President Donald Trump on Friday sought to clarify his comments that he <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nothing-wrong-with-accepting-dirt-from-foreign-governments-on-opponents-trump-226696">would accept dirt on election rivals from a foreign power</a>, now saying he would "absolutely" report such an encounter to US authorities.

Singed by a political firestorm over his controversial remarks when he said he would only "maybe" call the Federal Bureau of Investigation if he believed there was wrongdoing, the president took to Fox News to nuance his explanation.

"Of course you give it to the FBI, or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that," Trump said.

But he maintained his controversial position revealed in a Wednesday ABC News interview that he would look at or listen to the information.

"Of course, you have to look at it, because if you don't look at it you're not going to know if it's bad," Trump said.

"Now, if I thought anything was incorrect or badly stated... I'd report it to law enforcement, absolutely."

Trump faced severe criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike after his initial remarks.

The furore follows years of debate over the Trump team's contacts with officials and operatives from Russia, which US intelligence agencies determined interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

An exhaustive 22-month special counsel investigation concluded that Trump's campaign had numerous contacts with Russians but the pattern did not amount to proof of a conspiracy with Moscow.

Despite that, Democrats say Trump's behaviour was suspicious enough to warrant further investigation in congressional committees. A loud minority of lawmakers is even pushing for impeachment.

The White House and Republicans argued that Trump was being unfairly singled out when the Democrats had been the ones to make use of a now-infamous dossier compiled by a foreigner, former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, in 2016.

Trump told Fox he did not believe any foreign power would present him with "bad" dirt on his rivals "because they know how much I love this country."

And he stressed that as president he is in a different position than other Americans because of his constant interaction with world leaders like Queen Elizabeth II and French President Emmanuel Macron.

"We have many, many conversations," Trump said. "I'm just thinking, gee, if they say 'We don't like your opponent,' am I supposed to put the president of France, am I supposed to report him to the FBI?"

President Donald Trump on Friday sought to clarify his comments that he would accept dirt on election rivals from a foreign power, now saying he would "absolutely" report such an encounter to US authorities.

President Donald Trump on Friday sought to clarify his comments that he would accept dirt on election rivals from a foreign power, now saying he would "absolutely" report such an encounter to US authorities. Singed by a political firestorm over his controversial remarks when he said he would only "maybe" call the Federal Bureau of Investigation if he believed there was wrongdoing, the president took to Fox News to nuance his explanation. "Of course you give it to the FBI, or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that," Trump said. But he maintained his controversial position revealed in a Wednesday ABC News interview that he would look at or listen to the information. "Of course, you have to look at it, because if you don't look at it you're not going to know if it's bad," Trump said. "Now, if I thought anything was incorrect or badly stated... I'd report it to law enforcement, absolutely." Trump faced severe criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike after his initial remarks. The furore follows years of debate over the Trump team's contacts with officials and operatives from Russia, which US intelligence agencies determined interfered in the 2016 presidential election. An exhaustive 22-month special counsel investigation concluded that Trump's campaign had numerous contacts with Russians but the pattern did not amount to proof of a conspiracy with Moscow. Despite that, Democrats say Trump's behaviour was suspicious enough to warrant further investigation in congressional committees. A loud minority of lawmakers is even pushing for impeachment. The White House and Republicans argued that Trump was being unfairly singled out when the Democrats had been the ones to make use of a now-infamous dossier compiled by a foreigner, former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, in 2016. Trump told Fox he did not believe any foreign power would present him with "bad" dirt on his rivals "because they know how much I love this country." And he stressed that as president he is in a different position than other Americans because of his constant interaction with world leaders like Queen Elizabeth II and French President Emmanuel Macron. "We have many, many conversations," Trump said. "I'm just thinking, gee, if they say 'We don't like your opponent,' am I supposed to put the president of France, am I supposed to report him to the FBI?"

Donald Trump clarifies would report foreign dirt on rivals to FBI

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

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - June 15th, 2019

Boeing has signed $6.5 Bn deal with US' Pentagon. Watch this video to know more.

Boeing signs $6.5 Bn deal with Pentagon

The attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday have again sent the United States and Iran, two longtime adversaries, hurtling toward potential crisis. The challenges are diplomatic and economic, as well as military.

The U.S. Has Turned Up Pressure on Iran: See the Timeline of Events

The United States has doubled the number of asylum seekers it sends back each day to Mexico from El Paso, Texas, a Mexican immigration official said on Friday, in the first sign of action following a deal struck to avert US&nbsp;tariffs last week.&nbsp;

Luis Carlos Cano, a spokesman for Mexico`s national immigration agency in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, said starting Thursday some 200 asylum seekers per day were being sent back, up from 100 previously.&nbsp;

Under pressure from US President Donald Trump, Mexico agreed on June 7 to expand the program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or `Remain in Mexico,` which forces mostly Central American asylum seekers arriving at the US southern border to await the outcome of their US&nbsp;asylum claims in Mexico.

Remain in Mexico currently operates in Tijuana, Mexicali and Ciudad Juarez. Close to 12,000 people have been returned to Mexico since it began in January.&nbsp;

However, Mexico has not accepted that the United States send it an unlimited number of asylum seekers, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said, ahead of planned meetings with US&nbsp;officials on Friday to determine details of the expansion.

"Today there is a meeting with US&nbsp;authorities, to learn, to discuss the ports of entry and how the number will be measured, because Mexico has not accepted that it be undetermined," Ebrard said at a news conference.&nbsp;

The agreement has put Mexican officials under mounting pressure to deliver results. The head of Mexico`s National Migration Institute, Tonatiuh Guillen, resigned on Friday for "personal reasons," an interior ministry official said.&nbsp;

'Safe third country'

If enforcement measures are not successful after 45 days, Mexico has also agreed to consider making itself a "safe third country." Asylum seekers who first set foot on Mexican soil would have to apply for refugee status in Mexico instead of in the United States.&nbsp;

Mexico`s government on Friday published the section of the joint accord which said Mexico would examine any changes to its legislation necessary to permit a safe third country arrangement to come into force 90 days after June 7.

The document also stated that such an agreement was intended to be "part of a regional approach to burden-sharing" in processing migrants` asylum claims.

Ebrard said this week that if Mexico could not stem the flow of people, a regional system should be established to bind in other countries crossed by migrants en route to the United States, including Guatemala, Panama and Brazil.&nbsp;

A rights group in Guatemala on Friday lashed out at the proposal to make asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador seek refuge in Guatemala, when its own citizens were fleeing poverty and violence.&nbsp;

Trump confirmed the deal included the safe third country plan if Mexico did not do enough to cut migration.

Asked in a Fox News interview if that possibility was part of the accord, Trump said, "It`s exactly right, and that`s what`s going to happen." 
Trump also named Tom Homan as "Border Czar."

Homan is a veteran of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and served as the agency`s acting head during the first year of Trump`s presidency. He retired last year, after increasing arrests of non-criminal immigrants.

The United States has doubled the number of asylum seekers it sends back each day to Mexico from El Paso, Texas, a Mexican immigration official said on Friday, in the first sign of action following a deal struck to avert US tariffs last week.

The United States has doubled the number of asylum seekers it sends back each day to Mexico from El Paso, Texas, a Mexican immigration official said on Friday, in the first sign of action following a deal struck to avert US tariffs last week. Luis Carlos Cano, a spokesman for Mexico`s national immigration agency in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, said starting Thursday some 200 asylum seekers per day were being sent back, up from 100 previously. Under pressure from US President Donald Trump, Mexico agreed on June 7 to expand the program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or `Remain in Mexico,` which forces mostly Central American asylum seekers arriving at the US southern border to await the outcome of their US asylum claims in Mexico. Remain in Mexico currently operates in Tijuana, Mexicali and Ciudad Juarez. Close to 12,000 people have been returned to Mexico since it began in January. However, Mexico has not accepted that the United States send it an unlimited number of asylum seekers, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said, ahead of planned meetings with US officials on Friday to determine details of the expansion. "Today there is a meeting with US authorities, to learn, to discuss the ports of entry and how the number will be measured, because Mexico has not accepted that it be undetermined," Ebrard said at a news conference. The agreement has put Mexican officials under mounting pressure to deliver results. The head of Mexico`s National Migration Institute, Tonatiuh Guillen, resigned on Friday for "personal reasons," an interior ministry official said. 'Safe third country' If enforcement measures are not successful after 45 days, Mexico has also agreed to consider making itself a "safe third country." Asylum seekers who first set foot on Mexican soil would have to apply for refugee status in Mexico instead of in the United States. Mexico`s government on Friday published the section of the joint accord which said Mexico would examine any changes to its legislation necessary to permit a safe third country arrangement to come into force 90 days after June 7. The document also stated that such an agreement was intended to be "part of a regional approach to burden-sharing" in processing migrants` asylum claims. Ebrard said this week that if Mexico could not stem the flow of people, a regional system should be established to bind in other countries crossed by migrants en route to the United States, including Guatemala, Panama and Brazil. A rights group in Guatemala on Friday lashed out at the proposal to make asylum seekers from Honduras and El Salvador seek refuge in Guatemala, when its own citizens were fleeing poverty and violence. Trump confirmed the deal included the safe third country plan if Mexico did not do enough to cut migration. Asked in a Fox News interview if that possibility was part of the accord, Trump said, "It`s exactly right, and that`s what`s going to happen." Trump also named Tom Homan as "Border Czar." Homan is a veteran of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and served as the agency`s acting head during the first year of Trump`s presidency. He retired last year, after increasing arrests of non-criminal immigrants.

US ramps up Mexico asylum returns, Trump confirms 'safe third country' plan

AUS&nbsp;federal appeals court on Friday handed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/trump-says-ready-to-hold-talks-with-iran-despite-tanker-attacks-227189">President Donald Trump</a> a victory in his effort to ban most transgender people from the military, ordering a lower court judge to reconsider her ruling against the policy, which the US&nbsp;Supreme Court later allowed to take effect.

The 9th US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a ruling by US&nbsp;District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle, which said the ban likely violated the constitutional rights of transgender recruits and service members.

While not ruling on the case's merits, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court said Pechman did not give the military's judgment enough weight, and ordered her to give it more deference. That finding could strengthen Trump's position on transgender troops going forward.

In January, the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, lifted lower court injunctions that blocked the ban on constitutional grounds from going into effect, while challenges to its legality continued in lower courts.

The Supreme Court did not address the legality of the Republican president's ban, which reversed a landmark 2016 policy of his Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama.

That policy allowed transgender people for the first time to serve openly in the armed forces without fear of being discharged, and to receive medical care to transition genders.

Attorneys for the transgender service members who filed the lawsuit could not immediately be reached. A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice also could not be reached.

Pechman was one of four federal judges who ruled against the administration on the transgender troop ban, saying it likely violated the US&nbsp;Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

Trump had announced the ban in July 2017, and has said the old policy led to "tremendous medical costs and disruption."

In March 2018, Trump backed a revised policy from then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that banned, in some circumstances, transgender people with gender dysphoria, or distress resulting from internal conflict between physical gender and gender identity.

Mattis' policy also banned transgender people who seek or have undergone gender transition steps. But it allowed people diagnosed with gender dysphoria during the Obama policy to stay in the military and serve according to their gender identity.

In April 2018, Pechman extended her injunction to the revised policy, finding no evidence that transgender troops reduced the military's effectiveness, and saying the ban undermined the dignity of those troops.

She also said the new policy would "force transgender service members to suppress the very characteristic that defines them as transgender in the first place."

In Friday's decision, the appeals court said the 2018 policy "discriminates on the basis of transgender status" but was nevertheless "significantly different" from the 2017 ban.

It said that when reconsidering the government's request to lift her injunction, Pechman "must apply appropriate military deference to its evaluation."

The lawsuit was filed in August 2017 on behalf of current and aspiring Army and Navy personnel, including one stationed overseas with nearly 20 years of experience. Washington state later joined the plaintiffs.

AUS federal appeals court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory in his effort to ban most transgender people from the military, ordering a lower court judge to reconsider her ruling against the policy, which the US Supreme Court later allowed to take effect.

