseas ownership of news outlets. Fixing these depends much more on addressing human shortcomings than vulnerabilities in digital systems or formal institutions. Australia also recognises that political parties are potential targets – as the US found out when the Democratic National Committee’s emails were hacked in 2016 – as well as the lesser-known hack of Republican National Committee emails. Australia is also working to reduce foreign influence in other aspects of its political and business activities. Like the US, Australia has passed tough new foreign agent registration laws with bipartisan support. It has also blocked attempts by Chinese firms to buy controlling stakes in resource companies or large amounts of agricultural and urban land. And it recently excluded the Chinese tech giant Huawei from bidding to provide an Australian 5G mobile data network, citing a potential threat to national security. And Australia has decided to invest early to guard against future information warfare, such as micro-targeting audiences with tailor-made messaging and machine learning-enhanced deep fake videos. The country has assigned top government officials to focus on cyber threats and begun an effort to ask all citizens to improve their cybersecurity. Protecting political parties and citizens? The US has not yet followed Australia’s lead in providing government cyberdefense for political parties. Other aspects of civil society are also left undefended. Hackers have stolen public servants’ data, making them vulnerable to blackmail or fraud. Think tanks and research centers, as well as businesses, have data and other documents that are tempting targets. The US could do more, perhaps even designating citizens themselves as critical to society and in need of government support and protection against hacking and other online threats. That would acknowledge the many efforts underway to influence voters with false and misleading information. By taking a lead from Australia – and by learning from successes and failures there, and in other countries – the US could find ways to protect democracy at home and abroad. (Scott Shackelford is Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics, Indiana University; Matthew Sussex is Academic Director, National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National 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)

Australia can help the US make democracy harder to hack

The US&nbspPresident Donald Trump, in a complete reversal, said on Friday he would hold a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 in Singapore in the latest twist in the high-stakes diplomacy over eliminating Pyongyang's nuclear arms program.

Eight days after cancelling the unprecedented summit, citing Pyongyang's "open hostility," Trump welcomed North Korea's former intelligence chief, currently under punitive US&nbspsanctions, to the White House Oval Office, afterwards exchanging smiles and handshakes, patting his arm in a friendly gesture.

"Good meeting today. I think it's a great start," Trump said after conferring for about 90 minutes with Kim Yong Chol, who became the first North Korean official to visit the White House in 18 years and who the US&nbsppresident called "the second most powerful man in North Korea."

Trump said he expected an eventual "very positive result" with North Korea but dampened expectations for a breakthrough in Singapore.

"We`re not going to go in and sign something on June 12th, and we never were," Trump told reporters on the White House lawn. "We`re going to start a process. And I told them today, `Take your time, we can go fast, we can go slowly,` but I think they`d like to see something happen."

Trump said it could take several meetings to reach an agreement, but he was convinced that Kim Jong Un was committed to denuclearisation. "He`d like to see it happen," Trump said.

It was an extraordinary change in tone from a president who last year threatened to rain "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea because of the threat its nuclear weapons and missiles posed to the United States.&nbsp

Trump even backed away from the words "maximum pressure" that his administration had used to describe its approach to North Korea, combining the toughest-ever US&nbspand international economic sanctions with diplomatic actions and the Republican president`s military threats and preparations.

Getting along

"We`re getting along, so it`s not a question of maximum pressure," Trump said. "At some point, hopefully ... for the good of millions of people, a deal will be worked out."

Trump said one thing that could come out of the summit is an agreement formally ending the 1950-53 Korean War, which was concluded only with a truce, not a peace treaty.&nbsp

"We are going to discuss it prior to the meeting. That`s something that could come out of the meeting," Trump said when asked if a document ending the war was bring prepared.&nbsp

South Korea`s presidential office said on Saturday that the path to the North Korea-US&nbspsummit had become "broader and firmer," and it would calmly yet excitedly watch the historic meeting to be held in Singapore.&nbsp

The visiting North Korean official, linked by US&nbspintelligence to a high-profile cyber attack on Sony Pictures in 2014, delivered a letter from Kim Jong Un to Trump. A White House official said Trump had read the letter but did not reveal its contents.

Trump wants North Korea to "denuclearize," meaning to get rid of its nuclear arsenal, in return for relief from economic sanctions. But North Korea`s leadership is believed to regard nuclear weapons as crucial to its survival and has rejected unilaterally disarming.

A senior member of Trump`s Republican Party sounded a note of caution. Speaking in Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he expected the North Koreans to make "every effort they can to get sanctions and other relief and give up as little as possible."

"For these situations to work, you have to not want the deal too much," McConnell said. "You fall in love with the deal and it`s too important (to) you to get it, and the details become less significant, you could get snookered," McConnell said.

North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions have been a source of tension for decades, has made advances in missile technology in recent years but Trump has sworn not to allow it to develop nuclear missiles that could hit the United States.

Wall Street took news of the summit`s revival in stride.

While Trump sounded conciliatory toward North Korea, Kim used Cold War-style language about Washington during a televised encounter with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Pyongyang on Thursday, referring to

"US&nbsphegemonism." Referring to the Lavrov meeting, Trump said he "didn`t like it."&nbsp

Totally over that

Trump abruptly called off the summit on May 24 after North Korea sharply criticized US Vice President Mike Pence and Trump`s national security adviser, John Bolton. "I think we`re over that, totally over that," Trump said on Friday.

While Trump has put great importance on sealing a nuclear deal with North Korea, and secured the return of three Americans detained there, he has bucked traditional US&nbspforeign policy and alienated America`s European and NATO allies and trading partners.

He snubbed France, Germany and Britain by pulling out of a nuclear agreement with Iran and upset the Europeans, as well as neighbors Canada and Mexico, with protectionist trade policies.

The North Korean envoy, Kim Yong Chol, was the highest-level figure from the reclusive country to hold talks at the White House since a senior envoy visited former President Bill Clinton in 2000. He is vice chairman of the ruling Workers` Party`s Central Committee.

Trump walked the envoy out of the Oval Office to the lawn, posing for photographs as his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, looked on.

Trump said North Korea's human rights record was not discussed at the meeting.

Kim Yong Chol once served as a bodyguard to the current leader`s father, Kim Jong Il, and was previously chief of the Reconnaissance General Bureau, a North Korean military intelligence agency.

In 2015, then-US&nbspdirector of national intelligence James Clapper described Kim Yong Chol as "the guy who ultimately would have to okay the cyber attack against Sony" in 2014.

North Korean hackers allegedly infiltrated Sony`s systems and destroyed computers and laptops, apparently in retaliation for the entertainment company`s comedy movie "The Interview" that parodied North Korea`s leadership.

Kim Yong Chol has featured on lists of North Korean officials targeted by US&nbspTreasury sanctions, including for supporting his country`s nuclear and missiles programs and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the cyber attack. He was granted special permission to travel to the United States for meetings this week with US&nbspofficials, the State Department said.

He was accused by South Korea of masterminding deadly attacks on a South Korean navy ship and an island in 2010. North Korea denied any involvement in those incidents.&nbsp

Eight days after cancelling the unprecedented summit, citing Pyongyang's 'open hostility,' Trump welcomed North Korea's Kim Yong Chol, currently under punitive US sanctions, to the White House Oval Office

The US&nbspPresident Donald Trump, in a complete reversal, said on Friday he would hold a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 in Singapore in the latest twist in the high-stakes diplomacy over eliminating Pyongyang's nuclear arms program. Eight days after cancelling the unprecedented summit, citing Pyongyang's "open hostility," Trump welcomed North Korea's former intelligence chief, currently under punitive US&nbspsanctions, to the White House Oval Office, afterwards exchanging smiles and handshakes, patting his arm in a friendly gesture. "Good meeting today. I think it's a great start," Trump said after conferring for about 90 minutes with Kim Yong Chol, who became the first North Korean official to visit the White House in 18 years and who the US&nbsppresident called "the second most powerful man in North Korea." Trump said he expected an eventual "very positive result" with North Korea but dampened expectations for a breakthrough in Singapore. "We`re not going to go in and sign something on June 12th, and we never were," Trump told reporters on the White House lawn. "We`re going to start a process. And I told them today, `Take your time, we can go fast, we can go slowly,` but I think they`d like to see something happen." Trump said it could take several meetings to reach an agreement, but he was convinced that Kim Jong Un was committed to denuclearisation. "He`d like to see it happen," Trump said. It was an extraordinary change in tone from a president who last year threatened to rain "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea because of the threat its nuclear weapons and missiles posed to the United States. Trump even backed away from the words "maximum pressure" that his administration had used to describe its approach to North Korea, combining the toughest-ever US&nbspand international economic sanctions with diplomatic actions and the Republican president`s military threats and preparations. Getting along "We`re getting along, so it`s not a question of maximum pressure," Trump said. "At some point, hopefully ... for the good of millions of people, a deal will be worked out." Trump said one thing that could come out of the summit is an agreement formally ending the 1950-53 Korean War, which was concluded only with a truce, not a peace treaty. "We are going to discuss it prior to the meeting. That`s something that could come out of the meeting," Trump said when asked if a document ending the war was bring prepared. South Korea`s presidential office said on Saturday that the path to the North Korea-US&nbspsummit had become "broader and firmer," and it would calmly yet excitedly watch the historic meeting to be held in Singapore. The visiting North Korean official, linked by US&nbspintelligence to a high-profile cyber attack on Sony Pictures in 2014, delivered a letter from Kim Jong Un to Trump. A White House official said Trump had read the letter but did not reveal its contents. Trump wants North Korea to "denuclearize," meaning to get rid of its nuclear arsenal, in return for relief from economic sanctions. But North Korea`s leadership is believed to regard nuclear weapons as crucial to its survival and has rejected unilaterally disarming. A senior member of Trump`s Republican Party sounded a note of caution. Speaking in Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he expected the North Koreans to make "every effort they can to get sanctions and other relief and give up as little as possible." "For these situations to work, you have to not want the deal too much," McConnell said. "You fall in love with the deal and it`s too important (to) you to get it, and the details become less significant, you could get snookered," McConnell said. North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions have been a source of tension for decades, has made advances in missile technology in recent years but Trump has sworn not to allow it to develop nuclear missiles that could hit the United States. Wall Street took news of the summit`s revival in stride. While Trump sounded conciliatory toward North Korea, Kim used Cold War-style language about Washington during a televised encounter with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Pyongyang on Thursday, referring to "US&nbsphegemonism." Referring to the Lavrov meeting, Trump said he "didn`t like it." Totally over that Trump abruptly called off the summit on May 24 after North Korea sharply criticized US Vice President Mike Pence and Trump`s national security adviser, John Bolton. "I think we`re over that, totally over that," Trump said on Friday. While Trump has put great importance on sealing a nuclear deal with North Korea, and secured the return of three Americans detained there, he has bucked traditional US&nbspforeign policy and alienated America`s European and NATO allies and trading partners. He snubbed France, Germany and Britain by pulling out of a nuclear agreement with Iran and upset the Europeans, as well as neighbors Canada and Mexico, with protectionist trade policies. The North Korean envoy, Kim Yong Chol, was the highest-level figure from the reclusive country to hold talks at the White House since a senior envoy visited former President Bill Clinton in 2000. He is vice chairman of the ruling Workers` Party`s Central Committee. Trump walked the envoy out of the Oval Office to the lawn, posing for photographs as his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, looked on. Trump said North Korea's human rights record was not discussed at the meeting. Kim Yong Chol once served as a bodyguard to the current leader`s father, Kim Jong Il, and was previously chief of the Reconnaissance General Bureau, a North Korean military intelligence agency. In 2015, then-US&nbspdirector of national intelligence James Clapper described Kim Yong Chol as "the guy who ultimately would have to okay the cyber attack against Sony" in 2014. North Korean hackers allegedly infiltrated Sony`s systems and destroyed computers and laptops, apparently in retaliation for the entertainment company`s comedy movie "The Interview" that parodied North Korea`s leadership. Kim Yong Chol has featured on lists of North Korean officials targeted by US&nbspTreasury sanctions, including for supporting his country`s nuclear and missiles programs and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the cyber attack. He was granted special permission to travel to the United States for meetings this week with US&nbspofficials, the State Department said. He was accused by South Korea of masterminding deadly attacks on a South Korean navy ship and an island in 2010. North Korea denied any involvement in those incidents.

