<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/coalition-of-us-states-sue-trump-administration-in-showdown-over-border-wall-funds-198324">President Donald Trump</a> signed an order Tuesday outlining his vision for a new "Space Force" that could one day become a separate military branch on an equal footing to the Army and Navy.

Trump wants to create a space force to protect satellites, tackle vulnerabilities in space and assert US dominance in orbit.

"We have to be prepared," Trump told reporters after signing the directive.

"My administration has made the creation of a space force a national security issue."

Space Force would be the sixth branch of the military alongside the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard.

The order calls for Congress to draft legislation that would establish Space Force as a branch that falls under the Air Force, similar to how the Navy oversees the Marine Corps.

Defence Department spokesman Charlie Summers said the Pentagon would submit its legislative proposal within the coming weeks.

With the new directive, "Trump is posturing the United States to compete, deter, and win in a complex multi-domain environment characterized by great power competition," Summers said in a statement.

The Air Force said a space force would work "to ensure unfettered access to, and freedom to operate in space, and to provide vital capabilities to joint and coalition forces."

But the creation of Space Force is by no means a done deal, as it must be vetted and approved by Congress.&nbsp;

Lawmakers and defence officials have reacted with scepticism, wary of the cost and added bureaucracy.

Space plays a vital role in just about every aspect of modern warfare, with many military technologies reliant on a network of orbiting sensors and satellites, and the Pentagon has warned that countries such as Russia and China are working to build anti-satellite capabilities.

President Donald Trump signed an order Tuesday outlining his vision for a new "Space Force" that could one day become a separate military branch on an equal footing to the Army and Navy.

President Donald Trump signed an order Tuesday outlining his vision for a new "Space Force" that could one day become a separate military branch on an equal footing to the Army and Navy. Trump wants to create a space force to protect satellites, tackle vulnerabilities in space and assert US dominance in orbit. "We have to be prepared," Trump told reporters after signing the directive. "My administration has made the creation of a space force a national security issue." Space Force would be the sixth branch of the military alongside the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard. The order calls for Congress to draft legislation that would establish Space Force as a branch that falls under the Air Force, similar to how the Navy oversees the Marine Corps. Defence Department spokesman Charlie Summers said the Pentagon would submit its legislative proposal within the coming weeks. With the new directive, "Trump is posturing the United States to compete, deter, and win in a complex multi-domain environment characterized by great power competition," Summers said in a statement. The Air Force said a space force would work "to ensure unfettered access to, and freedom to operate in space, and to provide vital capabilities to joint and coalition forces." But the creation of Space Force is by no means a done deal, as it must be vetted and approved by Congress. Lawmakers and defence officials have reacted with scepticism, wary of the cost and added bureaucracy. Space plays a vital role in just about every aspect of modern warfare, with many military technologies reliant on a network of orbiting sensors and satellites, and the Pentagon has warned that countries such as Russia and China are working to build anti-satellite capabilities.

Trump signs 'Space Force' directive

Russia will respond to any US&nbsp;deployment of short or intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe by targeting not only the countries where they are stationed, but the United States itself, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

In his toughest remarks yet on a potential new arms race, Putin said Russia was not seeking confrontation and would not take the first step to deploy missiles in response to Washington's decision this month to quit a landmark Cold War-era arms control treaty.

But he said that Russia's reaction to any deployment would be resolute and that US&nbsp;policy-makers, some of whom he said were obsessed with US&nbsp;exceptionalism, should calculate the risks before taking any steps.

"It's their right to think how they want. But can they count? I'm sure they can. Let them count the speed and the range of the weapons systems we are developing," Putin told Russia's political elite to strong applause.

"Russia will be forced to create and deploy types of weapons which can be used not only in respect of those territories from which the direct threat to us originates but also in respect of those territories where the centres of decision-making are located,” he said.

Missiles in Europe

Alleging Russian violations, Washington said this month it was suspending its obligations under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and starting the process of quitting it, untying its hands to develop new missiles.

The pact banned either side from stationing short and intermediate-range, land-based missiles in Europe and its demise raises the prospect of a new arms race between Washington and Moscow, which denies flouting the treaty.

Russia denies violating the treaty. Putin responded to the US move by saying Russia would mirror the US moves by suspending its own obligations and quitting the pact.

But Putin, who has sometimes used bellicose rhetoric to talk up Russia's standoff with the West and to rally Russians round the flag, did not up the ante.