AUS federal appeals court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory in his effort to ban most transgender people from the military, ordering a lower court judge to reconsider her ruling against the policy, which the US Supreme Court later allowed to take effect. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a ruling by US District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle, which said the ban likely violated the constitutional rights of transgender recruits and service members. While not ruling on the case's merits, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court said Pechman did not give the military's judgment enough weight, and ordered her to give it more deference. That finding could strengthen Trump's position on transgender troops going forward. In January, the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, lifted lower court injunctions that blocked the ban on constitutional grounds from going into effect, while challenges to its legality continued in lower courts. The Supreme Court did not address the legality of the Republican president's ban, which reversed a landmark 2016 policy of his Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. That policy allowed transgender people for the first time to serve openly in the armed forces without fear of being discharged, and to receive medical care to transition genders. Attorneys for the transgender service members who filed the lawsuit could not immediately be reached. A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice also could not be reached. Pechman was one of four federal judges who ruled against the administration on the transgender troop ban, saying it likely violated the US Constitution's equal protection guarantee. Trump had announced the ban in July 2017, and has said the old policy led to "tremendous medical costs and disruption." In March 2018, Trump backed a revised policy from then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that banned, in some circumstances, transgender people with gender dysphoria, or distress resulting from internal conflict between physical gender and gender identity. Mattis' policy also banned transgender people who seek or have undergone gender transition steps. But it allowed people diagnosed with gender dysphoria during the Obama policy to stay in the military and serve according to their gender identity. In April 2018, Pechman extended her injunction to the revised policy, finding no evidence that transgender troops reduced the military's effectiveness, and saying the ban undermined the dignity of those troops. She also said the new policy would "force transgender service members to suppress the very characteristic that defines them as transgender in the first place." In Friday's decision, the appeals court said the 2018 policy "discriminates on the basis of transgender status" but was nevertheless "significantly different" from the 2017 ban. It said that when reconsidering the government's request to lift her injunction, Pechman "must apply appropriate military deference to its evaluation." The lawsuit was filed in August 2017 on behalf of current and aspiring Army and Navy personnel, including one stationed overseas with nearly 20 years of experience. Washington state later joined the plaintiffs.

Trump wins US court victory in quest for transgender military ban

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - June 14th, 2019

US President Donald Trump said on Friday he was ready to launch talks with Iran whenever it was ready, even as he blamed Tehran for attacks on<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-iran-written-all-over-tanker-attacks-227168"> two oil tankers</a> in the Gulf of Oman.

"We want to get them back to the table," Trump told Fox News in an interview. "I'm ready when they are," adding that he was in "no rush."

Asked how to he planned to address Tehran and stop any<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-military-recovered-tanker-mine-says-us-after-releasing-video-227010"> further incidents</a>, Trump said: "We'll see what happens."

Thursday's attacks raised questions about shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key commercial route, and what steps the United States may take to protect the area. US officials have said the United States would defend its interests.

"They're not going to be closing it. It's not going to be closed. It's not going to be closed for long," Trump said.

The Trump administration has blamed Iran for the attack, citing a video made from a US aircraft that it said showed Iran's Revolutionary Guards on patrol boats drawing up to one of the ships near the Strait of Hormuz after the blasts and removing an unexploded limpet mine.

"Iran did do it," Trump told Fox. "It's essentially got Iran written all over it... I guess they didn't want the evidence left behind."

Tehran has called to<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-serious-threat-to-global-stability-iran-president-hassan-rohani-at-sco-summit-227094"> US accusation alarming </a>and wrong.

The Gulf of Oman connects the Arabian Sea with the Strait of Hormuz, which then runs to the Persian Gulf.

US President Donald Trump said on Friday he was ready to launch talks with Iran whenever it was ready, even as he blamed Tehran for attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

US President Donald Trump said on Friday he was ready to launch talks with Iran whenever it was ready, even as he blamed Tehran for attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. "We want to get them back to the table," Trump told Fox News in an interview. "I'm ready when they are," adding that he was in "no rush." Asked how to he planned to address Tehran and stop any further incidents, Trump said: "We'll see what happens." Thursday's attacks raised questions about shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key commercial route, and what steps the United States may take to protect the area. US officials have said the United States would defend its interests. "They're not going to be closing it. It's not going to be closed. It's not going to be closed for long," Trump said. The Trump administration has blamed Iran for the attack, citing a video made from a US aircraft that it said showed Iran's Revolutionary Guards on patrol boats drawing up to one of the ships near the Strait of Hormuz after the blasts and removing an unexploded limpet mine. "Iran did do it," Trump told Fox. "It's essentially got Iran written all over it... I guess they didn't want the evidence left behind." Tehran has called to US accusation alarming and wrong. The Gulf of Oman connects the Arabian Sea with the Strait of Hormuz, which then runs to the Persian Gulf.

Trump says ready to hold talks with Iran despite tanker attacks

By Amitrajeet A Batabyal&nbsp;

President Donald Trump’s trade war with China is based on two basic and complementary assumptions: The US economy is strong and, perhaps more importantly, stronger than the Chinese economy.

Last summer when the war began heating up, both assumptions were certainly true. The American economy was booming, while China’s was slowing. Hence, the US was in a better position to withstand any pain in a tariff war of attrition.

But the first of those assumptions, at least, is beginning to falter as signs grow of economic weakness in the US.

As an economist who conducts research in international trade, I believe that a weaker US economy would likely affect Trump’s ability to engage in a prolonged trade war with China – no matter how much he might want to.

Signs of Weakness

The US economy has been expanding for a decade now, and no economy can continue to grow indefinitely. The May jobs report was the latest indicator that the party may be coming to an end.

The report showed that the US economy added only 75,000 jobs that month, a significantly lower number than the 224,000 jobs added in April. Even though the unemployment rate stayed at the extremely low figure of 3.6 per cent, worryingly, there was virtually no wage growth. In addition, another key metric, the so-called ISM Manufacturing Index, fell to its lowest level in Trump’s presidency in May.

And while GDP growth has remained fairly robust, there have been other harbingers of underlying weakness in recent months, including a bond market signal that a recession may be on the horizon and a broad measure of the health of the US economy that recorded its slowest increase in more than two years.

Putting this all together, it suggests a key premise behind Trump’s trade war with China may not hold up for much longer.

Trade War’s Role

One of the reasons to blame for economic sluggishness is the trade war itself and specifically Trump’s use of tariffs to prosecute it.

Contrary to what he has said in the past, elementary trade theory shows that tariffs not only hurt the intended target but the tariff-imposing nation as well. This fundamental theoretical prediction is now being borne out in practice.

For instance, a recent and ongoing study by a group of economists shows that the higher prices resulting from Trump’s tariffs on China have been paid largely by US retailers, and some of them may soon be passed on to consumers. A separate study focused on washing machines found that tariffs resulted in an average 12 per cent increase in the price of the appliance, whether it was imported or made domestically.

Then there’s the impact of the retaliatory tariffs. Studies show that the US coal, crude oil and agricultural sectors have all been detrimentally affected by Chinese tariffs imposed in response. In addition, there is a reason to believe that the slowdown in American job growth is being felt most acutely in the sectors that are most susceptible to trade tensions such as manufacturing, construction, mining and logging.

In other words, if the deleterious impacts of Trump’s trade war with China continue to be felt in an economy that is weakening, it is certainly likely that there will be much greater opposition to these tariffs from industry groups and lawmakers.

These possibilities cast serious doubt on Trump’s ability to continue – let alone achieve the concessions he might need to win – a protracted trade war with China.

Fed to the Rescue?

Trump may end up having an unexpected ally in the Federal Reserve, however.

Evidence of weakness has already ended the US central bank’s policy of monetary tightening by raising interest rates. The latest data will no doubt put considerable pressure on the Fed to actually cut rates to avoid a more sustained slowdown.

If it does, then the Fed-driven stimulation will mitigate some of the pain felt by Americans as a result of Trump’s trade war with China and allow him to continue to prosecute his trade war.

High Stakes

That being said, it is still too early to say definitively that the US economy is cooling.

And, given Trump’s unpredictability, it’s impossible to forecast what may happen no matter what. At least for now, the president appears to have no intention of backing down.

But for me, a weakening economy adds to the reasons why this trade war is not only futile but harmful. For one thing, I believe tariffs alone cannot address the underlying structural problems that afflict US-China trade.

And let’s not forget that the trade war has global repercussions. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development recently warned that an escalation of this trade war – as Trump has repeatedly threatened – will damage the rest of the world, trimming 0.7 per cent off global growth by 2021. That may not sound like much, but this trimming amounts to a whopping $600 billion in lost economic activity.

It’s a reminder that the stakes of this war are enormous.

(Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/could-a-weakening-us-economy-imperil-trumps-trade-war-against-china-118576"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Amitrajeet A Batabyal President Donald Trump’s trade war with China is based on two basic and complementary assumptions: The US economy is strong and, perhaps more importantly, stronger than the Chinese economy.

By Amitrajeet A Batabyal President Donald Trump’s trade war with China is based on two basic and complementary assumptions: The US economy is strong and, perhaps more importantly, stronger than the Chinese economy. Last summer when the war began heating up, both assumptions were certainly true. The American economy was booming, while China’s was slowing. Hence, the US was in a better position to withstand any pain in a tariff war of attrition. But the first of those assumptions, at least, is beginning to falter as signs grow of economic weakness in the US. As an economist who conducts research in international trade, I believe that a weaker US economy would likely affect Trump’s ability to engage in a prolonged trade war with China – no matter how much he might want to. Signs of Weakness The US economy has been expanding for a decade now, and no economy can continue to grow indefinitely. The May jobs report was the latest indicator that the party may be coming to an end. The report showed that the US economy added only 75,000 jobs that month, a significantly lower number than the 224,000 jobs added in April. Even though the unemployment rate stayed at the extremely low figure of 3.6 per cent, worryingly, there was virtually no wage growth. In addition, another key metric, the so-called ISM Manufacturing Index, fell to its lowest level in Trump’s presidency in May. And while GDP growth has remained fairly robust, there have been other harbingers of underlying weakness in recent months, including a bond market signal that a recession may be on the horizon and a broad measure of the health of the US economy that recorded its slowest increase in more than two years. Putting this all together, it suggests a key premise behind Trump’s trade war with China may not hold up for much longer. Trade War’s Role One of the reasons to blame for economic sluggishness is the trade war itself and specifically Trump’s use of tariffs to prosecute it. Contrary to what he has said in the past, elementary trade theory shows that tariffs not only hurt the intended target but the tariff-imposing nation as well. This fundamental theoretical prediction is now being borne out in practice. For instance, a recent and ongoing study by a group of economists shows that the higher prices resulting from Trump’s tariffs on China have been paid largely by US retailers, and some of them may soon be passed on to consumers. A separate study focused on washing machines found that tariffs resulted in an average 12 per cent increase in the price of the appliance, whether it was imported or made domestically. Then there’s the impact of the retaliatory tariffs. Studies show that the US coal, crude oil and agricultural sectors have all been detrimentally affected by Chinese tariffs imposed in response. In addition, there is a reason to believe that the slowdown in American job growth is being felt most acutely in the sectors that are most susceptible to trade tensions such as manufacturing, construction, mining and logging. In other words, if the deleterious impacts of Trump’s trade war with China continue to be felt in an economy that is weakening, it is certainly likely that there will be much greater opposition to these tariffs from industry groups and lawmakers. These possibilities cast serious doubt on Trump’s ability to continue – let alone achieve the concessions he might need to win – a protracted trade war with China. Fed to the Rescue? Trump may end up having an unexpected ally in the Federal Reserve, however. Evidence of weakness has already ended the US central bank’s policy of monetary tightening by raising interest rates. The latest data will no doubt put considerable pressure on the Fed to actually cut rates to avoid a more sustained slowdown. If it does, then the Fed-driven stimulation will mitigate some of the pain felt by Americans as a result of Trump’s trade war with China and allow him to continue to prosecute his trade war. High Stakes That being said, it is still too early to say definitively that the US economy is cooling. And, given Trump’s unpredictability, it’s impossible to forecast what may happen no matter what. At least for now, the president appears to have no intention of backing down. But for me, a weakening economy adds to the reasons why this trade war is not only futile but harmful. For one thing, I believe tariffs alone cannot address the underlying structural problems that afflict US-China trade. And let’s not forget that the trade war has global repercussions. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development recently warned that an escalation of this trade war – as Trump has repeatedly threatened – will damage the rest of the world, trimming 0.7 per cent off global growth by 2021. That may not sound like much, but this trimming amounts to a whopping $600 billion in lost economic activity. It’s a reminder that the stakes of this war are enormous. (Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology) (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.)

Could a weakening US economy imperil Trump’s trade war against China?

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - June 13th, 2019

Donald Trump gave Twitteratis another reason to laugh after he accidentally called Prince Charles of UK, ‘Prince of Whales’ instead of ‘Prince of Wales’.&nbsp;

Trump was writing about his recent trip to Britain where he met with Queen Elizabeth and other members of the royal family. In his tweet that has now gone viral, he was trying to make a point that he feels he doesn’t need to disclose conversations with world leaders to the FBI.&nbsp;

This is not after someone suggested him he had to but he was criticized Wednesday for saying he would accept foreign intelligence on a 2020 opponent without informing his intelligence services.&nbsp;

He wrote, “I meet and talk to ‘foreign governments’ every day. I just met with the Queen of England (U.K.), the Prince of Whales, the P.M. of the United Kingdom, the P.M. of Ireland, the President of France and the President of Poland. We talked about ‘Everything!’ Should I immediately call the FBI about these calls and meetings? How ridiculous! I would never be trusted again. With that being said, my full answer is rarely played by Fake News Media. They purposely leave out the part that matters.”