In complete reversal, Trump revives summit with North Korean leader

The US and Israel have agreed to continue their close coordination on countering Iran's "malign influence" and destabilising activities, amid Saudi Arabia's change in position on the Jewish nation, the White House said.

US President Donald Trump called Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday and discussed the developments in the Middle East.

Trump's call comes amidst a statement from the Saudi Crown Prince who said Israel has a "right" to a homeland, a shift in Saudi Arabia's position.

"Trump spoke today with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address recent developments in the Middle East," the White House said in a readout of the call.

"President Trump reiterated the commitment of the United States to Israel's security and the two leaders agreed to continue their close coordination on countering Iran's malign influence and destabilising activities," the White House said.

Trump spoke earlier with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who asked the President to promote the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and emphasised Saudi Arabia's support for the creation a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Trump and the Saudi king also discussed the situation in Yemen and Iran's activities across the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and Israel still have no formal diplomatic relations, but improvements in their ties have accelerated in recent years.

Both countries see Iran as their biggest outside threat and the US as their key ally.

Prince Salman said he believes that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation.

"I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land. But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations," he said.

Trump's call comes amidst a statement from the Saudi Crown Prince who said Israel has a "right" to a homeland, a shift in Saudi Arabia's position

The US and Israel have agreed to continue their close coordination on countering Iran's "malign influence" and destabilising activities, amid Saudi Arabia's change in position on the Jewish nation, the White House said. US President Donald Trump called Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday and discussed the developments in the Middle East. Trump's call comes amidst a statement from the Saudi Crown Prince who said Israel has a "right" to a homeland, a shift in Saudi Arabia's position. "Trump spoke today with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address recent developments in the Middle East," the White House said in a readout of the call. "President Trump reiterated the commitment of the United States to Israel's security and the two leaders agreed to continue their close coordination on countering Iran's malign influence and destabilising activities," the White House said. Trump spoke earlier with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who asked the President to promote the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and emphasised Saudi Arabia's support for the creation a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Trump and the Saudi king also discussed the situation in Yemen and Iran's activities across the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Israel still have no formal diplomatic relations, but improvements in their ties have accelerated in recent years. Both countries see Iran as their biggest outside threat and the US as their key ally. Prince Salman said he believes that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. "I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land. But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations," he said.

Trump and Netanyahu confer over recent developments in Israel

By&nbsp;Gary Grappo*&nbsp;

The world can be forgiven for having been whipsawed by Washington&rsquo;s announcement on March 8 that President Donald Trump will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The revelation came after briefings at the White House for the US administration by South Korean officials following South Korean President Moon Jae-in&rsquo;s dispatch of a delegation to Pyongyang for talks with their North Korean counterparts. Those meetings resulted in the invitation from Chairman Kim for the meeting between President Trump and him.

No sitting US president has ever met with a North Korean leader. (Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did but only after leaving office.) The jolting realization that this may now take place &mdash; tentatively scheduled for May &mdash; with a sitting US president who has variously threatened, taunted and excoriated Kim has the foreign policy intelligentsia and US public both flummoxed and leery, and probably just a bit anxious.

Is Donald Trump &mdash; both famous and infamous for his much touted deal-making skills, but also notorious for ignorance of complex foreign policy issues and lack of interest in educating himself &mdash; really up to this? Let&rsquo;s remember, we are talking about two leaders who have both bragged about their nuclear weapons and threatened to use them.

Credit goes to South Korea&rsquo;s President Moon for recognizing and capitalizing on the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic games to encourage North-South dialog. Especially noteworthy is his recognition that any such proposed talks between Trump and Kim would be dead on arrival in Washington without the North&rsquo;s agreement to discuss the &ldquo;d&rdquo; word: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.&nbsp;

Hoping the past isn&#39;t prelude

Let&rsquo;s return to reality. In the past, negotiations have been a tried and true tactic of the North Koreans to extract what they need from the US and the West, only to restart nuclear and missile testing when they got what they wanted. Invariably, their nuclear strategy proceeded almost unabated.

The US and its various negotiating partners, including South Korea, China and Japan, have all had the carpet pulled out from under them every time they&rsquo;ve attempted to negotiate with Pyongyang, including the most recent and short lived in early 2012. North Korea had pledged not to launch satellites in exchange for US and other Western aid. The agreement was abrogated when the North launched a satellite a few short months later to celebrate the centennial birthdate of the country&rsquo;s founder, Kim Il-Sung. And so it has gone, dating back at least to 1993. Ditto on agreements with South Korea, the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Can we expect this time to be any different?

The North is negotiating from a much different vantage point this time. It has nuclear weapons. It also possesses the means to deliver them, most certainly to South Korea and Japan and possibly even the US West Coast. The dynamics are changed, and not to the advantage of the US or its South Korean ally. Moreover, the North&rsquo;s young and ruthless leader &mdash; he ordered the assassination of his half-brother and execution of family members perceived as disloyal or threatening &mdash; has threatened to use them, including against the US. Possessing these weapons with the means to deliver them empowers Kim as never before, giving him leverage his grandfather and father could only have dreamed of. What does he want?&nbsp;

What Kim Jong-un wants

The consensus appears to be that Kim wants the US out of the Korean Peninsula &mdash; i.e., to sever what has been one of Washington&rsquo;s most important alliances with South Korea. Undoubtedly, there are other interests &mdash; official recognition, economic ties with the US and other major economic powers &mdash; besides China, which have taken a hit as of late due to increased sanctions, and the opportunity to appear one-on-one on the world stage with the leader of the world&rsquo;s superpower. There he&rsquo;ll be able to say to the American president, &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve got what you&rsquo;ve got, now let&rsquo;s talk!&rdquo;&nbsp;

This is not a position that a US president has faced since the arms negotiations of the 1970s with the Soviet Union, which roughly qualified as an &ldquo;equal.&rdquo; Nuclear weapons have handed the leader of an impoverished, isolated police state the dream of every dictator: gravitas, respectability and the attention of the U.S. and its president.

Heretofore, Kim has made clear he will not give up his new-found leverage&hellip; ever. This may be mere posturing, but one must still ask: Is he really willing to rid his nation of its nuclear weapons, missiles and supporting infrastructure? And the answer is, only if he gets what he wants&hellip; maybe&nbsp;

Meeting of unknown minds

Further obfuscating an accurate reading of this announced gathering is the personalities of the two principals. In past summits between an American president and his counterpart from any nation, senior State Department and National Security Council officials and experts conducted extensive pre-meeting negotiations so that the main event would be almost a mere formality &mdash; i.e., the handshakes, signings, banquets, toasts and photo ops. Pre-meetings are intended to sort out major issues, identify obstacles, reach preliminary understandings and ensure the ultimate encounter between principals is a satisfactory one. But that hasn&rsquo;t happened this time, presumably at all.

Instead, these talks will be in the hands of two erratic and unpredictable leaders who are not likely to fully and accurately understand the other or the issues and implications. Nor will the issues have been tackled in advance by senior experts. That&rsquo;s a risk.

For his part, Donald Trump places far too much stock in his innate abilities, soi-disant high-functioning gut instincts and business acumen, qualities that have earned him the Oval Office and the unflagging support of a core following within the Republican Party. He places little trust in the expertise and counsel of experts around him. That&rsquo;s a further complicating risk. Luckily for Americans and South Koreans, the more sober-minded South Korean President Moon won&rsquo;t be far away, one presumes, and should help keep the American tethered. Or at least, Americans and South Koreans can hope.

Kim, on the other hand, will face an American president he knows only from media reports and biased and censored information from his eager-to-please intelligence service, loath to tell him anything he may not wish to hear, less they suffer the fate of other disloyal minions. It&rsquo;s impossible to know his mindset in the run-up to this meeting.

All this suggests that despite whatever happy talk emerges from this summit of shock, concrete results may be lacking and, in any event, suspect. It will depend on one ineluctable fact: What is on the mind of Kim Jong-un? For that, the world must place its trust and hopes in an untested, inexperienced president, whose own mind remains a mystery.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

*Gary Grappo is a former US ambassador and a distinguished fellow at the Center for Middle East Studies at the Korbel School for International Studies, University of Denver. 
&nbsp;

The <a href="rel=" target="blank">article</a> was originally published in <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/">Fair Observer</a>

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

Can the world expect substantive achievements to come out of the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong, who will face each other they know only from media reports and biased information from their eager-to-please intelligence services?