He did not announce new missile deployments, said money for new systems must come from existing budget funds and declared that Moscow would not deploy new land-based missiles in Europe or elsewhere unless Washington did so first.

On Wednesday, he made clear however that he was ready, reluctantly, to escalate if the United States escalated and that Russia was continuing to actively develop weapons and missile systems to ensure it was well prepared for such an eventuality.

He said any U.S. move to place new missiles in Europe would leave Moscow with no choice but to respond because it would drastically cut the time it took U.S. missiles to reach Russia, something that would pose a direct threat.

He said Russia wanted good ties with the United States, but was ready with its defensive response if necessary.

“We know how to do this and we will implement these plans immediately, as soon as the corresponding threats to us become a reality.”

Russia will respond to any US deployment of short or intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe by targeting not only the countries where they are stationed, but the United States itself, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

Russia will respond to any US deployment of short or intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe by targeting not only the countries where they are stationed, but the United States itself, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday. In his toughest remarks yet on a potential new arms race, Putin said Russia was not seeking confrontation and would not take the first step to deploy missiles in response to Washington's decision this month to quit a landmark Cold War-era arms control treaty. But he said that Russia's reaction to any deployment would be resolute and that US policy-makers, some of whom he said were obsessed with US exceptionalism, should calculate the risks before taking any steps. "It's their right to think how they want. But can they count? I'm sure they can. Let them count the speed and the range of the weapons systems we are developing," Putin told Russia's political elite to strong applause. "Russia will be forced to create and deploy types of weapons which can be used not only in respect of those territories from which the direct threat to us originates but also in respect of those territories where the centres of decision-making are located,” he said. Missiles in Europe Alleging Russian violations, Washington said this month it was suspending its obligations under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and starting the process of quitting it, untying its hands to develop new missiles. The pact banned either side from stationing short and intermediate-range, land-based missiles in Europe and its demise raises the prospect of a new arms race between Washington and Moscow, which denies flouting the treaty. Russia denies violating the treaty. Putin responded to the US move by saying Russia would mirror the US moves by suspending its own obligations and quitting the pact. But Putin, who has sometimes used bellicose rhetoric to talk up Russia's standoff with the West and to rally Russians round the flag, did not up the ante. He did not announce new missile deployments, said money for new systems must come from existing budget funds and declared that Moscow would not deploy new land-based missiles in Europe or elsewhere unless Washington did so first. On Wednesday, he made clear however that he was ready, reluctantly, to escalate if the United States escalated and that Russia was continuing to actively develop weapons and missile systems to ensure it was well prepared for such an eventuality. He said any U.S. move to place new missiles in Europe would leave Moscow with no choice but to respond because it would drastically cut the time it took U.S. missiles to reach Russia, something that would pose a direct threat. He said Russia wanted good ties with the United States, but was ready with its defensive response if necessary. “We know how to do this and we will implement these plans immediately, as soon as the corresponding threats to us become a reality.”

We'll target US if Washington deploys missiles in Europe: Putin

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/trump-says-pulwama-attack-a-horrible-situation-198413">Trump says Pulwama attack a 'horrible situation'</a>

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday described as a "horrible situation" the Pulwama terrorist attack by the Jaish-e-Mohammed group, in which 40 Indian paramilitary personnel were killed, saying he was getting reports on it and would issue a statement.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/unleashing-the-power-of-south-asia-at-wion-conclave-today-in-dubai-thought-leaders-to-discuss-way-forward-for-the-region-198427">Unleashing the Power of South Asia: At WION conclave today in Dubai, thought leaders to discuss </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/unleashing-the-power-of-south-asia-at-wion-conclave-today-in-dubai-thought-leaders-to-discuss-way-forward-for-the-region-198427">way</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/unleashing-the-power-of-south-asia-at-wion-conclave-today-in-dubai-thought-leaders-to-discuss-way-forward-for-the-region-198427"> forward for the region</a>

WION is holding its 'Unleashing the Power of South Asia' conclave today in Dubai, the UAE. &nbsp;

The summit will bring together thought leaders from around the world to find common ground on the way forward for the South Asian region.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/un-urges-india-pakistan-to-take-immediate-steps-to-defuse-tensions-198397">UN Secretary-General Guterres urges India, Pakistan to defuse tension, offers to broker peace</a>

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday called on India and Pakistan to take immediate steps to defuse tensions and offered to help broker a solution if both sides agree.