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I meet and talk to “foreign governments” every day. I just met with the Queen of England (U.K.), the Prince of Wales, the P.M. of the United Kingdom, the P.M. of Ireland, the President of France and the President of Poland. We talked about “Everything!” Should I immediately....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1139161442437992448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
....call the FBI about these calls and meetings? How ridiculous! I would never be trusted again. With that being said, my full answer is rarely played by the Fake News Media. They purposely leave out the part that matters.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1139161443734106112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Well, Trump we really don’t know who you met with, the actual Prince of Wales or some prince whale of some ocean!

This is what some Twitter users wrote after the gaffe:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It’s so fucking delightful to me that he thinks he met the prince of whales. The prince. Of *whales*. <a href="https://t.co/yMCeyMmkp0">pic.twitter.com/yMCeyMmkp0</a>
— James Felton (@JimMFelton) <a href="https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1139162359921086465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
"The Prince of Whales". Very funny, Donald Trump. Did you do that on porpoise? <a href="https://t.co/EbivrOLVLV">pic.twitter.com/EbivrOLVLV</a>
— Prince Charles (@Charles_HRH) <a href="https://twitter.com/Charles_HRH/status/1139164300378091520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
"When I met with the Prince of Whales, he said that as president, it was my life's porpoise to build the wall. I told him wait till you sea it."
— hend amry (@LibyaLiberty) <a href="https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/1139160444524875776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
all hail the true prince of whales: perseus jackson, son of the sea god, poseidon. <a href="https://t.co/IuxCvIgI33">pic.twitter.com/IuxCvIgI33</a>
— The Lightning Thief is in Maryville! (@LTMusical) <a href="https://twitter.com/LTMusical/status/1139180907498278912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Donald Trump gave Twitteratis another reason to laugh after he accidentally called Prince Charles of UK, ‘Prince of Whales’ instead of ‘Prince of Wales’. Trump was writing about his recent trip to Britain where he met with Queen Elizabeth and other members of the royal family.

Donald Trump gave Twitteratis another reason to laugh after he accidentally called Prince Charles of UK, ‘Prince of Whales’ instead of ‘Prince of Wales’. Trump was writing about his recent trip to Britain where he met with Queen Elizabeth and other members of the royal family. In his tweet that has now gone viral, he was trying to make a point that he feels he doesn’t need to disclose conversations with world leaders to the FBI. This is not after someone suggested him he had to but he was criticized Wednesday for saying he would accept foreign intelligence on a 2020 opponent without informing his intelligence services. He wrote, “I meet and talk to ‘foreign governments’ every day. I just met with the Queen of England (U.K.), the Prince of Whales, the P.M. of the United Kingdom, the P.M. of Ireland, the President of France and the President of Poland. We talked about ‘Everything!’ Should I immediately call the FBI about these calls and meetings? How ridiculous! I would never be trusted again. With that being said, my full answer is rarely played by Fake News Media. They purposely leave out the part that matters.” I meet and talk to “foreign governments” every day. I just met with the Queen of England (U.K.), the Prince of Wales, the P.M. of the United Kingdom, the P.M. of Ireland, the President of France and the President of Poland. We talked about “Everything!” Should I immediately.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2019 × ....call the FBI about these calls and meetings? How ridiculous! I would never be trusted again. With that being said, my full answer is rarely played by the Fake News Media. They purposely leave out the part that matters. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2019 × Well, Trump we really don’t know who you met with, the actual Prince of Wales or some prince whale of some ocean! This is what some Twitter users wrote after the gaffe: It’s so fucking delightful to me that he thinks he met the prince of whales. The prince. Of *whales*. pic.twitter.com/yMCeyMmkp0 — James Felton (@JimMFelton) June 13, 2019 × "The Prince of Whales". Very funny, Donald Trump. Did you do that on porpoise? pic.twitter.com/EbivrOLVLV — Prince Charles (@Charles_HRH) June 13, 2019 × "When I met with the Prince of Whales, he said that as president, it was my life's porpoise to build the wall. I told him wait till you sea it." — hend amry (@LibyaLiberty) June 13, 2019 × all hail the true prince of whales: perseus jackson, son of the sea god, poseidon. pic.twitter.com/IuxCvIgI33 — The Lightning Thief is in Maryville! (@LTMusical) June 13, 2019 ×

Trump lampooned for 'Prince of Whales' spelling error

Russian lawmakers said on Thursday that a new <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-will-deploy-1000-troops-to-poland-warsaw-may-call-them-fort-trump-226730">US military deployment to Poland announced by President Donald Trump</a> would force Moscow to take retaliatory steps, with one saying it would make Poland a target in the event of a conflict.

Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he would deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia.

Members of Russia's parliament were the first in Moscow to react to the initiative, which they said also envisaged deploying military drones.

"In the event of any conflict, God forbid, the territory of Poland would become a clear target for a retaliatory strike, if there was suddenly an attack on us," Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy head of the upper house of parliament's international affairs committee, told the Interfax news agency.

Another lawmaker, ex-commander of Russia's special forces Vladimir Shamanov, who now runs the lower house of parliament's defence committee, said he was concerned about the US drones because of their potential to carry nuclear weapons.

"The world is gradually slipping towards a dangerous moment comparable to the Caribbean crisis," Shamanov said, using the Russian expression for the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - a standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

"...We will be forced to take retaliatory measures and we have them in our armoury," Interfax cited him as saying.

The Russian parliament is not normally involved in the decision-making process on foreign affairs, except in situations where the Kremlin requests the upper house's formal approval for a military operation.

The Kremlin has yet to comment on the new US plans for Poland but President Vladimir Putin said in an interview, published earlier on Thursday, that relations between Moscow and Washington were getting worse and worse.

Trump announced the Polish deployment ahead of a G20 summit in Japan later this month, at which Trump and Putin might meet.

Russian lawmakers said on Thursday that a new US military deployment to Poland announced by President Donald Trump would force Moscow to take retaliatory steps, with one saying it would make Poland a target in the event of a conflict.

Russian lawmakers said on Thursday that a new US military deployment to Poland announced by President Donald Trump would force Moscow to take retaliatory steps, with one saying it would make Poland a target in the event of a conflict. Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he would deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia. Members of Russia's parliament were the first in Moscow to react to the initiative, which they said also envisaged deploying military drones. "In the event of any conflict, God forbid, the territory of Poland would become a clear target for a retaliatory strike, if there was suddenly an attack on us," Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy head of the upper house of parliament's international affairs committee, told the Interfax news agency. Another lawmaker, ex-commander of Russia's special forces Vladimir Shamanov, who now runs the lower house of parliament's defence committee, said he was concerned about the US drones because of their potential to carry nuclear weapons. "The world is gradually slipping towards a dangerous moment comparable to the Caribbean crisis," Shamanov said, using the Russian expression for the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - a standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. "...We will be forced to take retaliatory measures and we have them in our armoury," Interfax cited him as saying. The Russian parliament is not normally involved in the decision-making process on foreign affairs, except in situations where the Kremlin requests the upper house's formal approval for a military operation. The Kremlin has yet to comment on the new US plans for Poland but President Vladimir Putin said in an interview, published earlier on Thursday, that relations between Moscow and Washington were getting worse and worse. Trump announced the Polish deployment ahead of a G20 summit in Japan later this month, at which Trump and Putin might meet.

Russia will respond to new United States deployment in Poland: Lawmakers

It was a symbolic gift from Emmanuel Macron to Donald Trump at the height of their “bromance” last year: an oak tree ceremoniously planted in the manicured lawns of the White House by both leaders.

Trump and Macron’s symbolic friendship tree dies

A Mexican judge has freed two migrant rights activists who organised caravans, said a member of their legal team and a rights group on Wednesday, a week after their arrest which their supporters said was meant to appease the Trump administration.

After 13 hours of oral arguments for Cristobal Sanchez on Tuesday and an eight-hour overnight hearing for Irineo Mujica, a judge in southern Chiapas state ruled that the two veteran defenders of migrants should not be held in pre-trial custody, said lawyer Santiago Nunez, who attended the hearings.

Sanchez, 41, and Mujica, 49 were arrested within an hour of each other on June 5 and jailed as part of a Mexican crackdown that week, which coincided with talks in Washington to avert tariffs threatened by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-promises-unprecedented-steps-to-curb-migration-in-us-deal-joint-statement-225371">US President Donald Trump</a>.

The high profile activists were held in a prison in the southern border city of Tapachula ahead of a hearing on people trafficking charges.

The judge ruled they could face the charges in liberty. They face possible 24-year sentences each.

No-show by accusers

In Sanchez's hearing, the defence team presented witnesses, a photo, video and documents to show he was at a party in Mexico City on March 29 about 10 p.m., Nunez said.

That evidence contradicted four Honduran migrants who had said they handed $8,000 to Sanchez at that time in the Guatemalan border city of Tecun Uman.

The legal team also presented evidence that Mujica was in the town of Chahuites, Oaxaca, on Feb. 27 at about 9 a.m., about 114 miles (185km) from Mapastepec, Chiapas, where two other Honduran migrants had accused him of taking 7000 pesos ($374) to transport them to Tijuana at that time, Nunez said.

None of the six migrants who had accused Sanchez and Mujica appeared at the hearings, Nunez said.

Mexico's federal prosecutor office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mujica, working with migrant aid organization Pueblo Sin Fronteras, has for years guided annual caravans of Central American migrants, negotiating their passage, temporary shelter, food handouts and occasional transport through Mexico and sometimes to the US border.

The migrants travelling in large groups to avoid exploitation by cartels and corrupt government officials drew international attention in 2018 when Trump said they should be stopped before reaching the US border.

Though Pueblo Sin Fronteras has helped shepherd caravans for years, several more have formed more spontaneously since 2018 in southern Mexico or in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

A Mexican judge has freed two migrant rights activists who organised caravans, said a member of their legal team and a rights group on Wednesday, a week after their arrest which their supporters said was meant to appease the Trump administration.

A Mexican judge has freed two migrant rights activists who organised caravans, said a member of their legal team and a rights group on Wednesday, a week after their arrest which their supporters said was meant to appease the Trump administration. After 13 hours of oral arguments for Cristobal Sanchez on Tuesday and an eight-hour overnight hearing for Irineo Mujica, a judge in southern Chiapas state ruled that the two veteran defenders of migrants should not be held in pre-trial custody, said lawyer Santiago Nunez, who attended the hearings. Sanchez, 41, and Mujica, 49 were arrested within an hour of each other on June 5 and jailed as part of a Mexican crackdown that week, which coincided with talks in Washington to avert tariffs threatened by US President Donald Trump. The high profile activists were held in a prison in the southern border city of Tapachula ahead of a hearing on people trafficking charges. The judge ruled they could face the charges in liberty. They face possible 24-year sentences each. No-show by accusers In Sanchez's hearing, the defence team presented witnesses, a photo, video and documents to show he was at a party in Mexico City on March 29 about 10 p.m., Nunez said. That evidence contradicted four Honduran migrants who had said they handed $8,000 to Sanchez at that time in the Guatemalan border city of Tecun Uman. The legal team also presented evidence that Mujica was in the town of Chahuites, Oaxaca, on Feb. 27 at about 9 a.m., about 114 miles (185km) from Mapastepec, Chiapas, where two other Honduran migrants had accused him of taking 7000 pesos ($374) to transport them to Tijuana at that time, Nunez said. None of the six migrants who had accused Sanchez and Mujica appeared at the hearings, Nunez said. Mexico's federal prosecutor office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mujica, working with migrant aid organization Pueblo Sin Fronteras, has for years guided annual caravans of Central American migrants, negotiating their passage, temporary shelter, food handouts and occasional transport through Mexico and sometimes to the US border. The migrants travelling in large groups to avoid exploitation by cartels and corrupt government officials drew international attention in 2018 when Trump said they should be stopped before reaching the US border. Though Pueblo Sin Fronteras has helped shepherd caravans for years, several more have formed more spontaneously since 2018 in southern Mexico or in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

Two prominent migrant rights defenders freed in Mexico

&nbsp;The US President Donald Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he will<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/poland-offering-2-billion-to-host-us-military-base-donald-trump-166570"> deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland</a>, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia.

Despite their strong show of unity, Trump disagreed with Duda's attempt to force the retirement of some Polish Supreme Court judges, a decision last year that prompted protests. "No," Trump said when asked if he supported the move.

Trump announced the troop deployment at a joint news conference with Duda in the White House Rose Garden shortly after the two leaders signed a joint declaration affirming defence cooperation and watched a US made F-35 fighter jet fly overhead.

Duda, who is considering naming the US installation "Fort Trump," said the new influx of troops was needed because of Moscow's past aggression against Poland and to help solidify his country's ties to the West.

"Russia again is showing its unkind, unfriendly imperial face," he said. "Russia is always looking out to take our territory."

Trump said earlier the troop contingent could come from the US force in Germany, which he has accused of paying too little for NATO's common defence.

The decision by Trump represents an effort to cater to the interests of Poland, a key NATO ally, while not overly antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump would like to have friendly relations. He and Putin are to meet in Japan in two weeks.