By Gary Grappo* The world can be forgiven for having been whipsawed by Washington’s announcement on March 8 that President Donald Trump will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The revelation came after briefings at the White House for the US administration by South Korean officials following South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s dispatch of a delegation to Pyongyang for talks with their North Korean counterparts. Those meetings resulted in the invitation from Chairman Kim for the meeting between President Trump and him. No sitting US president has ever met with a North Korean leader. (Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did but only after leaving office.) The jolting realization that this may now take place — tentatively scheduled for May — with a sitting US president who has variously threatened, taunted and excoriated Kim has the foreign policy intelligentsia and US public both flummoxed and leery, and probably just a bit anxious. Is Donald Trump — both famous and infamous for his much touted deal-making skills, but also notorious for ignorance of complex foreign policy issues and lack of interest in educating himself — really up to this? Let’s remember, we are talking about two leaders who have both bragged about their nuclear weapons and threatened to use them. Credit goes to South Korea’s President Moon for recognizing and capitalizing on the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic games to encourage North-South dialog. Especially noteworthy is his recognition that any such proposed talks between Trump and Kim would be dead on arrival in Washington without the North’s agreement to discuss the “d” word: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Hoping the past isn't prelude Let’s return to reality. In the past, negotiations have been a tried and true tactic of the North Koreans to extract what they need from the US and the West, only to restart nuclear and missile testing when they got what they wanted. Invariably, their nuclear strategy proceeded almost unabated. The US and its various negotiating partners, including South Korea, China and Japan, have all had the carpet pulled out from under them every time they’ve attempted to negotiate with Pyongyang, including the most recent and short lived in early 2012. North Korea had pledged not to launch satellites in exchange for US and other Western aid. The agreement was abrogated when the North launched a satellite a few short months later to celebrate the centennial birthdate of the country’s founder, Kim Il-Sung. And so it has gone, dating back at least to 1993. Ditto on agreements with South Korea, the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Can we expect this time to be any different? The North is negotiating from a much different vantage point this time. It has nuclear weapons. It also possesses the means to deliver them, most certainly to South Korea and Japan and possibly even the US West Coast. The dynamics are changed, and not to the advantage of the US or its South Korean ally. Moreover, the North’s young and ruthless leader — he ordered the assassination of his half-brother and execution of family members perceived as disloyal or threatening — has threatened to use them, including against the US. Possessing these weapons with the means to deliver them empowers Kim as never before, giving him leverage his grandfather and father could only have dreamed of. What does he want? What Kim Jong-un wants The consensus appears to be that Kim wants the US out of the Korean Peninsula — i.e., to sever what has been one of Washington’s most important alliances with South Korea. Undoubtedly, there are other interests — official recognition, economic ties with the US and other major economic powers — besides China, which have taken a hit as of late due to increased sanctions, and the opportunity to appear one-on-one on the world stage with the leader of the world’s superpower. There he’ll be able to say to the American president, “I’ve got what you’ve got, now let’s talk!” This is not a position that a US president has faced since the arms negotiations of the 1970s with the Soviet Union, which roughly qualified as an “equal.” Nuclear weapons have handed the leader of an impoverished, isolated police state the dream of every dictator: gravitas, respectability and the attention of the U.S. and its president. Heretofore, Kim has made clear he will not give up his new-found leverage… ever. This may be mere posturing, but one must still ask: Is he really willing to rid his nation of its nuclear weapons, missiles and supporting infrastructure? And the answer is, only if he gets what he wants… maybe Meeting of unknown minds Further obfuscating an accurate reading of this announced gathering is the personalities of the two principals. In past summits between an American president and his counterpart from any nation, senior State Department and National Security Council officials and experts conducted extensive pre-meeting negotiations so that the main event would be almost a mere formality — i.e., the handshakes, signings, banquets, toasts and photo ops. Pre-meetings are intended to sort out major issues, identify obstacles, reach preliminary understandings and ensure the ultimate encounter between principals is a satisfactory one. But that hasn’t happened this time, presumably at all. Instead, these talks will be in the hands of two erratic and unpredictable leaders who are not likely to fully and accurately understand the other or the issues and implications. Nor will the issues have been tackled in advance by senior experts. That’s a risk. For his part, Donald Trump places far too much stock in his innate abilities, soi-disant high-functioning gut instincts and business acumen, qualities that have earned him the Oval Office and the unflagging support of a core following within the Republican Party. He places little trust in the expertise and counsel of experts around him. That’s a further complicating risk. Luckily for Americans and South Koreans, the more sober-minded South Korean President Moon won’t be far away, one presumes, and should help keep the American tethered. Or at least, Americans and South Koreans can hope. Kim, on the other hand, will face an American president he knows only from media reports and biased and censored information from his eager-to-please intelligence service, loath to tell him anything he may not wish to hear, less they suffer the fate of other disloyal minions. It’s impossible to know his mindset in the run-up to this meeting. All this suggests that despite whatever happy talk emerges from this summit of shock, concrete results may be lacking and, in any event, suspect. It will depend on one ineluctable fact: What is on the mind of Kim Jong-un? For that, the world must place its trust and hopes in an untested, inexperienced president, whose own mind remains a mystery. *Gary Grappo is a former US ambassador and a distinguished fellow at the Center for Middle East Studies at the Korbel School for International Studies, University of Denver. The article was originally published in Fair Observer (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Sneak-peek into Kim Jong's unpredictable mind before meeting Trump

President Donald Trump has made comprehensive immigration reform in the United States one of his key legislative goals.

He&rsquo;s proposed bringing the U.S. immigration system &ldquo;into the 21st century&rdquo; by providing a path to citizenship for some undocumented migrants and by fully securing the country&rsquo;s southern border.

Central to his plans is a merit-based, Canada-style immigration system that would replace the current American system that focuses on family reunification and a diversity lottery.

But is merit-based immigration the simple solution for the complex set of immigration-related issues facing the United States?

Canada&rsquo;s &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; system provides some lessons for the United States. Despite the relative success of the Canadian merit-based system, Canada&rsquo;s experience shows there&rsquo;s no magic bullet.

What does &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; mean?

&ldquo;Merit-based&rdquo; immigration systems are based on the principle of selecting newcomers according to their skills, education, adaptability, language proficiency and overall human capital.

These metrics, proponents argue, allow immigrants to fill specific labour market needs. But they also act as predictors of how a newcomer might adapt to a new social, economic and cultural environment.

Yet the notion of merit is complex, contextual and highly politicised.

All immigration selection programs are rooted in implicit and explicit definitions of merit, whether they&rsquo;re based on economic criteria, ideas of cultural compatibility or family relationships. From that standpoint, all immigration programs are &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; systems.

Current U.S. political debates tend to pit the programs of some countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand against the U.S. system as it exists today.

As several analysts and researchers have shown, however, family ties and social links can also be considered a form of merit, and may have positive impacts on immigrants&rsquo; future contributions to their new home.

Consequently, when it comes to immigration, there is no objective definition of what &ldquo;merit&rdquo; really means.

Merit-based systems have also been criticized for reinforcing global human capital inequalities and for indirectly sorting candidates based on ethnic and cultural origins.

But proponents see merit-based systems as yielding better integration outcomes. They also argue that they allow for better management of immigration levels, build public trust and are more responsive to labour market dynamics.

Trump says the system will help ensure economic growth, economic mobility for both native-born Americans and immigrants and will close the door to unwanted immigrants.

Canada&rsquo;s &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; system

Canada implemented a points system in 1967 in order to move away from origin-based selection of immigrants. Fifty years later, in 2017, Canada admitted 296,346 permanent legal immigrants. About 52 per cent of them entered through different categories of the &ldquo;economic&rdquo; class of the immigration program, Canada&rsquo;s own version of a &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; immigration system.

Under this system, economic immigration candidates are evaluated and ranked using a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS). It&rsquo;s a 100-point selection grid that considers factors such as age, education, work specialization, work experience in Canada and abroad as well as arranged employment in Canada.

Would-be immigrants to Canada are also evaluated for adaptability, measured by elements such as past experiences in Canada, but also by the presence of relatives in the country and their spouses&rsquo; language proficiency.

So even when measuring for &ldquo;merit,&rdquo; the Canadian immigration system does include a recognition of the importance of family ties and social networks.

What&rsquo;s more, not all of the 159,125 individuals who entered Canada through the economic class in 2017 were selected using the economic criteria.

Between 2006 and 2015, only 41 to 49 per cent of these individuals were selected directly based on their potential for contributing to the Canadian economy. The rest of the economic class is comprised of close family members of the main applicant, like spouses and children.

Nonetheless, Canada&rsquo;s experience overall with its immigration program has been positive. Among other benefits, it&rsquo;s been credited with building the Canadian public&rsquo;s support for relatively high immigration levels.

But merit-based immigration programs demand investment into the system, and they may have unintended consequences. Canada&rsquo;s merit-based program provides three important lessons for U.S. policymakers and citizens:

Lesson 1: &ldquo;Merit-based&rdquo; is only the beginning

A central argument by proponents of merit-based immigration is that it will lead to better immigrant integration outcomes.

While that&rsquo;s largely true, a constellation of social and state actions also affect how immigrants fare in their newly adopted homes.

Two are especially important: Immigrant integration services and efforts to find jobs for immigrants.

Canada funds immigrant integration programs that range from language training to information on jobs, bridging programs to jobs and job training. While Canada offers specific social programs for refugees, several services are also available to all classes of permanent immigrants.

Indeed, Canada plans to spend just over $1 billion on immigrant integration services in 2018.

Experience and research have shown these programs are critical to helping merit-based immigrants succeed economically and socially. They also increase immigrants&rsquo; overall sense of belonging to their new society and encourage social participation.

But integration services are not enough: Canada&rsquo;s experience shows that while immigrants selected based on their economic criteria fare better in the labour market than others, many of them still endure economic difficulties.

Underemployment, trouble entering the labour market and the need to go back to school, despite having university degrees, are all too common experiences for Canadian immigrants even if they meet the &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; criteria.

Skills-based immigration programs can easily run amok if the labour market can&rsquo;t accommodate foreign education and skills credentials. As a consequence, both Canada&rsquo;s federal and provincial governments have had to invest in educating employers &mdash; and are still working to create and enforce standards for foreign skills recognition.

Canada&rsquo;s experience proves that a merit-based system demands much more than simply choosing &ldquo;the right&rdquo; immigrants. Governments must invest in supporting them once they&rsquo;ve been admitted.

Lesson 2: Immigrants &amp; labour market needs

Matching the demands of the labour market to new immigrants is a challenge. That&rsquo;s due in part to the difference between the speed at which labour markets evolve and how quickly an immigration system can operate to bring job-ready candidates to any given country and employer.

The challenge is compounded by popular and political ideas about who is an &ldquo;ideal&rdquo; economic immigrant &mdash; for example, a doctor or an engineer &mdash; and the actual labour needs of the country.

In the last 30 years, those types of disconnects have been a constant test in Canada but also in other countries.

In the early 1990s, the Canadian government&rsquo;s preferred solution was to select immigrants based on predictions about their capacity to adapt to a changing labour market. To do so, they used human capital as the main merit criterion. That had several unintended effects, including the underemployment of many immigrants and labour shortages in several technical sectors.

Since then, the Canadian government has made a move towards a more demand-based model, and provides provinces and territories as well as employers with a bigger say in the selection system.

More recently, the system was again amended to reintroduce human capital factors because the immigrants selected by the demand-driven model were not considered skilled enough.