The two countries have been locked in a diplomatic clash following a suicide attack on February 14 in Kashmir that killed 40 Indian security personnel, triggering counter-operations by Indian forces in the area.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/un-urges-india-pakistan-to-take-immediate-steps-to-defuse-tensions-198397">Britain to strip teen who joined Islamic State of citizenship: Lawyer</a>

Britain will strip citizenship from Shamima Begum, a UK teenager who joined the Islamic State group in Syria and wants to return home with a newborn baby, a lawyer for her family said Tuesday.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/agreed-for-alliance-as-bjps-way-of-treating-allies-has-changed-uddhav-thackeray-198407">Agreed to </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/agreed-for-alliance-as-bjps-way-of-treating-allies-has-changed-uddhav-thackeray-198407">alliance</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/agreed-for-alliance-as-bjps-way-of-treating-allies-has-changed-uddhav-thackeray-198407"> as BJP's way of treating allies has changed: Uddhav Thackeray</a>

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray said Tuesday evening that he decided to join hands with the BJP because of the saffron party's changed way of dealing with its allies.

Thackeray was speaking to Sena workers at his residence here.

Trump says Pulwama attack a 'horrible situation' US President Donald Trump on Tuesday described as a "horrible situation" the Pulwama terrorist attack by the Jaish-e-Mohammed group, in which 40 Indian paramilitary personnel were killed, saying he was getting reports on it and would issue a statement.

Trump says Pulwama attack a 'horrible situation' US President Donald Trump on Tuesday described as a "horrible situation" the Pulwama terrorist attack by the Jaish-e-Mohammed group, in which 40 Indian paramilitary personnel were killed, saying he was getting reports on it and would issue a statement. Unleashing the Power of South Asia: At WION conclave today in Dubai, thought leaders to discuss way forward for the region WION is holding its 'Unleashing the Power of South Asia' conclave today in Dubai, the UAE. The summit will bring together thought leaders from around the world to find common ground on the way forward for the South Asian region. UN Secretary-General Guterres urges India, Pakistan to defuse tension, offers to broker peace UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday called on India and Pakistan to take immediate steps to defuse tensions and offered to help broker a solution if both sides agree. The two countries have been locked in a diplomatic clash following a suicide attack on February 14 in Kashmir that killed 40 Indian security personnel, triggering counter-operations by Indian forces in the area. Britain to strip teen who joined Islamic State of citizenship: Lawyer Britain will strip citizenship from Shamima Begum, a UK teenager who joined the Islamic State group in Syria and wants to return home with a newborn baby, a lawyer for her family said Tuesday. Agreed to alliance as BJP's way of treating allies has changed: Uddhav Thackeray Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray said Tuesday evening that he decided to join hands with the BJP because of the saffron party's changed way of dealing with its allies. Thackeray was speaking to Sena workers at his residence here.

News brief: Big stories of the day

A British<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/british-government-to-strip-teen-who-joined-islamic-state-of-citizenship-lawyer-198405"> teenager who joined the Islamic State group in Syria</a> in 2015 said Wednesday she was shocked by a government decision to revoke her citizenship.

Shamima Begum, who <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-teen-who-joined-is-has-given-birth-in-syria-family-197927">now wants to return home</a> after giving birth in a refugee camp in Syria last weekend, said the order was "unjust".

"I am a bit shocked," she told ITV News after learning of the move which was announced in a letter Tuesday from Britain's interior ministry to her mother in London.

"It's a bit upsetting and frustrating. I feel like it's a bit unjust on me and my son."

Begum's fate has stirred controversy since she and two friends fled her east London home to join the terror network four years ago when she was aged just 15.

The case highlights a dilemma facing many European countries, divided over whether to allow jihadists and IS sympathisers home to face prosecution or barring them over security concerns as the so-called "caliphate" crumbles.

A spokeswoman for the interior ministry said on Tuesday it would not comment on individual cases, "but any decisions to deprive individuals of their citizenship are based on all available evidence and not taken lightly".

She added that interior minister Sajid Javid was intent on prioritising "the safety and security of Britain and the people who live here".

"In order to protect this country, he has the power to deprive someone of their British citizenship where it would not render them stateless."