"I hope that Poland is going to have a great relationship with Russia. I hope that we're going to have a great relationship with Russia," said Trump.

The United States already has troops in Poland as part of a 2016 agreement with the NATO military alliance in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Poland's eastern neighbour Ukraine in 2014.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a statement welcoming the deployment.

"Today’s announcement is part of NATO’s measured, defensive and proportionate efforts to strengthen our deterrence and defence," he said.

Duda denied backsliding on democracy when asked about his attempt to remove the judges. He said some of them dated back to Poland's communist past and that he wanted to remove them as part of judicial reforms.

"This is a very complex issue," he said. "Everything that we were doing was aimed at retiring those people .. Let me assure you, freedom of speech is absolutely respected in Poland. Poland absolutely respects all constitutional standards."

With Trump to turn 73 on Friday, Duda wished Trump a happy birthday at an evening White House reception whose audience included Polish-Americans. Some in the crowd launched into a happy birthday song in Polish.

"This first term of your presidency will be the introduction to your second term," Duda told Trump.

The US President Donald Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he will deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia.

The US President Donald Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he will deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia. Despite their strong show of unity, Trump disagreed with Duda's attempt to force the retirement of some Polish Supreme Court judges, a decision last year that prompted protests. "No," Trump said when asked if he supported the move. Trump announced the troop deployment at a joint news conference with Duda in the White House Rose Garden shortly after the two leaders signed a joint declaration affirming defence cooperation and watched a US made F-35 fighter jet fly overhead. Duda, who is considering naming the US installation "Fort Trump," said the new influx of troops was needed because of Moscow's past aggression against Poland and to help solidify his country's ties to the West. "Russia again is showing its unkind, unfriendly imperial face," he said. "Russia is always looking out to take our territory." Trump said earlier the troop contingent could come from the US force in Germany, which he has accused of paying too little for NATO's common defence. The decision by Trump represents an effort to cater to the interests of Poland, a key NATO ally, while not overly antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump would like to have friendly relations. He and Putin are to meet in Japan in two weeks. "I hope that Poland is going to have a great relationship with Russia. I hope that we're going to have a great relationship with Russia," said Trump. The United States already has troops in Poland as part of a 2016 agreement with the NATO military alliance in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Poland's eastern neighbour Ukraine in 2014. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a statement welcoming the deployment. "Today’s announcement is part of NATO’s measured, defensive and proportionate efforts to strengthen our deterrence and defence," he said. Duda denied backsliding on democracy when asked about his attempt to remove the judges. He said some of them dated back to Poland's communist past and that he wanted to remove them as part of judicial reforms. "This is a very complex issue," he said. "Everything that we were doing was aimed at retiring those people .. Let me assure you, freedom of speech is absolutely respected in Poland. Poland absolutely respects all constitutional standards." With Trump to turn 73 on Friday, Duda wished Trump a happy birthday at an evening White House reception whose audience included Polish-Americans. Some in the crowd launched into a happy birthday song in Polish. "This first term of your presidency will be the introduction to your second term," Duda told Trump.

US will deploy 1,000 troops to Poland; Warsaw may call them 'Fort Trump'

ISIS Is Down Not Out Yet. Reports Show That The Terror Group Is Alive & Kicking In NorthEast Afghanistan 3 months ago, the U.S. President proclaimed the end of ISIS in Syria... Now reports show that ISIS is rapidly gained ground in Afghanistan. Palki gets us the latest updates

Gravitas: ISIS expands footprint in Afghanistan

Palestinians urged Egypt and Jordan on Wednesday to reconsider their attendance at a US-led conference on June 25-26 in Bahrain, voicing concern it would weaken any Arab opposition to Washington's coming peace plan.

The United States has billed the gathering as a workshop to boost the Palestinian economy as part of a broader diplomatic effort widely referred to as President &nbsp;Donald Trump's "deal of the century" to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The participation of Egypt and Jordan is considered especially important because they have historically been key players in Middle East peace efforts and are also the only Arab states to have reached peace agreements with Israel.

But Palestinians are boycotting the meeting, saying Trump's peace plan is likely to be heavily weighted in favour of Israel and to quash their aspirations for statehood in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israeli and US officials say Israel has yet to be formally invited, given discussions between Washington and Bahrain over what might be an appropriate makeup of an Israeli delegation.

"The Palestinian Authority urges Egypt and Jordan not to attend the Bahrain conference," Ibrahim Melhem, a spokesman for the Palestinian government said on Facebook after US officials announced the two nations, along with Morocco, would attend.

Melhem urged "all brotherly and friendly countries to withdraw", adding that participation "would carry wrong messages about the unity of the Arab position" on rejecting Trump's plan.

While the precise outlines of the draft plan have yet to be revealed, Palestinian and Arab sources who have been briefed about it say it has jettisoned the two-state solution. The plan faces possible delays due to political upheaval in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must fight another election after failing to form a government.

US Pressure

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said this month that Cairo would not accept anything the Palestinians did not support.

Tareq Baconi, an analyst with the International Crisis Group who is based in Jerusalem, said both Egypt and Jordan had faced heavy US pressure to go to Bahrain.

"This is a significant disappointment for the Palestinians because it is a breaking of the ranks in the Arab region. Their call to boycott has not been heeded," Baconi told Reuters.

After Israel, Egypt is the largest beneficiary of US military aid and received $1.3 billion in 2018. Pro-Western Jordan was allocated $443 million in US military assistance last year. Both countries border Palestinian areas and Israel.

US3 officials have said they are inviting economic and finance ministers, as well as business leaders from the region and around the world, to discuss investment in the troubled Palestinian economy in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Global financial bodies including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank will be represented.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have also confirmed their attendance, a White House official said.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil said on Tuesday that Lebanon would not attend because "the Palestinians will not participate, and we prefer to have a clear idea of the proposed peace plan, as we have not been consulted or informed about it".

In a letter on Monday to diplomatic missions, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinian economic crisis, which the conference is to address, was actually the result of what he called a "financial war waged by the Trump administration" as well as Israeli occupation.

Washington ceased its aid to the Palestinians early this year, dealing President Mahmoud Abbas another blow after recognising contested Jerusalem as Israel's capital in late 2017 and moving the US embassy to the holy city from Tel Aviv.

"If anyone is interested in the economic development of Palestine, they should tackle the root causes that prevented Palestinians from reaching their full potential in our country," Erekat said.

Palestinians urged Egypt and Jordan on Wednesday to reconsider their attendance at a US-led conference on June 25-26 in Bahrain, voicing concern it would weaken any Arab opposition to Washington's coming peace plan.

Palestinians urged Egypt and Jordan on Wednesday to reconsider their attendance at a US-led conference on June 25-26 in Bahrain, voicing concern it would weaken any Arab opposition to Washington's coming peace plan. The United States has billed the gathering as a workshop to boost the Palestinian economy as part of a broader diplomatic effort widely referred to as President Donald Trump's "deal of the century" to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The participation of Egypt and Jordan is considered especially important because they have historically been key players in Middle East peace efforts and are also the only Arab states to have reached peace agreements with Israel. But Palestinians are boycotting the meeting, saying Trump's peace plan is likely to be heavily weighted in favour of Israel and to quash their aspirations for statehood in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israeli and US officials say Israel has yet to be formally invited, given discussions between Washington and Bahrain over what might be an appropriate makeup of an Israeli delegation. "The Palestinian Authority urges Egypt and Jordan not to attend the Bahrain conference," Ibrahim Melhem, a spokesman for the Palestinian government said on Facebook after US officials announced the two nations, along with Morocco, would attend. Melhem urged "all brotherly and friendly countries to withdraw", adding that participation "would carry wrong messages about the unity of the Arab position" on rejecting Trump's plan. While the precise outlines of the draft plan have yet to be revealed, Palestinian and Arab sources who have been briefed about it say it has jettisoned the two-state solution. The plan faces possible delays due to political upheaval in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must fight another election after failing to form a government. US Pressure Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said this month that Cairo would not accept anything the Palestinians did not support. Tareq Baconi, an analyst with the International Crisis Group who is based in Jerusalem, said both Egypt and Jordan had faced heavy US pressure to go to Bahrain. "This is a significant disappointment for the Palestinians because it is a breaking of the ranks in the Arab region. Their call to boycott has not been heeded," Baconi told Reuters. After Israel, Egypt is the largest beneficiary of US military aid and received $1.3 billion in 2018. Pro-Western Jordan was allocated $443 million in US military assistance last year. Both countries border Palestinian areas and Israel. US3 officials have said they are inviting economic and finance ministers, as well as business leaders from the region and around the world, to discuss investment in the troubled Palestinian economy in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Global financial bodies including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank will be represented. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have also confirmed their attendance, a White House official said. Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil said on Tuesday that Lebanon would not attend because "the Palestinians will not participate, and we prefer to have a clear idea of the proposed peace plan, as we have not been consulted or informed about it". In a letter on Monday to diplomatic missions, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinian economic crisis, which the conference is to address, was actually the result of what he called a "financial war waged by the Trump administration" as well as Israeli occupation. Washington ceased its aid to the Palestinians early this year, dealing President Mahmoud Abbas another blow after recognising contested Jerusalem as Israel's capital in late 2017 and moving the US embassy to the holy city from Tel Aviv. "If anyone is interested in the economic development of Palestine, they should tackle the root causes that prevented Palestinians from reaching their full potential in our country," Erekat said.

Palestinians urge Egypt, Jordan to reconsider going to US-led conference

U.S. President Donald Trump said that the U.S. could impose tariffs on French wines in a live phone interview with CNBC on Monday (June 10).

Trump threatens tariffs on French wine

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government.

“We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9.

The two neighbours have been at odds since United States President Donald Trump on May 30 threatened to hit all Mexican imports with steadily rising tariffs unless Mexico successfully halted the northward flow of Central American migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence through Mexico toward the United States.

Approximately 80 per cent of Mexican exports are destined for the United States. Tariffs would have devastated Mexico’s economy.

To keep its goods untaxed, Mexico had to convince President Trump that it was serious about stopping migration. After a week of frantic negotiations, Mexico said it would deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala to stop migrants from entering Mexico.

As part of the agreement, a Trump administration program known as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces some migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed in the US, will also be expanded.

At a June 8 rally “for the dignity of Mexico and friendship with the US” held in the border city of Tijuana, López Obrador pledged that Mexico will reinforce its southern border while still “applying the law and respecting the human rights” of migrants.

Ebrard added at the rally that Mexico had emerged from a near trade war with its “dignity intact.”

Doing the dirty work 
 
As a law professor who teaches human rights, I believe that dignity will come at great cost to both Mexico and to the migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America.

Many Mexican lawmakers, including allies of the president, have expressed outrage that their immigration policy is now bound by an “immoral and unacceptable” deal that effectively turns Mexico itself into Trump’s border wall.

The agreement violates the campaign promises of López Obrador, who took office in December promising to protect migrants’ rights and pledging not to do the U.S.‘s “dirty work” on border enforcement.

It also violates the Mexican Constitution and international law.

According to international refugee law asylum-seekers with demonstrable fear of persecution in their home countries are entitled to seek protection in the place of their choosing. Mexican law goes further. As of 2011, legitimate asylum-seekers are entitled not just to seek but to be granted asylum in Mexico.

Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal. Both the current North American Free Trade Agreement and the newly signed – but not yet ratified – United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement require most trade between North American countries to be tariff-free.

Even before the recent negotiations, López Obrador was already quietly complying with US demands to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the US.

Between January and May of this year, Mexico detained 74,031 migrants – a 36 per cent increase compared to the same period last year under former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto. The number of migrants deported from Mexico tripled from 5,717 in December 2018 to 15,654 in April 2019, government statistics show.

Sending troops out to target migrants, as Mexico has now promised to do, will almost certainly result in the excessive use of force against these migrants.

The Mexican National Guard is an untested new military police force with immigration enforcement powers. Its creation in early 2019 was highly controversial in Mexico given the Mexican military’s extraordinarily violent law enforcement record.

Between 2007 and 2017, when troops were helping police fight Mexican drug cartels, the National Human Rights Commission received over 13,700 complaints of human rights violations committed by soldiers against civilians. These included accusations of arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings.

Mexico is not a safe country 
 
Beyond avoiding tariffs, Mexico’s main victory in its negotiations with the United States appears to be having resisted pressure to sign a “safe third country” agreement.

Under such an agreement, refugees are required to apply for asylum in the country where they first land and not the country where they ultimately want to settle. This means that one country can reject a person’s asylum application if they have already been granted asylum by another country.

Canada and the US&nbsp;signed such an agreement in 2002, and Trump has been pushing Mexico to do the same since spring 2018. Under this proposal, thousands of migrants in Mexico who have already applied for asylum in the United States and are now waiting for an answer would see their applications invalidated.

Foreign Secretary Ebrard consistently rejected that proposal. He insisted that a safe third country arrangement would violate the Mexican Constitution and Mexico’s international human rights agreements.