Canada&rsquo;s experience is one of a tug of war between planning for long-term labour needs and short-term labour supply.

Despite these adjustments, current Canadian programs still struggle to address the needs of labour markets that are increasingly divided between the need for high-skilled versus low-skilled workers, like those in short supply in the service sector.

Consequently, Canada relies increasingly on temporary immigration to meet market demands. In the last 10 years, the number of so-called temporary foreign workers has grown tremendously, as have concerns about worker abuses and overall precarity.

And despite reforms aimed at providing temporary workers a path to permanent residency, the need for those low-skilled labourers runs counter to the long-term social and economic objective of Canada&rsquo;s merit-based system.

What is &ldquo;best&rdquo; for the economy, and what types of immigrants are most needed, often eschews simple answers.

Lesson 3: The need for bureaucrats

Trust in the bureaucracy is critical to a successful merit-based system. Any immigrant-selection system relies on a comprehensive, technical method of assessing would-be newcomers, the gathering of information on the labour market and on global migration trends, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of programs.

On the ground, considerable work is required to assess individual applications based on merit criteria. While technology makes these tasks easier than before, well-trained public servants and well-funded public infrastructure are needed. 
In Canada and elsewhere, government workers use research, field expertise and discretion to assess applicants. The need for accurate data along with the complexity of these programs often make elected officials dependent on the expertise and advice of public servants.

Bureaucrats are uniquely positioned to see the negative consequences of selection programs, and to propose innovative solutions based on their hands-on experience.

What&rsquo;s more, experiments that have involved employers in immigrant selection programs remain inconclusive. While they remain important partners, bureaucrats still have the advantage over employers in assessing immigrants.

The move to merit-based systems often politicize not only overall immigration levels, but also the very definition of &ldquo;merit.&rdquo;

The cacophony of partisan advice and political opinion on these often highly technical assessments of immigrants means it&rsquo;s crucial to have reliable data on immigration and unbiased analysis. The trust of Canadian elected officials in the country&rsquo;s immigration bureaucracy is one of the secret ingredients of its success.

Hardly a &lsquo;magic bullet&rsquo;

A merit-based immigration might address some of America&rsquo;s immigration challenges.

But it could also have negative consequences, especially as long as state-funded integration services remain comparatively limited and not accessible to all immigrants in the U.S..

The U.S. government will also need work to ensure that the immigrants it selects will respond to the actual labour market needs of its diverse economy. The distrust the Trump administration clearly harbours towards the American federal bureaucracy might also create considerable challenges to the design and implementation of a merit-based system.

Canada&rsquo;s experience shows that selecting immigrants based on economic merit is not a silver bullet. Finding the &ldquo;right&rdquo; immigrants is the only one step in a large group of government actions that support immigrants and the country overall.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Canada's experience shows that selecting immigrants based on economic merit is not a silver bullet; finding the "right" immigrants is the only the first step.

President Donald Trump has made comprehensive immigration reform in the United States one of his key legislative goals. He’s proposed bringing the U.S. immigration system “into the 21st century” by providing a path to citizenship for some undocumented migrants and by fully securing the country’s southern border. Central to his plans is a merit-based, Canada-style immigration system that would replace the current American system that focuses on family reunification and a diversity lottery. But is merit-based immigration the simple solution for the complex set of immigration-related issues facing the United States? Canada’s “merit-based” system provides some lessons for the United States. Despite the relative success of the Canadian merit-based system, Canada’s experience shows there’s no magic bullet. What does “merit-based” mean? “Merit-based” immigration systems are based on the principle of selecting newcomers according to their skills, education, adaptability, language proficiency and overall human capital. These metrics, proponents argue, allow immigrants to fill specific labour market needs. But they also act as predictors of how a newcomer might adapt to a new social, economic and cultural environment. Yet the notion of merit is complex, contextual and highly politicised. All immigration selection programs are rooted in implicit and explicit definitions of merit, whether they’re based on economic criteria, ideas of cultural compatibility or family relationships. From that standpoint, all immigration programs are “merit-based” systems. Current U.S. political debates tend to pit the programs of some countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand against the U.S. system as it exists today. As several analysts and researchers have shown, however, family ties and social links can also be considered a form of merit, and may have positive impacts on immigrants’ future contributions to their new home. Consequently, when it comes to immigration, there is no objective definition of what “merit” really means. Merit-based systems have also been criticized for reinforcing global human capital inequalities and for indirectly sorting candidates based on ethnic and cultural origins. But proponents see merit-based systems as yielding better integration outcomes. They also argue that they allow for better management of immigration levels, build public trust and are more responsive to labour market dynamics. Trump says the system will help ensure economic growth, economic mobility for both native-born Americans and immigrants and will close the door to unwanted immigrants. Canada’s “merit-based” system Canada implemented a points system in 1967 in order to move away from origin-based selection of immigrants. Fifty years later, in 2017, Canada admitted 296,346 permanent legal immigrants. About 52 per cent of them entered through different categories of the “economic” class of the immigration program, Canada’s own version of a “merit-based” immigration system. Under this system, economic immigration candidates are evaluated and ranked using a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS). It’s a 100-point selection grid that considers factors such as age, education, work specialization, work experience in Canada and abroad as well as arranged employment in Canada. Would-be immigrants to Canada are also evaluated for adaptability, measured by elements such as past experiences in Canada, but also by the presence of relatives in the country and their spouses’ language proficiency. So even when measuring for “merit,” the Canadian immigration system does include a recognition of the importance of family ties and social networks. What’s more, not all of the 159,125 individuals who entered Canada through the economic class in 2017 were selected using the economic criteria. Between 2006 and 2015, only 41 to 49 per cent of these individuals were selected directly based on their potential for contributing to the Canadian economy. The rest of the economic class is comprised of close family members of the main applicant, like spouses and children. Nonetheless, Canada’s experience overall with its immigration program has been positive. Among other benefits, it’s been credited with building the Canadian public’s support for relatively high immigration levels. But merit-based immigration programs demand investment into the system, and they may have unintended consequences. Canada’s merit-based program provides three important lessons for U.S. policymakers and citizens: Lesson 1: “Merit-based” is only the beginning A central argument by proponents of merit-based immigration is that it will lead to better immigrant integration outcomes. While that’s largely true, a constellation of social and state actions also affect how immigrants fare in their newly adopted homes. Two are especially important: Immigrant integration services and efforts to find jobs for immigrants. Canada funds immigrant integration programs that range from language training to information on jobs, bridging programs to jobs and job training. While Canada offers specific social programs for refugees, several services are also available to all classes of permanent immigrants. Indeed, Canada plans to spend just over $1 billion on immigrant integration services in 2018. Experience and research have shown these programs are critical to helping merit-based immigrants succeed economically and socially. They also increase immigrants’ overall sense of belonging to their new society and encourage social participation. But integration services are not enough: Canada’s experience shows that while immigrants selected based on their economic criteria fare better in the labour market than others, many of them still endure economic difficulties. Underemployment, trouble entering the labour market and the need to go back to school, despite having university degrees, are all too common experiences for Canadian immigrants even if they meet the “merit-based” criteria. Skills-based immigration programs can easily run amok if the labour market can’t accommodate foreign education and skills credentials. As a consequence, both Canada’s federal and provincial governments have had to invest in educating employers — and are still working to create and enforce standards for foreign skills recognition. Canada’s experience proves that a merit-based system demands much more than simply choosing “the right” immigrants. Governments must invest in supporting them once they’ve been admitted. Lesson 2: Immigrants & labour market needs Matching the demands of the labour market to new immigrants is a challenge. That’s due in part to the difference between the speed at which labour markets evolve and how quickly an immigration system can operate to bring job-ready candidates to any given country and employer. The challenge is compounded by popular and political ideas about who is an “ideal” economic immigrant — for example, a doctor or an engineer — and the actual labour needs of the country. In the last 30 years, those types of disconnects have been a constant test in Canada but also in other countries. In the early 1990s, the Canadian government’s preferred solution was to select immigrants based on predictions about their capacity to adapt to a changing labour market. To do so, they used human capital as the main merit criterion. That had several unintended effects, including the underemployment of many immigrants and labour shortages in several technical sectors. Since then, the Canadian government has made a move towards a more demand-based model, and provides provinces and territories as well as employers with a bigger say in the selection system. More recently, the system was again amended to reintroduce human capital factors because the immigrants selected by the demand-driven model were not considered skilled enough. Canada’s experience is one of a tug of war between planning for long-term labour needs and short-term labour supply. Despite these adjustments, current Canadian programs still struggle to address the needs of labour markets that are increasingly divided between the need for high-skilled versus low-skilled workers, like those in short supply in the service sector. Consequently, Canada relies increasingly on temporary immigration to meet market demands. In the last 10 years, the number of so-called temporary foreign workers has grown tremendously, as have concerns about worker abuses and overall precarity. And despite reforms aimed at providing temporary workers a path to permanent residency, the need for those low-skilled labourers runs counter to the long-term social and economic objective of Canada’s merit-based system. What is “best” for the economy, and what types of immigrants are most needed, often eschews simple answers. Lesson 3: The need for bureaucrats Trust in the bureaucracy is critical to a successful merit-based system. Any immigrant-selection system relies on a comprehensive, technical method of assessing would-be newcomers, the gathering of information on the labour market and on global migration trends, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of programs. On the ground, considerable work is required to assess individual applications based on merit criteria. While technology makes these tasks easier than before, well-trained public servants and well-funded public infrastructure are needed. In Canada and elsewhere, government workers use research, field expertise and discretion to assess applicants. The need for accurate data along with the complexity of these programs often make elected officials dependent on the expertise and advice of public servants. Bureaucrats are uniquely positioned to see the negative consequences of selection programs, and to propose innovative solutions based on their hands-on experience. What’s more, experiments that have involved employers in immigrant selection programs remain inconclusive. While they remain important partners, bureaucrats still have the advantage over employers in assessing immigrants. The move to merit-based systems often politicize not only overall immigration levels, but also the very definition of “merit.” The cacophony of partisan advice and political opinion on these often highly technical assessments of immigrants means it’s crucial to have reliable data on immigration and unbiased analysis. The trust of Canadian elected officials in the country’s immigration bureaucracy is one of the secret ingredients of its success. Hardly a ‘magic bullet’ A merit-based immigration might address some of America’s immigration challenges. But it could also have negative consequences, especially as long as state-funded integration services remain comparatively limited and not accessible to all immigrants in the U.S.. The U.S. government will also need work to ensure that the immigrants it selects will respond to the actual labour market needs of its diverse economy. The distrust the Trump administration clearly harbours towards the American federal bureaucracy might also create considerable challenges to the design and implementation of a merit-based system. Canada’s experience shows that selecting immigrants based on economic merit is not a silver bullet. Finding the “right” immigrants is the only one step in a large group of government actions that support immigrants and the country overall. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What Canada's Merit-based immigration can teach Trump administration

&nbsp;

By&nbsp;Alexey<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexey-d-muraviev-13913" rel="author"> </a>D Muraviev*

Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be.