Begum gave birth to her third child at the weekend, and appealed to British authorities to show "compassion" by allowing her to raise the baby in Britain -- while expressing no regret over having joined IS.

'All legal avenues'

In the ministry's letter sent to Begum's mother, it said the teen had the right to appeal the order.

A lawyer for her family said it was disappointed with the move.

"(The) family are very disappointed with the... intention to have an order made depriving Shamima of her citizenship," Tasnime Akunjee said on Twitter.

"We are considering all legal avenues to challenge this decision."

Begum, who is of Bangladeshi heritage, was born in Britain, has never had a Bangladeshi passport and is not a dual citizen, according to Akunjee.

The interior ministry reportedly believes that she is entitled to claim citizenship in the south Asian country.

Chiranjiv Sarker, head of the consular wing and dual nationality issues at Bangladesh's foreign ministry, told AFP it was aware of the case but had not received any contact from the family.

"So far none of her family members (has) approached us," he said. "What I learn from newspapers is that Shamima was trying to return to Britain."

He added that, if approached, the ministry would need to try to verify Begum's Bangladeshi heritage to assess any possible eligibility for citizenship.&nbsp;

Trump call rebuffed

Begum is currently in a refugee camp in northeast Syria where she fled to escape fighting in the east of the country along with hundreds of other people with links to IS.&nbsp;

She said she has previously given birth to two other children after marrying in Syria. Both children have died, apparently from illness and malnutrition.

Begum fled Britain with Kadiza Sultana, who has since been reported killed, and Amira Abase.

Begum said in recent media interviews that Abase had stayed in a village where IS fighters are making a final stand against US-backed forces.

European countries have been grappling with what to do with foreign fighters detained in Syria by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, who have warned they may not be able to guard their jails once US troops leave.

The British government on Monday rebuffed US President Donald Trump's call to take back alleged UK jihadists captured in the war-ravaged country.

Trump had called on Britain, France, Germany and other European allies "to take back over 800 IS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial".

Prime Minister Theresa May's spokesman said the fighters should instead face justice in places where they committed their crimes.

A British teenager who joined the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015 said Wednesday she was shocked by a government decision to revoke her citizenship. Shamima Begum, who now wants to return home after giving birth in a refugee camp in Syria last weekend, said the order was "unjust".

A British teenager who joined the Islamic State group in Syria in 2015 said Wednesday she was shocked by a government decision to revoke her citizenship. Shamima Begum, who now wants to return home after giving birth in a refugee camp in Syria last weekend, said the order was "unjust". "I am a bit shocked," she told ITV News after learning of the move which was announced in a letter Tuesday from Britain's interior ministry to her mother in London. "It's a bit upsetting and frustrating. I feel like it's a bit unjust on me and my son." Begum's fate has stirred controversy since she and two friends fled her east London home to join the terror network four years ago when she was aged just 15. The case highlights a dilemma facing many European countries, divided over whether to allow jihadists and IS sympathisers home to face prosecution or barring them over security concerns as the so-called "caliphate" crumbles. A spokeswoman for the interior ministry said on Tuesday it would not comment on individual cases, "but any decisions to deprive individuals of their citizenship are based on all available evidence and not taken lightly". She added that interior minister Sajid Javid was intent on prioritising "the safety and security of Britain and the people who live here". "In order to protect this country, he has the power to deprive someone of their British citizenship where it would not render them stateless." Begum gave birth to her third child at the weekend, and appealed to British authorities to show "compassion" by allowing her to raise the baby in Britain -- while expressing no regret over having joined IS. 'All legal avenues' In the ministry's letter sent to Begum's mother, it said the teen had the right to appeal the order. A lawyer for her family said it was disappointed with the move. "(The) family are very disappointed with the... intention to have an order made depriving Shamima of her citizenship," Tasnime Akunjee said on Twitter. "We are considering all legal avenues to challenge this decision." Begum, who is of Bangladeshi heritage, was born in Britain, has never had a Bangladeshi passport and is not a dual citizen, according to Akunjee. The interior ministry reportedly believes that she is entitled to claim citizenship in the south Asian country. Chiranjiv Sarker, head of the consular wing and dual nationality issues at Bangladesh's foreign ministry, told AFP it was aware of the case but had not received any contact from the family. "So far none of her family members (has) approached us," he said. "What I learn from newspapers is that Shamima was trying to return to Britain." He added that, if approached, the ministry would need to try to verify Begum's Bangladeshi heritage to assess any possible eligibility for citizenship. Trump call rebuffed Begum is currently in a refugee camp in northeast Syria where she fled to escape fighting in the east of the country along with hundreds of other people with links to IS. She said she has previously given birth to two other children after marrying in Syria. Both children have died, apparently from illness and malnutrition. Begum fled Britain with Kadiza Sultana, who has since been reported killed, and Amira Abase. Begum said in recent media interviews that Abase had stayed in a village where IS fighters are making a final stand against US-backed forces. European countries have been grappling with what to do with foreign fighters detained in Syria by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, who have warned they may not be able to guard their jails once US troops leave. The British government on Monday rebuffed US President Donald Trump's call to take back alleged UK jihadists captured in the war-ravaged country. Trump had called on Britain, France, Germany and other European allies "to take back over 800 IS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial". Prime Minister Theresa May's spokesman said the fighters should instead face justice in places where they committed their crimes.