But it is not actually clear how the newly expanded “Remain in Mexico” program – the details of which have not yet been released – will differ in practice from a safe third country agreement.

Migrants may end up staying in Mexico for years while they await their asylum hearing in the United States. During that period, Mexico will be responsible for housing, feeding and protecting refugees.

Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs from 2000 to 2003, has derided Mexico’s commitment as a “light” safe third country agreement.

The mere idea that Mexico is safe is “a particularly cynical bout of wishful thinking,” as Mexican journalist León Krauze put it in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

Mexico is one of the world’s most dangerous places. An estimated 33,000 people were murdered there last year – twice the average annual homicides in the United States in a country with less than half the population.

Dozens of Central Americans have disappeared from migrant caravans journeying northward in Mexico. Over 90 per cent of migrants say they do not feel safe in Mexico, according to a survey of 500 Central American asylum-seekers conducted in February 2018.

Mexico must do more with less

The “Remain in Mexico” policy is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico, where the immigration system is already under enormous strain.

Around 29,000 people applied for asylum in Mexico in 2018, according to United Nations data. This year, between January and March, Mexico received 12,716 asylum applications – 43 per cent of last year’s total in just three months.

The Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, which processes asylum claims, currently has a two-year backlog.

It will now have to do more with less.

Under López Obrador’s austerity policies, the commission’s 2019 budget was cut 20 per cent, to about $1 million – its lowest budget since 2011.

More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour – these are the ingredients of a refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/migrants-will-pay-the-price-of-mexicos-tariff-deal-with-trump-118269">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government. “We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government. “We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9. The two neighbours have been at odds since United States President Donald Trump on May 30 threatened to hit all Mexican imports with steadily rising tariffs unless Mexico successfully halted the northward flow of Central American migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence through Mexico toward the United States. Approximately 80 per cent of Mexican exports are destined for the United States. Tariffs would have devastated Mexico’s economy. To keep its goods untaxed, Mexico had to convince President Trump that it was serious about stopping migration. After a week of frantic negotiations, Mexico said it would deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala to stop migrants from entering Mexico. As part of the agreement, a Trump administration program known as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces some migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed in the US, will also be expanded. At a June 8 rally “for the dignity of Mexico and friendship with the US” held in the border city of Tijuana, López Obrador pledged that Mexico will reinforce its southern border while still “applying the law and respecting the human rights” of migrants. Ebrard added at the rally that Mexico had emerged from a near trade war with its “dignity intact.” Doing the dirty work As a law professor who teaches human rights, I believe that dignity will come at great cost to both Mexico and to the migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America. Many Mexican lawmakers, including allies of the president, have expressed outrage that their immigration policy is now bound by an “immoral and unacceptable” deal that effectively turns Mexico itself into Trump’s border wall. The agreement violates the campaign promises of López Obrador, who took office in December promising to protect migrants’ rights and pledging not to do the U.S.‘s “dirty work” on border enforcement. It also violates the Mexican Constitution and international law. According to international refugee law asylum-seekers with demonstrable fear of persecution in their home countries are entitled to seek protection in the place of their choosing. Mexican law goes further. As of 2011, legitimate asylum-seekers are entitled not just to seek but to be granted asylum in Mexico. Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal. Both the current North American Free Trade Agreement and the newly signed – but not yet ratified – United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement require most trade between North American countries to be tariff-free. Even before the recent negotiations, López Obrador was already quietly complying with US demands to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the US. Between January and May of this year, Mexico detained 74,031 migrants – a 36 per cent increase compared to the same period last year under former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto. The number of migrants deported from Mexico tripled from 5,717 in December 2018 to 15,654 in April 2019, government statistics show. Sending troops out to target migrants, as Mexico has now promised to do, will almost certainly result in the excessive use of force against these migrants. The Mexican National Guard is an untested new military police force with immigration enforcement powers. Its creation in early 2019 was highly controversial in Mexico given the Mexican military’s extraordinarily violent law enforcement record. Between 2007 and 2017, when troops were helping police fight Mexican drug cartels, the National Human Rights Commission received over 13,700 complaints of human rights violations committed by soldiers against civilians. These included accusations of arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings. Mexico is not a safe country Beyond avoiding tariffs, Mexico’s main victory in its negotiations with the United States appears to be having resisted pressure to sign a “safe third country” agreement. Under such an agreement, refugees are required to apply for asylum in the country where they first land and not the country where they ultimately want to settle. This means that one country can reject a person’s asylum application if they have already been granted asylum by another country. Canada and the US signed such an agreement in 2002, and Trump has been pushing Mexico to do the same since spring 2018. Under this proposal, thousands of migrants in Mexico who have already applied for asylum in the United States and are now waiting for an answer would see their applications invalidated. Foreign Secretary Ebrard consistently rejected that proposal. He insisted that a safe third country arrangement would violate the Mexican Constitution and Mexico’s international human rights agreements. But it is not actually clear how the newly expanded “Remain in Mexico” program – the details of which have not yet been released – will differ in practice from a safe third country agreement. Migrants may end up staying in Mexico for years while they await their asylum hearing in the United States. During that period, Mexico will be responsible for housing, feeding and protecting refugees. Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs from 2000 to 2003, has derided Mexico’s commitment as a “light” safe third country agreement. The mere idea that Mexico is safe is “a particularly cynical bout of wishful thinking,” as Mexican journalist León Krauze put it in a recent Washington Post op-ed. Mexico is one of the world’s most dangerous places. An estimated 33,000 people were murdered there last year – twice the average annual homicides in the United States in a country with less than half the population. Dozens of Central Americans have disappeared from migrant caravans journeying northward in Mexico. Over 90 per cent of migrants say they do not feel safe in Mexico, according to a survey of 500 Central American asylum-seekers conducted in February 2018. Mexico must do more with less The “Remain in Mexico” policy is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico, where the immigration system is already under enormous strain. Around 29,000 people applied for asylum in Mexico in 2018, according to United Nations data. This year, between January and March, Mexico received 12,716 asylum applications – 43 per cent of last year’s total in just three months. The Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, which processes asylum claims, currently has a two-year backlog. It will now have to do more with less. Under López Obrador’s austerity policies, the commission’s 2019 budget was cut 20 per cent, to about $1 million – its lowest budget since 2011. More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour – these are the ingredients of a refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory. (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.)

Migrants will pay the price of Mexico’s tariff deal with Trump

More than a year before the 2020 US presidential election, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-first-2020-event-biden-sets-up-battle-with-trump-over-union-vote-214640">President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden</a> went toe-to-toe in Iowa on Tuesday, trading barbs, testing their messages and providing a glimpse of a potential matchup between the two.

Trump and Biden, the Democratic front-runner, were in Iowa on the same day for the first time during the presidential race. Biden held a series of campaign stops in the state, which will hold the first nominating contest for Democrats next February. Trump appeared at an event promoting biofuels and then spoke at a state Republican Party fundraiser.

“We didn’t plan it this way,” Biden joked at one event.

But there was little levity between the two men throughout the day. Just four years apart in age, they exhibited dramatically different political styles.

As has long been his approach, Trump, 72, early in the day belittled a potential opponent with a series of insults, mocking Biden’s age, appearance and intelligence, and calling him a “loser.”

Biden, 76, hit back, but in a more restrained way, preferring to focus on Trump’s actions as president. At a stop in Ottumwa, he referred to Trump as “a threat to our core values.”

The exchanges illustrated the challenge Trump poses for Biden. Rather than focusing on any single policy issue, Biden's campaign is centred on the notion of a return to public decency and political modesty. Much of his stump speech is devoted to what he terms national values.

“We have to be a lot more civil in the way we engage one another,” Biden told reporters in Mount Pleasant. “The system isn’t broken. The politics are broken.”

Trump takes a much more aggressive political approach. He has remade the nature of the presidency in his own fashion, using social media with characteristic bluntness, challenging longtime US allies and questioning Washington traditions once viewed as sacrosanct.

On the campaign trail, Biden often says he views Trump’s first term as president as an “aberration.” A second term, he warns, “will fundamentally change who we are as a nation.”

Biden seems to worry out loud that might already be occurring.

“Some say this is an old-fashioned way of doing things,” he said in Ottumwa. “If it’s old fashioned ... we’re in real trouble.”

Bygone Days

Unlike his Democratic rivals, who routinely blast Republicans as Trump lackeys, Biden expresses nostalgia for the

Republican Party that existed before Trump arrived. “It would be nice if they start to vote like they used to,” Biden said at an event last week in New Hampshire.

But at a Republican fundraiser in West Des Moines on Tuesday night, the president received a fervent welcome, suggesting his near-absolute grip on the party.

"We are going to show this president that we believe in him and we love him," said the chair of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann.

Trump demonstrated why he will likely be a formidable candidate next year, focusing his remarks at the event on the strong US economy and talking up his recent deal with Mexico on migration. He notably did not mention Biden by name and touted his administration's record.

"We've turned it all around," he said.

Iowa will serve as a key battleground in the November 2020 election, a swing state that went for Trump on 2016 but for Democrat Barack Obama the two previous elections.

Trump has long been running for re-election but will hold an official kickoff event next week in Florida. No Republican has challenged him for his party’s nomination.

Before Biden can win the Democratic nomination to face him next year, he must solidify his support in Iowa.

A statewide Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll released last week showed Biden with 24 per cent of the vote among Democrats in the state, a lower level of support than he has shown in other early states. Close behind were US Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

In a head-to-head fight, Biden, who has a history of strong union support, would be competing with Trump for the same white, working-class voters in Iowa and elsewhere who helped Trump win the 2016 election.

Farmers in Iowa and elsewhere, a key Trump constituency, have been hit particularly hard by Trump's 10-month tariff war with China.

Biden made a direct appeal to them on Tuesday.

"It’s really easy to be tough when someone else absorbs the pain," he said.

More than a year before the 2020 US presidential election, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden went toe-to-toe in Iowa on Tuesday, trading barbs, testing their messages and providing a glimpse of a potential matchup between the two.

More than a year before the 2020 US presidential election, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden went toe-to-toe in Iowa on Tuesday, trading barbs, testing their messages and providing a glimpse of a potential matchup between the two. Trump and Biden, the Democratic front-runner, were in Iowa on the same day for the first time during the presidential race. Biden held a series of campaign stops in the state, which will hold the first nominating contest for Democrats next February. Trump appeared at an event promoting biofuels and then spoke at a state Republican Party fundraiser. “We didn’t plan it this way,” Biden joked at one event. But there was little levity between the two men throughout the day. Just four years apart in age, they exhibited dramatically different political styles. As has long been his approach, Trump, 72, early in the day belittled a potential opponent with a series of insults, mocking Biden’s age, appearance and intelligence, and calling him a “loser.” Biden, 76, hit back, but in a more restrained way, preferring to focus on Trump’s actions as president. At a stop in Ottumwa, he referred to Trump as “a threat to our core values.” The exchanges illustrated the challenge Trump poses for Biden. Rather than focusing on any single policy issue, Biden's campaign is centred on the notion of a return to public decency and political modesty. Much of his stump speech is devoted to what he terms national values. “We have to be a lot more civil in the way we engage one another,” Biden told reporters in Mount Pleasant. “The system isn’t broken. The politics are broken.” Trump takes a much more aggressive political approach. He has remade the nature of the presidency in his own fashion, using social media with characteristic bluntness, challenging longtime US allies and questioning Washington traditions once viewed as sacrosanct. On the campaign trail, Biden often says he views Trump’s first term as president as an “aberration.” A second term, he warns, “will fundamentally change who we are as a nation.” Biden seems to worry out loud that might already be occurring. “Some say this is an old-fashioned way of doing things,” he said in Ottumwa. “If it’s old fashioned ... we’re in real trouble.” Bygone Days Unlike his Democratic rivals, who routinely blast Republicans as Trump lackeys, Biden expresses nostalgia for the Republican Party that existed before Trump arrived. “It would be nice if they start to vote like they used to,” Biden said at an event last week in New Hampshire. But at a Republican fundraiser in West Des Moines on Tuesday night, the president received a fervent welcome, suggesting his near-absolute grip on the party. "We are going to show this president that we believe in him and we love him," said the chair of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann. Trump demonstrated why he will likely be a formidable candidate next year, focusing his remarks at the event on the strong US economy and talking up his recent deal with Mexico on migration. He notably did not mention Biden by name and touted his administration's record. "We've turned it all around," he said. Iowa will serve as a key battleground in the November 2020 election, a swing state that went for Trump on 2016 but for Democrat Barack Obama the two previous elections. Trump has long been running for re-election but will hold an official kickoff event next week in Florida. No Republican has challenged him for his party’s nomination. Before Biden can win the Democratic nomination to face him next year, he must solidify his support in Iowa. A statewide Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll released last week showed Biden with 24 per cent of the vote among Democrats in the state, a lower level of support than he has shown in other early states. Close behind were US Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. In a head-to-head fight, Biden, who has a history of strong union support, would be competing with Trump for the same white, working-class voters in Iowa and elsewhere who helped Trump win the 2016 election. Farmers in Iowa and elsewhere, a key Trump constituency, have been hit particularly hard by Trump's 10-month tariff war with China. Biden made a direct appeal to them on Tuesday. "It’s really easy to be tough when someone else absorbs the pain," he said.