So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US&rsquo; ambitions to retain its rules-based global order.

Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia&rsquo;s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas.

Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific.

But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty.

The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence.&nbsp;

Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia&rsquo;s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life.

Putin wants for Russia a &ldquo;place under the sun&rdquo;: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia&rsquo;s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that.

On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda.

On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda &ndash; a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today.

Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery.

That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce.

Russia&rsquo;s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year&rsquo;s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia&rsquo;s regional geoeconomics.&nbsp;

The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia&rsquo;s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales.

Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia.

Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience &ndash; the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard.

As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism.

Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia&rsquo;s strategic nuclear and conventional military might.

Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost &ndash; and, more importantly, full political support.

Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world&rsquo;s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems.

From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia&rsquo;s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda.

In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower.

But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order.

&nbsp;

* Alexey<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexey-d-muraviev-13913" rel="author"> </a>D Muraviev is Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies, Curtin University

<section>&nbsp;</section>

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower.

By Alexey D Muraviev* Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be. So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US’ ambitions to retain its rules-based global order. Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia’s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas. Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific. But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty. The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence. Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia’s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life. Putin wants for Russia a “place under the sun”: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia’s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that. On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda. On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda – a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today. Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery. That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce. Russia’s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year’s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia’s regional geoeconomics. The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia’s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales. Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia. Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience – the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard. As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism. Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia’s strategic nuclear and conventional military might. Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost – and, more importantly, full political support. Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world’s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems. From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia’s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda. In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower. But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order. * Alexey D Muraviev is Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies, Curtin University (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Does Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower?

Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be.

So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US&rsquo; ambitions to retain its rules-based global order.&nbsp;

Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia&rsquo;s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas.&nbsp;

Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific.&nbsp;

But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty.&nbsp;

The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence.&nbsp;

Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia&rsquo;s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life.&nbsp;

Putin wants for Russia a &ldquo;place under the sun&rdquo;: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia&rsquo;s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that.

On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda.

On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda &ndash; a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today.

Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery.

That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce.&nbsp;

Russia&rsquo;s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year&rsquo;s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia&rsquo;s regional geoeconomics.&nbsp;

The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia&rsquo;s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales.

Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia.

Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience &ndash; the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard.&nbsp;

As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism.

Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia&rsquo;s strategic nuclear and conventional military might.

Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost &ndash; and, more importantly, full political support.

Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world&rsquo;s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems.

From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia&rsquo;s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda.

In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower.

But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be. So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US’ ambitions to retain its rules-based global order. Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia’s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas. Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific. But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty. The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence. Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia’s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life. Putin wants for Russia a “place under the sun”: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia’s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that. On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda. On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda – a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today. Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery. That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce. Russia’s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year’s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia’s regional geoeconomics. The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia’s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales. Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia. Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience – the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard. As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism. Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia’s strategic nuclear and conventional military might. Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost – and, more importantly, full political support. Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world’s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems. From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia’s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda. In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower. But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Russia not so much a (re)rising superpower as a skilled strategic spoiler

US President Donald Trump is known as a social media-&#39;friendly&#39; leader, &nbsp;who tweets on just about everything.&nbsp;

But, as people have been pointing out, he has said nothing so far about Team USA at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games.&nbsp;

The United States of America is currently competing at the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, which began on February 9 and will go on to February 25, 2018.

The US is often a top contender at the Winter Olympic games and has a number of gold-medal favourites.

Trump sent a pair of tweets last week about the games that opened Friday in Pyeongchang, South Korea. Both complimented the host country.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congratulations to the Republic of Korea on what will be a MAGNIFICENT Winter Olympics! What the South Korean people have built is truly an inspiration! <a href="https://t.co/giN2B1h6Ph">pic.twitter.com/giN2B1h6Ph</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/961362249880252416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Best wishes to the Republic of Korea on hosting the <a href="https://twitter.com/Olympics?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Olympics</a>! What a wonderful opportunity to show everyone that you are a truly GREAT NATION! <a href="https://t.co/aboM2Up48y">pic.twitter.com/aboM2Up48y</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/961298788219420672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2018</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">&times;</a></div>

Vice President Mike Pence returned to Washington late Saturday after leading a US delegation to Friday&#39;s opening ceremony.

Trump&#39;s daughter, Ivanka Trump, who serves as an unpaid adviser to her father, is on tap to lead a delegation to the February 25 closing ceremony.

Trump&#39;s silence on the Pyeongchang Games mirrors his relative lack of comment during the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He sent one tweet wishing the athletes good luck.

The United States of America is currently competing at the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, from February 9 to 25, 2018

US President Donald Trump is known as a social media-'friendly' leader, who tweets on just about everything. But, as people have been pointing out, he has said nothing so far about Team USA at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games. The United States of America is currently competing at the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, which began on February 9 and will go on to February 25, 2018. The US is often a top contender at the Winter Olympic games and has a number of gold-medal favourites. Trump sent a pair of tweets last week about the games that opened Friday in Pyeongchang, South Korea. Both complimented the host country. Congratulations to the Republic of Korea on what will be a MAGNIFICENT Winter Olympics! What the South Korean people have built is truly an inspiration! pic.twitter.com/giN2B1h6Ph — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 7, 2018 × Best wishes to the Republic of Korea on hosting the @Olympics! What a wonderful opportunity to show everyone that you are a truly GREAT NATION! pic.twitter.com/aboM2Up48y — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 7, 2018 × Vice President Mike Pence returned to Washington late Saturday after leading a US delegation to Friday's opening ceremony. Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, who serves as an unpaid adviser to her father, is on tap to lead a delegation to the February 25 closing ceremony. Trump's silence on the Pyeongchang Games mirrors his relative lack of comment during the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He sent one tweet wishing the athletes good luck.

Donald Trump is tweeting about everything except Team USA at Winter Olympics

A telephone call on Friday between U.S. and Turkish leaders marked a turning point in strained relations between the two countries, but Washington must honor a pledge to end weapons provisions to Syrian Kurdish fighters, Turkey said on Monday.

&quot;The &#39;We will not give weapons&#39; remarks from a U.S. president for the first time is important, but it will lose value if it is not implemented. It would be deceiving the world,&quot; Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said.

The White House said on Friday that U.S. President Donald Trump informed Turkey&#39;s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Washington was adjusting the military support to partners on the ground in Syria.

The Syrian Kurdish YPG spearheads the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias fighting Islamic State with the help of a U.S.-led coalition.

A spokesperson for the coalition said on Sunday that it was looking at &quot;adjustments&quot; to the support it provides to the SDF, ranging from the number of advisers to training and artillery.

Weapons provided to Syrian YPG have been limited and mission specific, the spokesperson added.

Ankara has been infuriated by Washington&#39;s support for the YPG militia, seen by Turkey as an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has fought a decades-long insurgency in Turkey and is designated a terrorist group by Ankara, the United States, and European Union.

'The 'We will not give weapons' remarks from a U.S. president for the first time is important, but it will lose value if it is not implemented. It would be deceiving the world,' said the Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag

A telephone call on Friday between U.S. and Turkish leaders marked a turning point in strained relations between the two countries, but Washington must honor a pledge to end weapons provisions to Syrian Kurdish fighters, Turkey said on Monday. "The 'We will not give weapons' remarks from a U.S. president for the first time is important, but it will lose value if it is not implemented. It would be deceiving the world," Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag said. The White House said on Friday that U.S. President Donald Trump informed Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Washington was adjusting the military support to partners on the ground in Syria. The Syrian Kurdish YPG spearheads the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias fighting Islamic State with the help of a U.S.-led coalition. A spokesperson for the coalition said on Sunday that it was looking at "adjustments" to the support it provides to the SDF, ranging from the number of advisers to training and artillery. Weapons provided to Syrian YPG have been limited and mission specific, the spokesperson added. Ankara has been infuriated by Washington's support for the YPG militia, seen by Turkey as an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has fought a decades-long insurgency in Turkey and is designated a terrorist group by Ankara, the United States, and European Union.

Trump must keep pledge on not arming YPG militia: Turkey

It is not important what Donald Trump achieved by accepting the invitation for the red-carpet gala reception from Xi Jinping during his short tour to China: it is rather, what China gained by offering a grand reception to the American President.

If the outcome of the Trump-Xi meet has to be read carefully this week, a lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China&rsquo;s favour that the world will not afford to ignore.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>A lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China&rsquo;s favour that the world will not afford to ignore.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=A lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China?s favour that the world will not afford to ignore." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Trump&rsquo;s visit to China has perhaps lead to a new beginning in Sino-US relations.

Though the contours of this new beginning are yet to be well-defined, it has positioned the Sino-US relationships within a new framework while acknowledging each other as &lsquo;deciders&rsquo; of global politics in a complex international environment. This seems to be emerging as the fundamental premise.

The moot point of this premise is to manage the looming global challenges, from North Korea to terrorism to climate change, within a shared framework. Though it is too early to assume that the Sino-US relations will progress within a shared framework, but there are references in Xi&rsquo;s and Trump&rsquo;s speech that can&rsquo;t be overlooked completely.

For President Xi Jinping, the development of both China and the United States are &ldquo;mutually reinforcing&rdquo;. Donald Trump on a reciprocal note has stated that the United States would like to build a &ldquo;stronger relationship&rdquo; with China. These expressions probably point to their rhetorical political skills, but underlying these affirmations are a recognition that the United States needs the support of China and vice-versa. Importantly, this recognition comes at a time when both have emerged as the largest economies in the world and continue to lead the global economy as two key &ldquo;engines of global economic growth&rdquo;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Trump-Xi meet witnessed both discussing a set of same old issues, bilateral and global, that have troubled the Sino-US relations for decades. Bilateral issues, such as the American demand to have greater access in the Chinese market, particularly in the field of financial sectors, addressing the trade imbalance that exists in China&rsquo;s favour and to work towards a closer economic cooperation. A US$ 250 billion two-way investment proposal and commercial deals were also the highlights of Trump&rsquo;s discussion with Xi.

The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit. Simply discussing these issues at a political level were not a big attainment. Most of these discussions between Trump and Xi were confined to forging a cooperative understanding between each other. However, a concrete set of agreements to address the American trade deficit with China and how to forge a better market access in China is still missing. Trump-Xi meet has promised to have a more keen understanding between the two countries on these bilaterally economic-centric issues which may mark a new beginning to their relationship.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Forging these bilateral-centric understanding with China was important to American interest since Trump is continuously trying to impress the domestic constituency in the United States by creating jobs and growth in United States economy. Addressing trade deficit, and having better Chinese market access will help Trump to create more jobs in the United States. More than Trump advancing American interest, Xi Jinping seems to have struck a better deal with Trump while discussing these bilaterally economic-centric issues.