Islamic State teen 'shocked' after UK revokes her citizenship

The Trump administration announced Tuesday it was nominating a successor to deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-deputy-attorney-rod-rosenstein-overseeing-russia-probe-to-leave-reports-189256">a move that confirms the departure of the Justice Department official</a> who until recently oversaw the Russia probe.

Rosenstein will be replaced by Jeffrey Rosen, the current deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, President Donald Trump's spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said. The decision is subject to confirmation in the Senate.

US media had previously reported Rosenstein planned to resign mid-March. His departure was widely expected following the confirmation of new Attorney General Bill Barr last week.

Rosenstein was responsible for the May 2017 naming of Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate allegations that Russia interfered in the last presidential election and that the Trump campaign colluded in that effort.&nbsp;

Mueller was appointed after Trump abruptly fired FBI director James Comey that same month.

Rosenstein's then boss, Jeff Sessions, who was fired last November, had recused himself from the probe because of his role in Trump's campaign team.&nbsp;

Rosenstein was frequently attacked by Trump on Twitter, while congressional Republicans had also sought his removal.

In an explosive interview aired Sunday, the FBI's former acting director Andrew McCabe said Rosenstein discussed invoking an article of the constitution to remove Trump on the grounds that he was incapable of performing his job.

Rosenstein has dismissed reports that he ever considered such a move -- and that he even pondered wearing a wire to secretly record his conversations with the president -- as a "joke," if indeed he made the comments.&nbsp;

His successor Rosen is a Northwestern University and Harvard Law School graduate and "a distinguished lawyer who has served at the highest levels of government and the private sector," Barr said.

Rosen has worked in both the public and private sector, including as senior partner for the international law firm Kirkland &amp; Ellis.&nbsp;

He previously served in the administration of Republican president George W Bush, first as general counsel for the Department of Transportation and later for the Office of Management and Budget.

The Trump administration announced Tuesday it was nominating a successor to deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, a move that confirms the departure of the Justice Department official who until recently oversaw the Russia probe.

The Trump administration announced Tuesday it was nominating a successor to deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, a move that confirms the departure of the Justice Department official who until recently oversaw the Russia probe. Rosenstein will be replaced by Jeffrey Rosen, the current deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, President Donald Trump's spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said. The decision is subject to confirmation in the Senate. US media had previously reported Rosenstein planned to resign mid-March. His departure was widely expected following the confirmation of new Attorney General Bill Barr last week. Rosenstein was responsible for the May 2017 naming of Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate allegations that Russia interfered in the last presidential election and that the Trump campaign colluded in that effort. Mueller was appointed after Trump abruptly fired FBI director James Comey that same month. Rosenstein's then boss, Jeff Sessions, who was fired last November, had recused himself from the probe because of his role in Trump's campaign team. Rosenstein was frequently attacked by Trump on Twitter, while congressional Republicans had also sought his removal. In an explosive interview aired Sunday, the FBI's former acting director Andrew McCabe said Rosenstein discussed invoking an article of the constitution to remove Trump on the grounds that he was incapable of performing his job. Rosenstein has dismissed reports that he ever considered such a move -- and that he even pondered wearing a wire to secretly record his conversations with the president -- as a "joke," if indeed he made the comments. His successor Rosen is a Northwestern University and Harvard Law School graduate and "a distinguished lawyer who has served at the highest levels of government and the private sector," Barr said. Rosen has worked in both the public and private sector, including as senior partner for the international law firm Kirkland & Ellis. He previously served in the administration of Republican president George W Bush, first as general counsel for the Department of Transportation and later for the Office of Management and Budget.