Trump, Biden show distinct styles in potential 2020 preview

It might be the most low-tech item at a Shanghai consumer electronics fair, but a bash-able Donald Trump is eliciting perhaps the most physical reaction from visitors amid his tech-and-tariff war with China. A kiosk at the centre of the Consumer Electronics Show Asia (CES Asia) bills itself as a "stress-relief" station where you can smash a life-sized bobblehead likeness of the US president with a hammer.

Trump-bashing gets physical at China tech show

U\S President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he had received a very warm letter from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, calling the correspondence "beautiful."

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump added, "I think that something will happen that’s going to be very positive,"&nbsp;but gave no details.

Washington is seeking to rebuild momentum in stalled talks with Pyongyang, aimed at getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Trump and Kim last met early this year in Hanoi but failed to reach a denuclearisation agreement.

Trump spoke a day after the Wall Street Journal reported that Kim’s slain half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, was a source for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Kim Jong Nam was killed at the airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2017.

"I did receive a beautiful letter from Kim Jong Un ... I appreciated the letter. I saw the information about CIA with respect to his brother, or half-brother. And I will tell him that will not happen under my ... I wouldn’t let that happen."&nbsp;"A very warm, very nice letter,"&nbsp;Trump said.

"I think North Korea has tremendous potential."

He did not rule out another meeting soon with Kim. Trump is due to travel to Japan and South Korea later this month.

Trump said Kim had thus far kept his promises not to test long-range ballistic missiles or conduct underground nuclear tests.

In May, North Korea conducted a “strike drill” for multiple launchers, firing tactical guided weapons in a military drill supervised by Kim.

Trump said at the time that these launches did not pose a problem in his eyes, although his advisers called them a violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

U\S President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he had received a very warm letter from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, calling the correspondence "beautiful." Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump added, "I think that something will happen that’s going to be very positive," but gave no details.

U\S President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he had received a very warm letter from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, calling the correspondence "beautiful." Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump added, "I think that something will happen that’s going to be very positive," but gave no details. Washington is seeking to rebuild momentum in stalled talks with Pyongyang, aimed at getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Trump and Kim last met early this year in Hanoi but failed to reach a denuclearisation agreement. Trump spoke a day after the Wall Street Journal reported that Kim’s slain half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, was a source for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Kim Jong Nam was killed at the airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2017. "I did receive a beautiful letter from Kim Jong Un ... I appreciated the letter. I saw the information about CIA with respect to his brother, or half-brother. And I will tell him that will not happen under my ... I wouldn’t let that happen." "A very warm, very nice letter," Trump said. "I think North Korea has tremendous potential." He did not rule out another meeting soon with Kim. Trump is due to travel to Japan and South Korea later this month. Trump said Kim had thus far kept his promises not to test long-range ballistic missiles or conduct underground nuclear tests. In May, North Korea conducted a “strike drill” for multiple launchers, firing tactical guided weapons in a military drill supervised by Kim. Trump said at the time that these launches did not pose a problem in his eyes, although his advisers called them a violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Donald Trump says he received a 'beautiful letter' from North Korea's Kim Jong-un

Mexico and the United States might consider additional steps next month to restrict illegal immigration from Central America, including measures to bind Brazil and Panama into their efforts, Mexico`s foreign minister said on Monday.&nbsp;

Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said the measures could be needed if a deal announced last week between Washington and Mexico fails to reduce within 45 days the numbers of migrants entering Mexico, mainly from Central America, on their way to the US border.&nbsp;

The deal averted import tariffs on all Mexican goods that President Donald Trump had threatened to impose unless Mexico committed to do more to fight illegal immigration into the United States.&nbsp;

US stocks were higher on Monday after the United States shelved the tariff plan, easing worries about the impact of another trade war on the global economy. The Mexican peso was up more than 2 per cent against the dollar but major risks remain for the currency.

Under the agreement, Mexico will rapidly expand a program under which migrants applying for asylum in the United States wait out the process in Mexico. It has also pledged to reinforce its southern border with Guatemala with 6,000 members of its National Guard militarised police force.

But Trump said on Monday he would go ahead with the proposed tariffs if Mexico`s Congress did not back part of the deal that may need lawmakers` approval.

"We do not anticipate a problem with the vote but, if for any reason the approval is not forthcoming, tariffs will be reinstated," he wrote on Twitter.&nbsp; 
Ebrard told a news conference that Trump was referring to possible further measures to pressure countries other than the United States to share the burden.

BRAZIL, PANAMA, GUATEMALA&nbsp;

"If the measures we are proposing are not successful, we have to discuss with the United States and with other countries, like Guatemala, Panama and Brazil," he said. "It is a regional system."

"If we have to participate in a regional model like the one I have just described, we would have to present that to Congress," Ebrard said. 
Many of the migrants are families trying to escape poverty and violent crime in Central America, one of the most impoverished areas in the Western Hemisphere.&nbsp;

Asylum seekers from El Salvador and Honduras first pass through Guatemala when fleeing their homes, while Cubans and Haitians often fly first to Panama before heading to the United States through Mexico.&nbsp; 
Migrants from African countries regularly fly to Brazil before making the arduous journey north.

While he did not go into detail, Ebrard suggested that asylum seekers might have to seek refuge in the first country they reached after leaving their homeland.

That is different from a long-standing US demand that Mexico be declared a safe place for asylum seekers, requiring them to seek refuge in Mexico if they passed through the country on the way to the United States. That demand was put on the table again by US negotiators last week, but was not accepted by Mexico.

Any plan that called on Brazil, Guatemala or Panama to take in more asylum seekers would require cooperation from those countries.

US&nbsp;border officers apprehended more than 132,000 people crossing from Mexico in May, the highest monthly level since 2006. Trump, who has called the surge in migrants an "invasion," had threatened to keep raising duties up to 25% unless Mexico did more to curb it.

The Trump administration said on Monday that Kenneth Cuccinelli would serve as the new acting director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which oversees the nation`s legal immigration system. Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia, has developed a reputation as a hardliner on immigration.&nbsp;

He has called for denying citizenship to US-born children whose parents are in the country illegally, and authorized law enforcement officials to investigate the immigration status of anyone they stopped.

Mexico had no specific target for the reduction of migrant numbers, Ebrard said. Still, Martha Barcena, Mexico`s ambassador to Washington, told CBS News on the weekend there had been discussion of reducing the numbers to levels of around 2018.

Ebrard also said there was no agreement between the United States and Mexico to purchase more agricultural products under the accord, despite Trump saying over the weekend that Mexico had agreed to buy "large quantities" from US farmers.&nbsp;

Ebrard said he thought Trump might be making a calculation based on Mexican agricultural imports when freed from the threat of tariffs.

Mexico and the United States might consider additional steps next month to restrict illegal immigration from Central America, including measures to bind Brazil and Panama into their efforts, Mexico`s foreign minister said on Monday.

Mexico and the United States might consider additional steps next month to restrict illegal immigration from Central America, including measures to bind Brazil and Panama into their efforts, Mexico`s foreign minister said on Monday. Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said the measures could be needed if a deal announced last week between Washington and Mexico fails to reduce within 45 days the numbers of migrants entering Mexico, mainly from Central America, on their way to the US border. The deal averted import tariffs on all Mexican goods that President Donald Trump had threatened to impose unless Mexico committed to do more to fight illegal immigration into the United States. US stocks were higher on Monday after the United States shelved the tariff plan, easing worries about the impact of another trade war on the global economy. The Mexican peso was up more than 2 per cent against the dollar but major risks remain for the currency. Under the agreement, Mexico will rapidly expand a program under which migrants applying for asylum in the United States wait out the process in Mexico. It has also pledged to reinforce its southern border with Guatemala with 6,000 members of its National Guard militarised police force. But Trump said on Monday he would go ahead with the proposed tariffs if Mexico`s Congress did not back part of the deal that may need lawmakers` approval. "We do not anticipate a problem with the vote but, if for any reason the approval is not forthcoming, tariffs will be reinstated," he wrote on Twitter. Ebrard told a news conference that Trump was referring to possible further measures to pressure countries other than the United States to share the burden. BRAZIL, PANAMA, GUATEMALA "If the measures we are proposing are not successful, we have to discuss with the United States and with other countries, like Guatemala, Panama and Brazil," he said. "It is a regional system." "If we have to participate in a regional model like the one I have just described, we would have to present that to Congress," Ebrard said. Many of the migrants are families trying to escape poverty and violent crime in Central America, one of the most impoverished areas in the Western Hemisphere. Asylum seekers from El Salvador and Honduras first pass through Guatemala when fleeing their homes, while Cubans and Haitians often fly first to Panama before heading to the United States through Mexico. Migrants from African countries regularly fly to Brazil before making the arduous journey north. While he did not go into detail, Ebrard suggested that asylum seekers might have to seek refuge in the first country they reached after leaving their homeland. That is different from a long-standing US demand that Mexico be declared a safe place for asylum seekers, requiring them to seek refuge in Mexico if they passed through the country on the way to the United States. That demand was put on the table again by US negotiators last week, but was not accepted by Mexico. Any plan that called on Brazil, Guatemala or Panama to take in more asylum seekers would require cooperation from those countries. US border officers apprehended more than 132,000 people crossing from Mexico in May, the highest monthly level since 2006. Trump, who has called the surge in migrants an "invasion," had threatened to keep raising duties up to 25% unless Mexico did more to curb it. The Trump administration said on Monday that Kenneth Cuccinelli would serve as the new acting director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which oversees the nation`s legal immigration system. Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia, has developed a reputation as a hardliner on immigration. He has called for denying citizenship to US-born children whose parents are in the country illegally, and authorized law enforcement officials to investigate the immigration status of anyone they stopped. Mexico had no specific target for the reduction of migrant numbers, Ebrard said. Still, Martha Barcena, Mexico`s ambassador to Washington, told CBS News on the weekend there had been discussion of reducing the numbers to levels of around 2018. Ebrard also said there was no agreement between the United States and Mexico to purchase more agricultural products under the accord, despite Trump saying over the weekend that Mexico had agreed to buy "large quantities" from US farmers. Ebrard said he thought Trump might be making a calculation based on Mexican agricultural imports when freed from the threat of tariffs.

Mexico eyes Brazil for US asylum deal, Trump revives tariff threat

Iran on Tuesday freed a Lebanese national arrested in 2015 and sentenced to 10 years in jail on charges of spying for Washington, Lebanon's security services said Tuesday.

"General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim en route from Tehran to Lebanon, accompanied by Nizar Zakka, after his release by Iranian authorities," the security service said in a statement posted on social media.

It also posted a picture of Ibrahim and Zakka aboard what appeared to be a private aircraft.&nbsp;

Both are due to meet President Michel Aoun at the presidential palace near Beirut shortly after arrival, the statement said.&nbsp;

The news comes hours after Iran's judiciary said it had approved Zakka's release.

"The relevant court has agreed to Nizar Zakka's conditional release and he will be handed over to Lebanese authorities," its Mizan Online website quoted spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili as saying.

"According to the law, those who are sentenced to up to 10 years in jail, if they have served at least one-third of their sentence and shown good behaviour" can be released conditionally.

According to Esmaili, Aoun had requested Zakka's release "in writing" and Iran's Lebanese ally Hezbollah had said it would be "expedient".

"This is an absolutely judicial procedure and no political issue has been involved," Esmaili was quoted by Iran's Tasnim news agency as saying.

A resident of the United States in his 50s, Zakka was arrested in September 2015 during a visit to Iran, where he was convicted the following July.

At the time of his arrest, Iranian state television said he was accused of "deep ties to the military and intelligence services of the United States".

It broadcast photographs of a man in military uniform it said was of Zakka at a US base.

At the end of 2017, Iranian appeal courts upheld his 10-year jail sentence as well as those of an American and two Iranian-Americans accused of "collaboration" with the United States.

Iran and the United States broke diplomatic ties in 1980 in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution. Relations have deteriorated sharply since US President Donald Trump took office in January 2017.

Iran on Tuesday freed a Lebanese national arrested in 2015 and sentenced to 10 years in jail on charges of spying for Washington, Lebanon's security services said Tuesday.