To formulate a better economic cooperation, address the trade imbalance, and market access among other impending issues, the Chinese President pointed that both sides need to have a practical understanding on key areas, including on the flagship &lsquo;Belt and Road Initiative&rsquo; (BRI), to enhance cooperation. This is a significant development since China wants to gather an open American support on the BRI. By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI.

Besides, this is a Chinese strategy to characterise the next phase of Sino-US economic cooperation within the belt and road framework. That meansChina would not like to move ahead on core bilateral issues, particularly in relation to the Sino-US trade conflict without a formal endorsement from the United States over &lsquo;Belt and Road Initiative&rsquo; (BRI).

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

A new beginning was also noticed in Sino-US relations on managing the global affairs, particularly the international security environment. Tackling global terrorism, bringing stability in Afghanistan, meeting the climate change challenges could be the crucial aspects of Trump-Xi meet, but these are old issues.

The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now. Both Trump and Xi expressed their mutual commitment over &ldquo;complete denuclearisation&rdquo; of North Korea.

Strikingly, both expressed concern over the deteriorating security conditions in Northeast Asia and how the international community must generate a consensus to tackle nuclear North Korea. Discussion over North Korea is not a new topic of discussion between China and the United States. But to have a virtual understanding to handle the North Korean issue maturely is certainly an important development which puts China in a respectable position as the determining power on the northeast Asian security.

Trump&rsquo;s visit to China may not have offered anything new to the Sino-US relations. But a subtle change is noticed in their relationship which is more advantageous to China and that marks to a new beginning. This change is more noticed in their bilateral engagement where the Chinese are slowly projecting themselves as a peer-partner of the United States. This points to also a scenario that the Sino-US ties are moving towards a more engaging relationship factoring the &lsquo;Belt and Road Initiative&rsquo; (BRI) of Beijing where the United States would be required to pursue a more consultative relationship with China no matter how much the US strategic community might like to repudiate.

More than Trump advancing American interest, Xi Jinping seems to have struck a better deal with Trump.

It is not important what Donald Trump achieved by accepting the invitation for the red-carpet gala reception from Xi Jinping during his short tour to China: it is rather, what China gained by offering a grand reception to the American President. If the outcome of the Trump-Xi meet has to be read carefully this week, a lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China’s favour that the world will not afford to ignore. A lot is changing in Sino-US relations, especially to China’s favour that the world will not afford to ignore. × Trump’s visit to China has perhaps lead to a new beginning in Sino-US relations. Though the contours of this new beginning are yet to be well-defined, it has positioned the Sino-US relationships within a new framework while acknowledging each other as ‘deciders’ of global politics in a complex international environment. This seems to be emerging as the fundamental premise. The moot point of this premise is to manage the looming global challenges, from North Korea to terrorism to climate change, within a shared framework. Though it is too early to assume that the Sino-US relations will progress within a shared framework, but there are references in Xi’s and Trump’s speech that can’t be overlooked completely. For President Xi Jinping, the development of both China and the United States are “mutually reinforcing”. Donald Trump on a reciprocal note has stated that the United States would like to build a “stronger relationship” with China. These expressions probably point to their rhetorical political skills, but underlying these affirmations are a recognition that the United States needs the support of China and vice-versa. Importantly, this recognition comes at a time when both have emerged as the largest economies in the world and continue to lead the global economy as two key “engines of global economic growth”. The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit. × Trump-Xi meet witnessed both discussing a set of same old issues, bilateral and global, that have troubled the Sino-US relations for decades. Bilateral issues, such as the American demand to have greater access in the Chinese market, particularly in the field of financial sectors, addressing the trade imbalance that exists in China’s favour and to work towards a closer economic cooperation. A US$ 250 billion two-way investment proposal and commercial deals were also the highlights of Trump’s discussion with Xi. The US trade deficit with China which is around US$350 billion has been a thorn in the flesh which Trump addressed maturely without blaming China much during his visit. Simply discussing these issues at a political level were not a big attainment. Most of these discussions between Trump and Xi were confined to forging a cooperative understanding between each other. However, a concrete set of agreements to address the American trade deficit with China and how to forge a better market access in China is still missing. Trump-Xi meet has promised to have a more keen understanding between the two countries on these bilaterally economic-centric issues which may mark a new beginning to their relationship. By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI. × Forging these bilateral-centric understanding with China was important to American interest since Trump is continuously trying to impress the domestic constituency in the United States by creating jobs and growth in United States economy. Addressing trade deficit, and having better Chinese market access will help Trump to create more jobs in the United States. More than Trump advancing American interest, Xi Jinping seems to have struck a better deal with Trump while discussing these bilaterally economic-centric issues. To formulate a better economic cooperation, address the trade imbalance, and market access among other impending issues, the Chinese President pointed that both sides need to have a practical understanding on key areas, including on the flagship ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI), to enhance cooperation. This is a significant development since China wants to gather an open American support on the BRI. By gaining an open American support, China can convince the international community better about the merits of the BRI. Besides, this is a Chinese strategy to characterise the next phase of Sino-US economic cooperation within the belt and road framework. That meansChina would not like to move ahead on core bilateral issues, particularly in relation to the Sino-US trade conflict without a formal endorsement from the United States over ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI). The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now. × A new beginning was also noticed in Sino-US relations on managing the global affairs, particularly the international security environment. Tackling global terrorism, bringing stability in Afghanistan, meeting the climate change challenges could be the crucial aspects of Trump-Xi meet, but these are old issues. The highpoint of the Trump-Xi meet was the concrete discussion over North Korea which has been a prickly issue between them for some time now. Both Trump and Xi expressed their mutual commitment over “complete denuclearisation” of North Korea. Strikingly, both expressed concern over the deteriorating security conditions in Northeast Asia and how the international community must generate a consensus to tackle nuclear North Korea. Discussion over North Korea is not a new topic of discussion between China and the United States. But to have a virtual understanding to handle the North Korean issue maturely is certainly an important development which puts China in a respectable position as the determining power on the northeast Asian security. Trump’s visit to China may not have offered anything new to the Sino-US relations. But a subtle change is noticed in their relationship which is more advantageous to China and that marks to a new beginning. This change is more noticed in their bilateral engagement where the Chinese are slowly projecting themselves as a peer-partner of the United States. This points to also a scenario that the Sino-US ties are moving towards a more engaging relationship factoring the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) of Beijing where the United States would be required to pursue a more consultative relationship with China no matter how much the US strategic community might like to repudiate.

Over Trump-Xi meet, China seeks US approval for OBOR

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/sexual-harassment-charges-against-donald-trump-what-south-asian-women-think-8245" target="_blank">Donald Trump</a>&#39;s campaign has been subpoenaed as part of a defamation suit for documents related to<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-faces-new-sexual-assault-claims-7484" target="_blank"> sexual assault allegations that emerged during his run for president</a>, according to a court document.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/woman-sues-trump-for-defamation-over-sexual-assault-denial-11411" target="_blank">lawsuit by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump&#39;s reality TV show &quot;The Apprentice</a>,&quot; says he made &quot;numerous false, defamatory statements&quot; in response to her allegations that he tried to kiss and grope her without her consent.

The subpoena, which was issued in March but filed September 19, directs the Trump campaign and its affiliates to hand over documents on Zervos and her associates as well as on &quot;any woman alleging that Donald J. Trump touched her inappropriately.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The subpoena, which was issued in March but filed September 19, directs the Trump campaign and its affiliates to hand over documents on Zervos and her associates as well as on &#39;any woman alleging that Donald J Trump touched her inappropriately&#39;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The subpoena, which was issued in March but filed September 19, directs the Trump campaign and its affiliates to hand over documents on Zervos and her associates as well as on 'any woman alleging that Donald J Trump touched her inappropriately'" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

It also seeks documents on &quot;any accusations&quot; made during Trump&#39;s election campaign that he &quot;subjected any woman to unwanted sexual touching and/or sexually inappropriate behavior,&quot; and on the president&#39;s responses to allegations against him.

The subpoena, which previously not been made public, was first reported by BuzzFeed News.

Zervos said last year that Trump had made unwanted sexual advances toward her when she met him at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles in 2007 to discuss career opportunities.

Trump moved toward her aggressively during the encounter and touched her on the breast but she rebuffed him, she alleged.

Zervos and several other women who made similar allegations came forward after a 2005 videotape of Trump bragging about groping women surfaced in early October.

The president-elect claimed his comments on the tape were &quot;locker-room banter,&quot; and denounced the sex assault allegations as lies and fabricated stories.

According to Zervos&#39; suit, &quot;Mr Trump became obsessed with calling Ms Zervos and any other woman who came forward to report his abuse liars with improper motives.&quot;

Trump is a &quot;liar and misogynist&quot; who has &quot;debased and denigrated Zervos with false statements about her,&quot; the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit by Summer Zervos says Trump made 'numerous false, defamatory statements' in response to her allegations that he tried to kiss and grope her without her consent

Donald Trump's campaign has been subpoenaed as part of a defamation suit for documents related to sexual assault allegations that emerged during his run for president, according to a court document. The lawsuit by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on Trump's reality TV show "The Apprentice," says he made "numerous false, defamatory statements" in response to her allegations that he tried to kiss and grope her without her consent. The subpoena, which was issued in March but filed September 19, directs the Trump campaign and its affiliates to hand over documents on Zervos and her associates as well as on "any woman alleging that Donald J. Trump touched her inappropriately." The subpoena, which was issued in March but filed September 19, directs the Trump campaign and its affiliates to hand over documents on Zervos and her associates as well as on 'any woman alleging that Donald J Trump touched her inappropriately' × It also seeks documents on "any accusations" made during Trump's election campaign that he "subjected any woman to unwanted sexual touching and/or sexually inappropriate behavior," and on the president's responses to allegations against him. The subpoena, which previously not been made public, was first reported by BuzzFeed News. Zervos said last year that Trump had made unwanted sexual advances toward her when she met him at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles in 2007 to discuss career opportunities. Trump moved toward her aggressively during the encounter and touched her on the breast but she rebuffed him, she alleged. Zervos and several other women who made similar allegations came forward after a 2005 videotape of Trump bragging about groping women surfaced in early October. The president-elect claimed his comments on the tape were "locker-room banter," and denounced the sex assault allegations as lies and fabricated stories. According to Zervos' suit, "Mr Trump became obsessed with calling Ms Zervos and any other woman who came forward to report his abuse liars with improper motives." Trump is a "liar and misogynist" who has "debased and denigrated Zervos with false statements about her," the lawsuit says.