Trump nominates successor to one-time head of Russia collusion probe

US lawmakers said Tuesday they were probing whether President Donald Trump is rushing to sell <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-hes-in-no-rush-for-north-korea-to-denuclearise-198480">sensitive nuclear technology</a> to Saudi Arabia to please corporate supporters who stand to profit handsomely.

The House of Representatives committee in charge of investigations, led by the rival Democratic Party since last month, said that "multiple whistleblowers" warned of conflicts of interest "that could implicate federal criminal statutes."

Representative Elijah Cummings, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, asked the White House to turn over documents including those related to a meeting two months into Trump's tenure between his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Saudi Arabia's powerful Mohammed bin Salman, who shortly afterward became crown prince.

An initial report by the committee said that "strong private commercial interests have been pressing aggressively" to transfer sensitive technology to Saudi Arabia.

"These commercial entities stand to reap billions of dollars through contracts associated with constructing and operating nuclear facilities in Saudi Arabia -- and apparently have been in close and repeated contact with President Trump and his administration to the present day," the report said.

The United States cannot legally transfer nuclear technology to countries without reaching so-called Section 123 agreements, which provide assurances of peaceful energy use.

The House committee voiced fear that Saudi Arabia -- the world's top oil exporter -- could convert US knowhow into making a nuclear bomb, heightening already severe tensions with regional rival Iran.

The committee said that the leading proponent of building nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia has been IP3 International, a company whose subsidiary in 2016 listed retired Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn as an advisor.

Flynn served briefly as Trump's national security adviser before resigning over lying about secret communications with Russia, for which he was convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

The Trump administration in its very first week tried to rush through approval of IP3's bid to build nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia until a legal adviser ruled that Flynn had a conflict of interest, the committee said, citing whistleblowers.

Still pushing for deal 
IP3's influence has apparently not ended, with the committee voicing alarm at a report by news site Axios that Trump personally met with representatives of the company among other firms just last week.

Another key proponent of transfers to Saudi Arabia, according to the committee, has been Thomas Barrack, a businessman with longstanding interests in the Arab world who organized Trump's inauguration.

He recently drew controversy for playing down Saudi Arabia's killing of dissident writer Jamal Khashoggi, an incident that has hardened views in the US Congress against Prince Mohammed.

Barrack told a forum that "the atrocities in America are equal, or worse" to those in Saudi Arabia, whose agents strangled and dismembered the Washington Post contributor after he was lured into the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul, according to officials. Barrack later apologized.

US lawmakers, including some Republican allies of Trump, have been pushing for the United States to distance itself from Crown Prince Mohammed in the wake of Khashoggi's killing and the devastating Saudi-led, US-backed war against rebels in Yemen, where millions are on the brink of starvation in what the United Nations calls the world's most serious humanitarian crisis.

A group of senators including Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, last year jointly appealed to Trump to freeze talks on a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia, questioning the judgment of the kingdom's policymakers.

The United States in 2009 completed a 123 agreement with the United Arab Emirates in which the US ally pledged not to enrich domestic uranium or reprocess spent fuel, steps that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.

Saudi Arabia has walked back from similar promises, although some experts believe Riyadh is talking tough largely to pressure Iran and that it is unlikely to seek nuclear weapons so long as it enjoys US security guarantees.

US lawmakers said Tuesday they were probing whether President Donald Trump is rushing to sell sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia to please corporate supporters who stand to profit handsomely.