Iran on Tuesday freed a Lebanese national arrested in 2015 and sentenced to 10 years in jail on charges of spying for Washington, Lebanon's security services said Tuesday. "General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim en route from Tehran to Lebanon, accompanied by Nizar Zakka, after his release by Iranian authorities," the security service said in a statement posted on social media. It also posted a picture of Ibrahim and Zakka aboard what appeared to be a private aircraft. Both are due to meet President Michel Aoun at the presidential palace near Beirut shortly after arrival, the statement said. The news comes hours after Iran's judiciary said it had approved Zakka's release. "The relevant court has agreed to Nizar Zakka's conditional release and he will be handed over to Lebanese authorities," its Mizan Online website quoted spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili as saying. "According to the law, those who are sentenced to up to 10 years in jail, if they have served at least one-third of their sentence and shown good behaviour" can be released conditionally. According to Esmaili, Aoun had requested Zakka's release "in writing" and Iran's Lebanese ally Hezbollah had said it would be "expedient". "This is an absolutely judicial procedure and no political issue has been involved," Esmaili was quoted by Iran's Tasnim news agency as saying. A resident of the United States in his 50s, Zakka was arrested in September 2015 during a visit to Iran, where he was convicted the following July. At the time of his arrest, Iranian state television said he was accused of "deep ties to the military and intelligence services of the United States". It broadcast photographs of a man in military uniform it said was of Zakka at a US base. At the end of 2017, Iranian appeal courts upheld his 10-year jail sentence as well as those of an American and two Iranian-Americans accused of "collaboration" with the United States. Iran and the United States broke diplomatic ties in 1980 in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution. Relations have deteriorated sharply since US President Donald Trump took office in January 2017.

Iran frees Lebanese national convicted of spying for US

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - June 11th, 2019

The New York Times will no longer be publishing political cartoons following the uproar surrounding an anti-Semitic depiction of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a political cartoonist whose work was featured in the paper.

New York Times to stop publishing political cartoons

The United States (US), on June 5, withdrew duty-free market access to over 3,600 products that it was providing to India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). &nbsp;

The GSP was put in place in 1971, under which 13 developed countries provide duty-free access to designated products for beneficiary developing countries. &nbsp;

While most developed countries introduced the GSP in 1971, the US accepted this system of preferences in 1976, after the Trade Act of 1974 authorised the US president “to extend duty-free treatment to certain eligible products imported into the United States from beneficiary developing countries”. &nbsp;

The US extended GSP benefits to 104 countries before it removed India from the list of “beneficiary developing countries”.

The Trade Act of 1974 also outlined a set of conditions for determining whether any country should be designated as a beneficiary developing country.

These are: (i) a request by the country to be so designated, (ii) the level of economic development of such a country, (iii) whether or not the other major developed countries extend their GSP scheme to the country, and (iv) the extent to which the country has assured the US of equitable and reasonable access to its market and basic commodity resources. &nbsp;

These conditions gave the US trade administration discretionary powers. Alongside, the Act also introduced a mechanism that was to be used to review if specific products originating in the beneficiary developing countries could continue to enjoy the GSP benefits. &nbsp;

One of the key mechanisms is Competitive Need Limitations (CNL). This states that a beneficiary developing country could lose its GSP eligibility with respect to any product if the CNLs are exceeded. &nbsp;

There are two measures for CNLs: (i) when, during any calendar year, import of a particular product into the US from a beneficiary developing country accounts for 50 per cent or more of the value of total imports of that product into the US, or (ii) exceeds a certain dollar value. As per the GSP rules, the dollar-value limit is increased by $5 million annually. The limit set in 2017 was $180 million.&nbsp;

There were indications since last year that the Trump Administration was taking steps towards eventually denying India the benefits under GSP. &nbsp;

The US president, on October 30, 2018, announced the decision to exclude 94 products from the list of GSP-eligible products, for 16 countries beginning November 1, 2018. &nbsp;

There were 50 products in the exclusion list in which India was the principal beneficiary. The targeted list of products for India was the largest among the 16 countries, whose products lost the GSP beneficiary status.

In March 2019, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced the Trump administration’s intent to terminate India’s designation as a beneficiary developing country under its GSP programme since it was not complying with the “statutory eligibility criteria”. &nbsp;

India was targeted, according to the USTR, for its failure to provide the US with “assurances that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors”. &nbsp;

This was the beginning of a mandatory 60-day period, which is required to be given before a final decision was taken whether to retain the country in the list of beneficiaries. &nbsp;

Finally, on May 31, Trump announced his decision to remove India as a beneficiary country under the US GSP programme, effective from June 5.

The decision of the US president was based on an eligibility review conducted by the USTR in April 2018. This review was conducted on “concerns” related to India’s compliance with the GSP market access criterion, but more importantly, on two petitions related to the same criterion. &nbsp;

The petitions were filed by the US dairy industry and the US medical device industry (Advanced Medical Technology Association) requesting the USTR to withdraw India as a beneficiary country, given Indian trade barriers affecting US exports in those sectors. &nbsp;

The latter petition was regarding the price controls that the government of India had introduced for coronary stents and knee implants aimed at making such devices affordable in the country.

These expressed reasons for removing India from the list of GSP beneficiaries hardly sound convincing. It is clearly part of a strategy adopted by the Trump administration to target the Indian market. &nbsp;

Trump has frequently spoken of the “disadvantage” the US faces due to India being a “very high-tariff nation”. There should be no doubt that there will be further measures taken against India, including implementing “a measure in the form of a safeguard to address increased imports of articles that are a substantial cause of serious injury to a domestic industry producing competitive products”; this was mentioned by Trump in his May 31 proclamation.

What are the implications of India’s removal from the list of US GSP beneficiary countries? According to research conducted for the US Congress, in 2018, India was the largest beneficiary developing country, accounting for over 25 per cent of US imports under GSP. &nbsp;

India’s exports of GSP beneficiary products were $15 billion during April-February 2018-19, which was just less than a third of the total exports to the US. &nbsp;

Six sectors – gems and jewellery, electrical and non-electrical machinery, chemicals, auto components and iron and steel products were the main beneficiaries – with each sector exporting more than a billion dollars. These products would now have to pay tariffs to enter the US market.

It may be mentioned that the tariffs on these products is below 3 per cent for nearly a fourth of the total, which are usually called “nuisance tariffs” because they effectively provide no protection to the domestic industry. &nbsp;

But, these tariffs could cause considerable “nuisance” to the exporters in the form of procedural formalities that would have to be thoroughly reviewed. This would increase the cost of the transaction with regard to exporting to the US. &nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-decoding-the-gsp-puzzle-2759399">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

The United States (US), on June 5, withdrew duty-free market access to over 3,600 products that it was providing to India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP).

The United States (US), on June 5, withdrew duty-free market access to over 3,600 products that it was providing to India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP was put in place in 1971, under which 13 developed countries provide duty-free access to designated products for beneficiary developing countries. While most developed countries introduced the GSP in 1971, the US accepted this system of preferences in 1976, after the Trade Act of 1974 authorised the US president “to extend duty-free treatment to certain eligible products imported into the United States from beneficiary developing countries”. The US extended GSP benefits to 104 countries before it removed India from the list of “beneficiary developing countries”. The Trade Act of 1974 also outlined a set of conditions for determining whether any country should be designated as a beneficiary developing country. These are: (i) a request by the country to be so designated, (ii) the level of economic development of such a country, (iii) whether or not the other major developed countries extend their GSP scheme to the country, and (iv) the extent to which the country has assured the US of equitable and reasonable access to its market and basic commodity resources. These conditions gave the US trade administration discretionary powers. Alongside, the Act also introduced a mechanism that was to be used to review if specific products originating in the beneficiary developing countries could continue to enjoy the GSP benefits. One of the key mechanisms is Competitive Need Limitations (CNL). This states that a beneficiary developing country could lose its GSP eligibility with respect to any product if the CNLs are exceeded. There are two measures for CNLs: (i) when, during any calendar year, import of a particular product into the US from a beneficiary developing country accounts for 50 per cent or more of the value of total imports of that product into the US, or (ii) exceeds a certain dollar value. As per the GSP rules, the dollar-value limit is increased by $5 million annually. The limit set in 2017 was $180 million. There were indications since last year that the Trump Administration was taking steps towards eventually denying India the benefits under GSP. The US president, on October 30, 2018, announced the decision to exclude 94 products from the list of GSP-eligible products, for 16 countries beginning November 1, 2018. There were 50 products in the exclusion list in which India was the principal beneficiary. The targeted list of products for India was the largest among the 16 countries, whose products lost the GSP beneficiary status. In March 2019, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced the Trump administration’s intent to terminate India’s designation as a beneficiary developing country under its GSP programme since it was not complying with the “statutory eligibility criteria”. India was targeted, according to the USTR, for its failure to provide the US with “assurances that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors”. This was the beginning of a mandatory 60-day period, which is required to be given before a final decision was taken whether to retain the country in the list of beneficiaries. Finally, on May 31, Trump announced his decision to remove India as a beneficiary country under the US GSP programme, effective from June 5. The decision of the US president was based on an eligibility review conducted by the USTR in April 2018. This review was conducted on “concerns” related to India’s compliance with the GSP market access criterion, but more importantly, on two petitions related to the same criterion. The petitions were filed by the US dairy industry and the US medical device industry (Advanced Medical Technology Association) requesting the USTR to withdraw India as a beneficiary country, given Indian trade barriers affecting US exports in those sectors. The latter petition was regarding the price controls that the government of India had introduced for coronary stents and knee implants aimed at making such devices affordable in the country. These expressed reasons for removing India from the list of GSP beneficiaries hardly sound convincing. It is clearly part of a strategy adopted by the Trump administration to target the Indian market. Trump has frequently spoken of the “disadvantage” the US faces due to India being a “very high-tariff nation”. There should be no doubt that there will be further measures taken against India, including implementing “a measure in the form of a safeguard to address increased imports of articles that are a substantial cause of serious injury to a domestic industry producing competitive products”; this was mentioned by Trump in his May 31 proclamation. What are the implications of India’s removal from the list of US GSP beneficiary countries? According to research conducted for the US Congress, in 2018, India was the largest beneficiary developing country, accounting for over 25 per cent of US imports under GSP. India’s exports of GSP beneficiary products were $15 billion during April-February 2018-19, which was just less than a third of the total exports to the US. Six sectors – gems and jewellery, electrical and non-electrical machinery, chemicals, auto components and iron and steel products were the main beneficiaries – with each sector exporting more than a billion dollars. These products would now have to pay tariffs to enter the US market. It may be mentioned that the tariffs on these products is below 3 per cent for nearly a fourth of the total, which are usually called “nuisance tariffs” because they effectively provide no protection to the domestic industry. But, these tariffs could cause considerable “nuisance” to the exporters in the form of procedural formalities that would have to be thoroughly reviewed. This would increase the cost of the transaction with regard to exporting to the US. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Decoding the GSP puzzle

US President Donald Trump on Monday lashed out at France for unfair tariffs on "great" American wine

Trump could target French wine with tariffs

President Donald Trump warned Monday he will slap huge new tariffs on China if his counterpart <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/china-exports-grow-despite-us-tariffs-but-import-slump-most-in-nearly-three-years-225842">Xi Jinping </a>doesn't show up for a planned face-to-face meeting later this month and insisted the Chinese economy will never overtake the United States.

Trump delivered his hardline message ahead of the G20 summit on June 28-29 in Osaka, Japan, which could mark a turning point in the trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies.

Asked if a failure by Xi to come to the summit would lead to tariffs kicking in on a further $300 billion in Chinese imports, Trump told CNBC television,&nbsp;"Yes it would."

Trump said the meeting was "scheduled" and that he expects Xi to attend.

"I would be surprised if he didn't go," Trump said. "I think he's going, I haven't heard that he's not."

However, as US-Chinese tensions mount, a spokesman for Xi's government said last month that he had "no information at present" on Trump-Xi talks.

Trump has been trying to strongarm China into fundamental change on trade policies that the president argues have for decades put the United States at an unfair disadvantage.

The two sides seemed to be close to striking a bargain until talks stalled last month. Washington says that Beijing walked away at the last minute, while the Chinese side has signalled it is prepared for a long fight against unreasonable demands.

Trump has already imposed 25 per cent duties on $200 billion of Chinese imports. China has responded with punitive tariffs on $60 billion in US goods.

Last month he threatened to slap tariffs on a further $300 billion of goods -- virtually everything American companies import from China -- if no breakthrough is achieved.

The US Trade Representative office has launched the process to impose the huge new duties, with a hearing scheduled for June 17 -- but Trump has said he has yet to decide whether he will ultimately impose the levies.

'They'll never catch us'

Trump has made tariffs a pillar of his foreign policy, arguing that US economic power puts him in a win-win situation when he threatens rivals like China and even close allies, such as Canada, the European Union and Mexico.

The United States says that China cheats in bilateral trade by forcing US importers to give up intellectual property, subsidizing its own companies, and running a huge trade surplus with Washington.

Trump told CNBC that by ratcheting up tariffs, he can ultimately force manufacturers to leave China.

"Those companies are going to move into other locations and there won't be a tariff," he said.

In a game of tit-for-tat, Trump added, China will lose simply because they have far fewer US imports they can target. "We have the big, big advantage," he said.

"China's going to make a deal because they're going to have to make a deal."

Trump's tariff rattling has spooked global markets and also run into pushback from many in Congress.

But in his lengthy CNBC interview, Trump said he is doing what previous presidents avoided because they "either didn't understand it or they were bored by it or they weren't smart enough."