Trump campaign subpoenaed for documents on assault allegations

Why does Donald Trump matter?&nbsp;What factors seem to explain the flourishing of a Trump political brand?

There are several possible factors that show the contingent nature of Trump the brand politician. One, the rise of the everyday white middle class, if not working white man&rsquo;s frustrations with elite Washington politics. Then there&rsquo;s the dysfunction, if not corruption, of the US two-party system&mdash;especially the Republican Party&mdash;that now makes it difficult to distinguish between the two since both are rooted in neoliberal politics relying on market mechanisms to control state &ldquo;democratic&rdquo; institutions and vice versa.

Rising <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/">income and wealth inequalities</a> across segments of the declining middle class, the growth of conservative media outlets since the 1980s&mdash;especially Rupert Murdoch&rsquo;s business ventures&mdash;and the expanding campaign finance system that opens the powerful moneyed interests have all played a part. As do the return of identity politics over recognition and redistribution from the left and right&mdash;the political fights and white backlash over affirmative action, Black Lives Matter and the struggles over the classification system, leading to what I&nbsp;call a cultural war over taxonomy as politics for defining citizenship, civic worth and social entitlements.

The growth of the post-9/11 national security state putting an end to 1990s &ldquo;politically correct&rdquo; rhetoric and thus affording the &ldquo;othering&rdquo; of American citizens; the expansion of new media technologies like social media, allowing direct access to different people, ideas and public spaces, channels and potential markets for more self-advertising campaigns; and the upsurge of partisanship at all levels resulting in economic stagnation and congressional polarisation, among other stalemates, such as stalling Supreme Court nominees.

All these factors have elevated Trump beyond his wildest dreams, extending his reality-show persona into everyday political spaces, providing a public forum with audiences open&mdash;or perhaps vulnerable&mdash;to his brand of self-assertiveness seen through his exaggerated stories of success and political &ldquo;outsider&rdquo; claims.

GETTING DONALD TRUMP WRONG

Most social critics, media pundits, academics and political analysts have gotten Trump wrong. It is not even so much about the rise of Donald Trump. Rather, the ground he has occupied all these years has shifted to favour his kind of personalised, rhetorical and hyperbolic style of brand politics. We should think of the Trump phenomenon, or brand Trump, not as rising but rather more accurately as thriving within shifted social, political and economic environments.

Just consider his consistent anti-elite party position since the 1980s, or his opposition to Ronald Reagan&rsquo;s immigration policies (amnesty) and various critiques of&nbsp;George H.W. Bush&rsquo;s tax plans, Bill Clinton&rsquo;s trade deals (NAFTA) and George W. Bush&rsquo;s foreign policy (the so-called Bush Doctrine).

These changes over the past 30 years have made relevant Trump&rsquo;s bravado, hyper-individualism and anti-elite establishment politics. He is now more acceptable and allowed to flourish in this environment. In other words, the shifting social, economic and political conditions at home and abroad have made it more conducive for Trump to succeed and, therefore, they matter more to both traditionalist and political newcomers alike.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has tried to do several things. He has attempted to be the voice of the forgotten little guy&mdash;the white &ldquo;middle class&rdquo;&mdash;by playing the role of &ldquo;outsider.&rdquo;

But he plays the outsider role from within a major party label that gives him real access to mainstream media outlets: the non-politician who is self-made and independent enough to make the right decisions without fear of powerful interests as a show of strength in character and temperament; the successful businessman who knows the rules of the game and can create real change by negotiating deals while taking advantage of established rules/laws (bankruptcy, real estate and tax laws); and the individual with a third party candidate mentality, carefree attitude who exposes the truth about others (while diverting attention away from&nbsp;his own wrongdoings) by displaying a confident every-man&rsquo;s tough guy persona.

RAGE, FEAR AND DISCONTENT

Yes, Trump seems to have implicitly the third party candidate&rsquo;s &ldquo;I really can&rsquo;t win so might as well make best of the spotlight&rdquo; posture. Trump has played a third-party role since the beginning of the Republican Party primary, which allowed him to outmaneuver and out-shine those other flawed Republicans in the field because his brand, &ldquo;outsider&rdquo; claims and unorthodox style appealed to&nbsp;middle/working class white male rage, fears and feelings of discontent with a system that has left them behind.

All this has taken place in the context of what many have called a weak Grand Old Party (GOP), which has rather reluctantly appointed, if not anointed,&nbsp;Trump as the party&rsquo;s nominee to the US presidency. This comes despite&nbsp;Trump&rsquo;s own problematic and unprincipled self-interest politics played over the years&mdash;donating large amounts of money to campaigns across party lines, including the Clintons. Even more problematic is his constant reliance on the &ldquo;outsider&rdquo; trope that also grants him the right to claim the political system is rigged, corrupt or biased against him and his supporters.

Trump matters in another way. He brings a new political deviance rarely seen on the national stage with impunity. For instance, his acceptance of the party nomination and yet emphatically suggesting that he may not accept the results of the election&mdash;if he does not win of course.

This moment in modern US political history puts in jeopardy the nation&rsquo;s long-held conventional democratic practice of engaging in the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump seemingly gets away with such behaviour because he wholeheartedly believes he alone can fix things through&nbsp;providing what the current system supposedly needs: a leader with a candid voice, a straight shooter, a self-financed entrepreneur not dependent on party machines, or big money and Wall Street powers.

TRUMP POLITICS

In sum, Trump&rsquo;s brand of politics represents the best and worst of the neoliberal political environment we have today in America.&nbsp;He is an expert in self-asserting his identity into existence, constructing a brand that takes a life of its own and represents success in a materialistic sense. Yet he makes the brand appealing to those mostly at the lower levels of the American working and middle classes who aspire to similar successes and wealth despite the odds being against them, especially when most don&rsquo;t have a wealthy father who can lend $1 million as a startup fund.

Trump&rsquo;s brand matters because it appeals to an American sense of individualism, liberty and unlimited opportunities all rooted in some folk notion of puritanical morality.

However, the Trump brand is now more conducive to the new political environment that also includes increased anti-political correctness shepherding the worst tendencies in American social and political life. These range&nbsp;from a renewed sense of white male privilege or entitlement to the carelessness and insensitivity toward others who may find themselves in vulnerable positions: undocumented immigrants, Mexicans, women, refugees, Muslims, African Americans, certain military veterans, LGBTQ members of our society, and even media pundits who do not fall in line, among others.

The mostly rhetorical successes of the Trump brand go beyond this election cycle and into the heart of American liberal democracy. Trump matters because his brand has forced the Republican Party to reconsider its core values and principles, what it will stand for and who it will represent moving forward, whether Trump wins or not.

More broadly, we now have to ponder to what extent Americans will embrace the kinds of values, visions and practices the Trump brand has infused into our social and political culture, especially after November 8.&nbsp;

This <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/donald-trump-american-politics-us-election-20169/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">article</a> has been originally published in Fair Observer.

The changes over the past 30 years in the US have made relevant Trump?s bravado, hyper-individualism and anti-elite establishment politics

Why does Donald Trump matter? What factors seem to explain the flourishing of a Trump political brand? There are several possible factors that show the contingent nature of Trump the brand politician. One, the rise of the everyday white middle class, if not working white man’s frustrations with elite Washington politics. Then there’s the dysfunction, if not corruption, of the US two-party system—especially the Republican Party—that now makes it difficult to distinguish between the two since both are rooted in neoliberal politics relying on market mechanisms to control state “democratic” institutions and vice versa. Rising income and wealth inequalities across segments of the declining middle class, the growth of conservative media outlets since the 1980s—especially Rupert Murdoch’s business ventures—and the expanding campaign finance system that opens the powerful moneyed interests have all played a part. As do the return of identity politics over recognition and redistribution from the left and right—the political fights and white backlash over affirmative action, Black Lives Matter and the struggles over the classification system, leading to what I call a cultural war over taxonomy as politics for defining citizenship, civic worth and social entitlements. The growth of the post-9/11 national security state putting an end to 1990s “politically correct” rhetoric and thus affording the “othering” of American citizens; the expansion of new media technologies like social media, allowing direct access to different people, ideas and public spaces, channels and potential markets for more self-advertising campaigns; and the upsurge of partisanship at all levels resulting in economic stagnation and congressional polarisation, among other stalemates, such as stalling Supreme Court nominees. All these factors have elevated Trump beyond his wildest dreams, extending his reality-show persona into everyday political spaces, providing a public forum with audiences open—or perhaps vulnerable—to his brand of self-assertiveness seen through his exaggerated stories of success and political “outsider” claims. GETTING DONALD TRUMP WRONG Most social critics, media pundits, academics and political analysts have gotten Trump wrong. It is not even so much about the rise of Donald Trump. Rather, the ground he has occupied all these years has shifted to favour his kind of personalised, rhetorical and hyperbolic style of brand politics. We should think of the Trump phenomenon, or brand Trump, not as rising but rather more accurately as thriving within shifted social, political and economic environments. Just consider his consistent anti-elite party position since the 1980s, or his opposition to Ronald Reagan’s immigration policies (amnesty) and various critiques of George H.W. Bush’s tax plans, Bill Clinton’s trade deals (NAFTA) and George W. Bush’s foreign policy (the so-called Bush Doctrine). These changes over the past 30 years have made relevant Trump’s bravado, hyper-individualism and anti-elite establishment politics. He is now more acceptable and allowed to flourish in this environment. In other words, the shifting social, economic and political conditions at home and abroad have made it more conducive for Trump to succeed and, therefore, they matter more to both traditionalist and political newcomers alike. Throughout his campaign, Trump has tried to do several things. He has attempted to be the voice of the forgotten little guy—the white “middle class”—by playing the role of “outsider.” But he plays the outsider role from within a major party label that gives him real access to mainstream media outlets: the non-politician who is self-made and independent enough to make the right decisions without fear of powerful interests as a show of strength in character and temperament; the successful businessman who knows the rules of the game and can create real change by negotiating deals while taking advantage of established rules/laws (bankruptcy, real estate and tax laws); and the individual with a third party candidate mentality, carefree attitude who exposes the truth about others (while diverting attention away from his own wrongdoings) by displaying a confident every-man’s tough guy persona. RAGE, FEAR AND DISCONTENT Yes, Trump seems to have implicitly the third party candidate’s “I really can’t win so might as well make best of the spotlight” posture. Trump has played a third-party role since the beginning of the Republican Party primary, which allowed him to outmaneuver and out-shine those other flawed Republicans in the field because his brand, “outsider” claims and unorthodox style appealed to middle/working class white male rage, fears and feelings of discontent with a system that has left them behind. All this has taken place in the context of what many have called a weak Grand Old Party (GOP), which has rather reluctantly appointed, if not anointed, Trump as the party’s nominee to the US presidency. This comes despite Trump’s own problematic and unprincipled self-interest politics played over the years—donating large amounts of money to campaigns across party lines, including the Clintons. Even more problematic is his constant reliance on the “outsider” trope that also grants him the right to claim the political system is rigged, corrupt or biased against him and his supporters. Trump matters in another way. He brings a new political deviance rarely seen on the national stage with impunity. For instance, his acceptance of the party nomination and yet emphatically suggesting that he may not accept the results of the election—if he does not win of course. This moment in modern US political history puts in jeopardy the nation’s long-held conventional democratic practice of engaging in the peaceful transfer of power. Trump seemingly gets away with such behaviour because he wholeheartedly believes he alone can fix things through providing what the current system supposedly needs: a leader with a candid voice, a straight shooter, a self-financed entrepreneur not dependent on party machines, or big money and Wall Street powers. TRUMP POLITICS In sum, Trump’s brand of politics represents the best and worst of the neoliberal political environment we have today in America. He is an expert in self-asserting his identity into existence, constructing a brand that takes a life of its own and represents success in a materialistic sense. Yet he makes the brand appealing to those mostly at the lower levels of the American working and middle classes who aspire to similar successes and wealth despite the odds being against them, especially when most don’t have a wealthy father who can lend $1 million as a startup fund. Trump’s brand matters because it appeals to an American sense of individualism, liberty and unlimited opportunities all rooted in some folk notion of puritanical morality. However, the Trump brand is now more conducive to the new political environment that also includes increased anti-political correctness shepherding the worst tendencies in American social and political life. These range from a renewed sense of white male privilege or entitlement to the carelessness and insensitivity toward others who may find themselves in vulnerable positions: undocumented immigrants, Mexicans, women, refugees, Muslims, African Americans, certain military veterans, LGBTQ members of our society, and even media pundits who do not fall in line, among others. The mostly rhetorical successes of the Trump brand go beyond this election cycle and into the heart of American liberal democracy. Trump matters because his brand has forced the Republican Party to reconsider its core values and principles, what it will stand for and who it will represent moving forward, whether Trump wins or not. More broadly, we now have to ponder to what extent Americans will embrace the kinds of values, visions and practices the Trump brand has infused into our social and political culture, especially after November 8. This article has been originally published in Fair Observer.