US lawmakers said Tuesday they were probing whether President Donald Trump is rushing to sell sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia to please corporate supporters who stand to profit handsomely. The House of Representatives committee in charge of investigations, led by the rival Democratic Party since last month, said that "multiple whistleblowers" warned of conflicts of interest "that could implicate federal criminal statutes." Representative Elijah Cummings, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, asked the White House to turn over documents including those related to a meeting two months into Trump's tenure between his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Saudi Arabia's powerful Mohammed bin Salman, who shortly afterward became crown prince. An initial report by the committee said that "strong private commercial interests have been pressing aggressively" to transfer sensitive technology to Saudi Arabia. "These commercial entities stand to reap billions of dollars through contracts associated with constructing and operating nuclear facilities in Saudi Arabia -- and apparently have been in close and repeated contact with President Trump and his administration to the present day," the report said. The United States cannot legally transfer nuclear technology to countries without reaching so-called Section 123 agreements, which provide assurances of peaceful energy use. The House committee voiced fear that Saudi Arabia -- the world's top oil exporter -- could convert US knowhow into making a nuclear bomb, heightening already severe tensions with regional rival Iran. The committee said that the leading proponent of building nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia has been IP3 International, a company whose subsidiary in 2016 listed retired Army lieutenant general Michael Flynn as an advisor. Flynn served briefly as Trump's national security adviser before resigning over lying about secret communications with Russia, for which he was convicted and is awaiting sentencing. The Trump administration in its very first week tried to rush through approval of IP3's bid to build nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia until a legal adviser ruled that Flynn had a conflict of interest, the committee said, citing whistleblowers. Still pushing for deal IP3's influence has apparently not ended, with the committee voicing alarm at a report by news site Axios that Trump personally met with representatives of the company among other firms just last week. Another key proponent of transfers to Saudi Arabia, according to the committee, has been Thomas Barrack, a businessman with longstanding interests in the Arab world who organized Trump's inauguration. He recently drew controversy for playing down Saudi Arabia's killing of dissident writer Jamal Khashoggi, an incident that has hardened views in the US Congress against Prince Mohammed. Barrack told a forum that "the atrocities in America are equal, or worse" to those in Saudi Arabia, whose agents strangled and dismembered the Washington Post contributor after he was lured into the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul, according to officials. Barrack later apologized. US lawmakers, including some Republican allies of Trump, have been pushing for the United States to distance itself from Crown Prince Mohammed in the wake of Khashoggi's killing and the devastating Saudi-led, US-backed war against rebels in Yemen, where millions are on the brink of starvation in what the United Nations calls the world's most serious humanitarian crisis. A group of senators including Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, last year jointly appealed to Trump to freeze talks on a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia, questioning the judgment of the kingdom's policymakers. The United States in 2009 completed a 123 agreement with the United Arab Emirates in which the US ally pledged not to enrich domestic uranium or reprocess spent fuel, steps that could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia has walked back from similar promises, although some experts believe Riyadh is talking tough largely to pressure Iran and that it is unlikely to seek nuclear weapons so long as it enjoys US security guarantees.

Democrats warn Trump may rush nuclear transfer to Saudis

Vietnam is preparing for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-blocks-north-korean-air-traffic-revival-ahead-of-trump-kim-summit-sources-198208">North Korean leader Kim Jong Un</a> to arrive by train for his summit in Hanoi next week with President Donald Trump, two sources with direct knowledge of security and logistics planning told Reuters on Wednesday.

It could take Kim at least two and a half days to travel the thousands of kilometres through China by train, from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang to Vietnam, meaning he would have to set off later this week in time for his planned Feb. 25 arrival.

Kim's train will stop at the Vietnamese border station of Dong Dang, where he will disembark and drive 170 km (105 miles) to Hanoi by car, the sources said.

Separately, three other sources with direct knowledge of the summit preparations told Reuters the preferred location for the Feb. 27-28 meeting between Trump and Kim is the Government Guesthouse, a colonial-era government building in central Hanoi.

All five sources who spoke to Reuters said the plans were subject to change. The sources were not authorised to speak to the media because of the sensitivities surround the secretive North Korean leader's travel plans.

Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc told the summit organising committee on Tuesday that security during the summit was "top priority", Vietnam's government said on its website on Wednesday.

The Metropole Hotel, opposite the Government Guesthouse, will be a backup location for the summit, two of the sources said.

On Saturday, a Reuters witness saw Kim Jong Un's close aide, Kim Chang Son, visiting the Government Guesthouse and the Metropole and Melia hotels in the centre of the capital.

Kim could possibly stay in the Melia hotel during his visit, one of the sources said.

LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON

Travel by train has been <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kim-jong-uns-train-fresh-lobster-lady-conductors--french-wine-from-paris-126807">a favourite mode of transport for Kim Jong Un</a>, and his father, Kim Jong Il, and grandfather, Kim Il Sung.

North Korea experts have remarked on how Kim Jong Un's overseas visits, such as his state visit to China in January, are reminiscent of Kim Il Sung.