His overall aim, the Republican said, is to ensure that China never overtakes the United States as the world's top economy.&nbsp;

"Had a Democrat gotten in..., China would have caught us," he said. Now "they'll never catch us."

President Donald Trump warned Monday he will slap huge new tariffs on China if his counterpart Xi Jinping doesn't show up for a planned face-to-face meeting later this month and insisted the Chinese economy will never overtake the United States.

President Donald Trump warned Monday he will slap huge new tariffs on China if his counterpart Xi Jinping doesn't show up for a planned face-to-face meeting later this month and insisted the Chinese economy will never overtake the United States. Trump delivered his hardline message ahead of the G20 summit on June 28-29 in Osaka, Japan, which could mark a turning point in the trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies. Asked if a failure by Xi to come to the summit would lead to tariffs kicking in on a further $300 billion in Chinese imports, Trump told CNBC television, "Yes it would." Trump said the meeting was "scheduled" and that he expects Xi to attend. "I would be surprised if he didn't go," Trump said. "I think he's going, I haven't heard that he's not." However, as US-Chinese tensions mount, a spokesman for Xi's government said last month that he had "no information at present" on Trump-Xi talks. Trump has been trying to strongarm China into fundamental change on trade policies that the president argues have for decades put the United States at an unfair disadvantage. The two sides seemed to be close to striking a bargain until talks stalled last month. Washington says that Beijing walked away at the last minute, while the Chinese side has signalled it is prepared for a long fight against unreasonable demands. Trump has already imposed 25 per cent duties on $200 billion of Chinese imports. China has responded with punitive tariffs on $60 billion in US goods. Last month he threatened to slap tariffs on a further $300 billion of goods -- virtually everything American companies import from China -- if no breakthrough is achieved. The US Trade Representative office has launched the process to impose the huge new duties, with a hearing scheduled for June 17 -- but Trump has said he has yet to decide whether he will ultimately impose the levies. 'They'll never catch us' Trump has made tariffs a pillar of his foreign policy, arguing that US economic power puts him in a win-win situation when he threatens rivals like China and even close allies, such as Canada, the European Union and Mexico. The United States says that China cheats in bilateral trade by forcing US importers to give up intellectual property, subsidizing its own companies, and running a huge trade surplus with Washington. Trump told CNBC that by ratcheting up tariffs, he can ultimately force manufacturers to leave China. "Those companies are going to move into other locations and there won't be a tariff," he said. In a game of tit-for-tat, Trump added, China will lose simply because they have far fewer US imports they can target. "We have the big, big advantage," he said. "China's going to make a deal because they're going to have to make a deal." Trump's tariff rattling has spooked global markets and also run into pushback from many in Congress. But in his lengthy CNBC interview, Trump said he is doing what previous presidents avoided because they "either didn't understand it or they were bored by it or they weren't smart enough." His overall aim, the Republican said, is to ensure that China never overtakes the United States as the world's top economy. "Had a Democrat gotten in..., China would have caught us," he said. Now "they'll never catch us."

Will slap huge new tariffs on China if president Xi doesn't show up: Trump ahead of G20 meet

Executives from <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/united-technologies-raytheon-to-create-120-billion-aerospace-and-defence-giant-225977">United Technologies and Raytheon</a> said Monday their merger would benefit the Pentagon and other customers but the proposed deal garnered immediate skepticism from President Donald Trump.

The two companies, which unveiled a "merger of equals" on Sunday, said combining would boost development of faster weapons systems, connected aircraft and other envelope-pushing products, while saving the Pentagon and other customers money.

But Trump, who has shown more willingness than past US presidents to haggle with defense contractors and interject himself into the private sector in general, emerged as a potential question mark, telling CNBC Monday that he was "concerned" by the merger.

"When I hear they're merging, does that take away more competition? It becomes one big fat beautiful company," he told CNBC.

"But I have to negotiate, meaning the United States has to buy things and does that make it less competitive? Because it's already non-competitive."

Moments after Trump's comments, United Technologies Chief Executive Gregory Hayes said on CNBC that the two companies currently have almost no overlap and that their combination would not dent competition.

"We are looking forward to talking to the president later today," Hayes said. "Once he understands the benefits of this merger and what it is going to do to reduce the costs of the government and what it's going to do for jobs in this country, I think he's going be supportive."

Technology race

The UTC merger with Raytheon would transform the two companies into a single conglomerate with varied but well-established brands, each in the top tier of its specialty. The two companies together would have about $74 billion in 2019 sales, according to the announcement.

Raytheon is best known for its Patriot air defense systems, which gained fame during the first Gulf War, and its Tomahawk cruise missiles, often the first weapons fired from US navy ships in recent conflicts.

UTC is a big player in the aeronautics industry with its Pratt &amp; Whitney engines, which are used in civil and military aircraft, including the F-35 multi-role stealth fighter, considered among the most advanced combat aircraft in the world.

Combing the companies will result in annual savings of $1 billion by year four, about half of which could go to the US government, the companies said.

Those savings are one reason the US Department of Defense "is going to really like this deal," Hayes told analysts on a conference call.

The companies' pitch also emphasized the upside in terms of technological breakthroughs through an $8 billion research and development budget, 60,000 engineers and 38,000 active patents.

Technology is no longer changing in "a linear fashion," Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy told analysts, saying the speed of change is "exponential" in many instances.

"We're starting to see significant increases in technology growth in multiple areas that affect our business," Kennedy said. "So we believe that we need to invest in technology and that capability."

Expertise from UTC's Pratt &amp; Whitney business on thermal management could have applications in Raytheon's defense products, while Raytheon's understanding of cybersecurity to boost commercial aviation, he added.

A note from Morningstar praised the deal, saying the "combined company will benefit from increased scale, complementary technology that plugs the gaps of each separate company's portfolios, and a portfolio that can offset a slowdown in either end market's spending growth."

Morningstar added it does not expect "any significant hurdles on the regulatory front, given that both firms have minimal overlap in terms of their underlying businesses."

A Credit Suisse note also alluded to "limited product overlap" but said the economic benefits of the deal "seem modest" and that the promised $1 billion in annual cost savings appear "somewhat questionable."

Shares of Raytheon rose 2.2 percent in late-morning trading to $189.97, while United Technologies lost 1.6 percent and was trading at $130.00.

Executives from United Technologies and Raytheon said Monday their merger would benefit the Pentagon and other customers but the proposed deal garnered immediate skepticism from President Donald Trump.

Executives from United Technologies and Raytheon said Monday their merger would benefit the Pentagon and other customers but the proposed deal garnered immediate skepticism from President Donald Trump. The two companies, which unveiled a "merger of equals" on Sunday, said combining would boost development of faster weapons systems, connected aircraft and other envelope-pushing products, while saving the Pentagon and other customers money. But Trump, who has shown more willingness than past US presidents to haggle with defense contractors and interject himself into the private sector in general, emerged as a potential question mark, telling CNBC Monday that he was "concerned" by the merger. "When I hear they're merging, does that take away more competition? It becomes one big fat beautiful company," he told CNBC. "But I have to negotiate, meaning the United States has to buy things and does that make it less competitive? Because it's already non-competitive." Moments after Trump's comments, United Technologies Chief Executive Gregory Hayes said on CNBC that the two companies currently have almost no overlap and that their combination would not dent competition. "We are looking forward to talking to the president later today," Hayes said. "Once he understands the benefits of this merger and what it is going to do to reduce the costs of the government and what it's going to do for jobs in this country, I think he's going be supportive." Technology race The UTC merger with Raytheon would transform the two companies into a single conglomerate with varied but well-established brands, each in the top tier of its specialty. The two companies together would have about $74 billion in 2019 sales, according to the announcement. Raytheon is best known for its Patriot air defense systems, which gained fame during the first Gulf War, and its Tomahawk cruise missiles, often the first weapons fired from US navy ships in recent conflicts. UTC is a big player in the aeronautics industry with its Pratt & Whitney engines, which are used in civil and military aircraft, including the F-35 multi-role stealth fighter, considered among the most advanced combat aircraft in the world. Combing the companies will result in annual savings of $1 billion by year four, about half of which could go to the US government, the companies said. Those savings are one reason the US Department of Defense "is going to really like this deal," Hayes told analysts on a conference call. The companies' pitch also emphasized the upside in terms of technological breakthroughs through an $8 billion research and development budget, 60,000 engineers and 38,000 active patents. Technology is no longer changing in "a linear fashion," Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy told analysts, saying the speed of change is "exponential" in many instances. "We're starting to see significant increases in technology growth in multiple areas that affect our business," Kennedy said. "So we believe that we need to invest in technology and that capability." Expertise from UTC's Pratt & Whitney business on thermal management could have applications in Raytheon's defense products, while Raytheon's understanding of cybersecurity to boost commercial aviation, he added. A note from Morningstar praised the deal, saying the "combined company will benefit from increased scale, complementary technology that plugs the gaps of each separate company's portfolios, and a portfolio that can offset a slowdown in either end market's spending growth." Morningstar added it does not expect "any significant hurdles on the regulatory front, given that both firms have minimal overlap in terms of their underlying businesses." A Credit Suisse note also alluded to "limited product overlap" but said the economic benefits of the deal "seem modest" and that the promised $1 billion in annual cost savings appear "somewhat questionable." Shares of Raytheon rose 2.2 percent in late-morning trading to $189.97, while United Technologies lost 1.6 percent and was trading at $130.00.

Big US defence merger touts tech, but Trump has questions

Mexico said Monday it will discuss a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-holds-off-trumps-fire-but-seen-vulnerable-to-new-pressure-225987">"safe third country" agreement with the United States </a>-- in which migrants entering Mexican territory must apply for asylum there rather than the US -- if the flow of undocumented immigrants continues.

Amid speculation about the contents of Mexico's deal to curb migration in order to avert President Donald Trump's threat of tariffs, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he had rebuffed the US demand for such a measure, but agreed to revisit the matter in 45 days.

"In the meeting with the vice president of the United States, they were insistent on the safe third country issue," Ebrard told a press conference, three days after reaching a last minute deal to avoid punitive tariffs over the surge of Central American migrants arriving at the US-Mexican border.

"We told them -- I think it was the most important achievement of the negotiations -- 'let's set a time period to see if what Mexico is proposing will work, and if not, we'll sit down and see what additional measures'" are needed, he said.

Ebrard, who led the Mexican negotiating team in marathon talks in Washington, spoke as Trump renewed his tariff threat over a secret provision in the deal.

Trump tweeted that part of the deal would require approval by the Mexican Congress -- he did not give details -- and that "if for any reason the approval is not forthcoming, Tariffs will be reinstated!"

The comment came as he fended off criticism over a New York Times report that said the key terms of the migration deal had in fact been agreed on months ago.

Speaking later on CNBC, Trump said the secret provision was "a very powerful tool."

"I'm going to tell you that most people understand -- that the people having to do with borders and illegal immigration and immigration of any kind -- they understand exactly what that is," he said.

"But we purposely said we wouldn't mention it for a little while ... It has to be brought by their legislative body, it's got to be taken to a vote. So we didn't bring it up, but most people know that answer."

Mexico said Monday it will discuss a "safe third country" agreement with the United States -- in which migrants entering Mexican territory must apply for asylum there rather than the US -- if the flow of undocumented immigrants continues.

Mexico said Monday it will discuss a "safe third country" agreement with the United States -- in which migrants entering Mexican territory must apply for asylum there rather than the US -- if the flow of undocumented immigrants continues. Amid speculation about the contents of Mexico's deal to curb migration in order to avert President Donald Trump's threat of tariffs, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he had rebuffed the US demand for such a measure, but agreed to revisit the matter in 45 days. "In the meeting with the vice president of the United States, they were insistent on the safe third country issue," Ebrard told a press conference, three days after reaching a last minute deal to avoid punitive tariffs over the surge of Central American migrants arriving at the US-Mexican border. "We told them -- I think it was the most important achievement of the negotiations -- 'let's set a time period to see if what Mexico is proposing will work, and if not, we'll sit down and see what additional measures'" are needed, he said. Ebrard, who led the Mexican negotiating team in marathon talks in Washington, spoke as Trump renewed his tariff threat over a secret provision in the deal. Trump tweeted that part of the deal would require approval by the Mexican Congress -- he did not give details -- and that "if for any reason the approval is not forthcoming, Tariffs will be reinstated!" The comment came as he fended off criticism over a New York Times report that said the key terms of the migration deal had in fact been agreed on months ago. Speaking later on CNBC, Trump said the secret provision was "a very powerful tool." "I'm going to tell you that most people understand -- that the people having to do with borders and illegal immigration and immigration of any kind -- they understand exactly what that is," he said. "But we purposely said we wouldn't mention it for a little while ... It has to be brought by their legislative body, it's got to be taken to a vote. So we didn't bring it up, but most people know that answer."

Mexico to discuss 'safe third country' deal with US if migration does not slow

donald-trump

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

donald trump