Why does Donald Trump matter?

President Donald Trump&#39;s next pick for national security adviser will have autonomy over staffing and key decisions, the White House said on Sunday as it scrambles to fill the post following the turbulent departure of Michael Flynn.

Trump fired Flynn, a retired US&nbsp;Army general, on Monday after it was revealed that he discussed US&nbsp;sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador in Washington ahead of Trump&#39;s inauguration and later misled vice president Mike Pence about the conversations.

His first choice to fill the job, Vice Admiral Robert Harward, turned it down citing family and financial reasons. Another potential choice, David Petraeus, a retired general and former CIA chief who resigned in 2012 over an extramarital affair, is also no longer on the president&#39;s short list.

Sources familiar with the candidates&#39;&nbsp;thinking said they both wanted control over staffing of their team, and Trump was reluctant to grant that authority.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus denied the reports that Harward and Petraeus wanted more control than Trump was prepared to give, and said in an interview on `Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace` that the new adviser &quot;can do whatever he or she wants to do with the staffing&quot;.

He said the issue never came up in discussions with Harward and they &quot;hadn&#39;t really gone down the road&quot; with Petraeus.

The national security adviser is an independent aide to the president and does not require confirmation by the US&nbsp;Senate. The role has varied from administration to administration but the adviser attends National Security Council meetings along with the heads of the State Department, the Department of Defense and key security agencies.&nbsp;

Trump has added Steve Bannon, his chief White House strategist, as a regular attendee of NSC meetings. Political strategists have not typically been among NSC participants and Bannon`s addition has drawn sharp criticism due his previous role heading right-wing website Breitbart News.

Trump is set to interview four national security adviser candidates on Sunday from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Acting adviser Keith Kellogg, former US&nbsp;ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, Lieutenant General HR&nbsp;McMaster and Lieutenant General Robert Caslen are currently on the president`s list.

McMaster holds a senior post with the US&nbsp;Army Training and Doctrine Command. Caslen is superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

&quot;I&#39;ll make a decision over the next couple of days,&quot; Trump told reporters Saturday on Air Force One.

&nbsp;

(Reuters)

Trump is set to interview four national security adviser candidates on Sunday from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida

President Donald Trump's next pick for national security adviser will have autonomy over staffing and key decisions, the White House said on Sunday as it scrambles to fill the post following the turbulent departure of Michael Flynn. Trump fired Flynn, a retired US Army general, on Monday after it was revealed that he discussed US sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador in Washington ahead of Trump's inauguration and later misled vice president Mike Pence about the conversations. His first choice to fill the job, Vice Admiral Robert Harward, turned it down citing family and financial reasons. Another potential choice, David Petraeus, a retired general and former CIA chief who resigned in 2012 over an extramarital affair, is also no longer on the president's short list. Sources familiar with the candidates' thinking said they both wanted control over staffing of their team, and Trump was reluctant to grant that authority. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus denied the reports that Harward and Petraeus wanted more control than Trump was prepared to give, and said in an interview on `Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace` that the new adviser "can do whatever he or she wants to do with the staffing". He said the issue never came up in discussions with Harward and they "hadn't really gone down the road" with Petraeus. The national security adviser is an independent aide to the president and does not require confirmation by the US Senate. The role has varied from administration to administration but the adviser attends National Security Council meetings along with the heads of the State Department, the Department of Defense and key security agencies. Trump has added Steve Bannon, his chief White House strategist, as a regular attendee of NSC meetings. Political strategists have not typically been among NSC participants and Bannon`s addition has drawn sharp criticism due his previous role heading right-wing website Breitbart News. Trump is set to interview four national security adviser candidates on Sunday from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Acting adviser Keith Kellogg, former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, Lieutenant General HR McMaster and Lieutenant General Robert Caslen are currently on the president`s list. McMaster holds a senior post with the US Army Training and Doctrine Command. Caslen is superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "I'll make a decision over the next couple of days," Trump told reporters Saturday on Air Force One. (Reuters)

Trump's national security candidates promised autonomy as hunt continues

Republican presidential candidate Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;has parted ways with his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, the New York Times reported on Monday. 
 
&ldquo;The Donald J.&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;Campaign for President, which has set a historic record in the Republican primary having received almost 14 million votes, has today announced that Corey Lewandowski will no longer be working with the campaign,&rdquo; campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a statement provided to the newspaper. 
 
Lewandowski, who has been with the New York billionaire since the beginning of his White House bid, was accused of manhandling a female reporter in Florida during the primary campaign. 
(Reuters)

Corey Lewandowski was accused of manhandling a female reporter

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has parted ways with his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, the New York Times reported on Monday. “The Donald J. Trump Campaign for President, which has set a historic record in the Republican primary having received almost 14 million votes, has today announced that Corey Lewandowski will no longer be working with the campaign,” campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a statement provided to the newspaper. Lewandowski, who has been with the New York billionaire since the beginning of his White House bid, was accused of manhandling a female reporter in Florida during the primary campaign. (Reuters)

Donald Trump 'sacks' campaign manager : Reports

The beloved American children&#39;s book character Curious George is breaking fast for Ramadan this year, with chocolate-covered bananas, of course. 
 
The just-released children&#39;s book It&#39;s Ramadan, Curious George celebrates the Muslim holiday, teaching kids about the sacred month. 
 
It comes amid rising tensions fueled by worries about Islamist extremism and a heated Presidential campaign during which Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. 
 
US author Hena Khan &quot;wanted to focus on the celebratory aspects&quot; of Ramadan, so George attends family gatherings and accompanies his friend Kareem to a mosque to put together charity baskets, she said. 
 
A writer of Pakistani origin from Rockville, Maryland, Khan has already written two children&#39;s books about Islam, &quot;but there&#39;s something different about having Curious George, a mainstream, well-known, iconic character recognise your tradition and make you feel included&quot;. 
 
The story assumes the humorous tone of other volumes in the series, which has sold more than 75 million books since it debuted 1941 and went on to become an animated television series and 2006 feature film. 
 
At one point in the story, the playful monkey - who has also celebrated Christmas and Hanukkah - falls over while trying to put together a charity package, failing to control his hunger. 
 
Khan said the publisher granted her freedom to shape the project, and that she focused on making the holiday approachable. 
 
&quot;It was really a reflection of the way Americans that I know celebrate and observe Ramadan, in a very simple way that&#39;s understandable for children,&quot; the mother of two said. 
 
The book&#39;s release coincides with a particular rise in anti-Islamic rhetoric, she noted. 
 
&quot;There&#39;s a very dangerous narrative being spread about Muslims and inaccurate things being said,&quot; the author said. The book &quot;comes at the right time in terms of trying to promote understanding and tolerance&quot;. 
 
(AFP)

It is an attempt to teach kids about the sacred month and promote tolerance, even as Trump amps up Islamophobia

The beloved American children's book character Curious George is breaking fast for Ramadan this year, with chocolate-covered bananas, of course. The just-released children's book It's Ramadan, Curious George celebrates the Muslim holiday, teaching kids about the sacred month. It comes amid rising tensions fueled by worries about Islamist extremism and a heated Presidential campaign during which Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. US author Hena Khan "wanted to focus on the celebratory aspects" of Ramadan, so George attends family gatherings and accompanies his friend Kareem to a mosque to put together charity baskets, she said. A writer of Pakistani origin from Rockville, Maryland, Khan has already written two children's books about Islam, "but there's something different about having Curious George, a mainstream, well-known, iconic character recognise your tradition and make you feel included". The story assumes the humorous tone of other volumes in the series, which has sold more than 75 million books since it debuted 1941 and went on to become an animated television series and 2006 feature film. At one point in the story, the playful monkey - who has also celebrated Christmas and Hanukkah - falls over while trying to put together a charity package, failing to control his hunger. Khan said the publisher granted her freedom to shape the project, and that she focused on making the holiday approachable. "It was really a reflection of the way Americans that I know celebrate and observe Ramadan, in a very simple way that's understandable for children," the mother of two said. The book's release coincides with a particular rise in anti-Islamic rhetoric, she noted. "There's a very dangerous narrative being spread about Muslims and inaccurate things being said," the author said. The book "comes at the right time in terms of trying to promote understanding and tolerance". (AFP)

This Ramzan, US children's book character Curious George breaks fast

donal-trump

Donal Trump, News on Donal Trump, stories on Donal Trump, articles on Donal Trump, Donal Trump stories at Wion, Donal Trump news, Donal Trump latest news

donal trump