"(His father) Kim Jong Il was very reclusive. He didn't like meeting foreign delegations, and he didn't really enjoy going to foreign countries," said Thae Yong Ho, North Korea's former deputy ambassador to Britain, who defected to South Korea in 2016, told media on Tuesday.

"But Kim Jong Un is a bit like Kim Il Sung. He really likes overseas activity," said Thae.

Kim's grandfather, Kim Il Sung, visited Vietnam twice, in 1958 and 1964.

In 1958, Kim Il Sung went from Pyongyang to Beijing by plane, then from Beijing to Guangzhou by train, then he appears to have crossed the border from China to Hanoi by plane, South Korean newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun reported on Tuesday citing archived Chinese media reports.

In 1964, Kim Il Sung visited Vietnam using a Vickers Viscount aircraft provided by China that was the personal plane of Mao Zedong's second-in-command Lin Biao, Kyunghyang reported.

Vietnam is preparing for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to arrive by train for his summit in Hanoi next week with President Donald Trump, two sources with direct knowledge of security and logistics planning told Reuters on Wednesday.

Vietnam is preparing for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to arrive by train for his summit in Hanoi next week with President Donald Trump, two sources with direct knowledge of security and logistics planning told Reuters on Wednesday. It could take Kim at least two and a half days to travel the thousands of kilometres through China by train, from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang to Vietnam, meaning he would have to set off later this week in time for his planned Feb. 25 arrival. Kim's train will stop at the Vietnamese border station of Dong Dang, where he will disembark and drive 170 km (105 miles) to Hanoi by car, the sources said. Separately, three other sources with direct knowledge of the summit preparations told Reuters the preferred location for the Feb. 27-28 meeting between Trump and Kim is the Government Guesthouse, a colonial-era government building in central Hanoi. All five sources who spoke to Reuters said the plans were subject to change. The sources were not authorised to speak to the media because of the sensitivities surround the secretive North Korean leader's travel plans. Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc told the summit organising committee on Tuesday that security during the summit was "top priority", Vietnam's government said on its website on Wednesday. The Metropole Hotel, opposite the Government Guesthouse, will be a backup location for the summit, two of the sources said. On Saturday, a Reuters witness saw Kim Jong Un's close aide, Kim Chang Son, visiting the Government Guesthouse and the Metropole and Melia hotels in the centre of the capital. Kim could possibly stay in the Melia hotel during his visit, one of the sources said. LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON Travel by train has been a favourite mode of transport for Kim Jong Un, and his father, Kim Jong Il, and grandfather, Kim Il Sung. North Korea experts have remarked on how Kim Jong Un's overseas visits, such as his state visit to China in January, are reminiscent of Kim Il Sung. "(His father) Kim Jong Il was very reclusive. He didn't like meeting foreign delegations, and he didn't really enjoy going to foreign countries," said Thae Yong Ho, North Korea's former deputy ambassador to Britain, who defected to South Korea in 2016, told media on Tuesday. "But Kim Jong Un is a bit like Kim Il Sung. He really likes overseas activity," said Thae. Kim's grandfather, Kim Il Sung, visited Vietnam twice, in 1958 and 1964. In 1958, Kim Il Sung went from Pyongyang to Beijing by plane, then from Beijing to Guangzhou by train, then he appears to have crossed the border from China to Hanoi by plane, South Korean newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun reported on Tuesday citing archived Chinese media reports. In 1964, Kim Il Sung visited Vietnam using a Vickers Viscount aircraft provided by China that was the personal plane of Mao Zedong's second-in-command Lin Biao, Kyunghyang reported.

North Korea's Kim to travel to Vietnam for Trump summit by train, could take him over 2 days to get there

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump issues an ultimatum to the Venezuelan military: abandon Maduro or else

Protests against Donald Trump across US on Presidents Day

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/sixteen-us-states-sue-trump-over-border-wall-emergency-198197">Sixteen US states sue Trump after he declares emergency to fund border wall</a>

Sixteen US states sued President Donald Trump's administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico, saying the move violated the constitution.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/saudi-crown-prince-salman-to-arrive-in-india-today-198189">Saudi Crown Prince Salman to land in India today</a>

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad-bin Salman will arrive in New Delhi on Tuesday on his maiden visit to the country.

India is likely to raise the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and the two countries are expected to sign ties to enhance cooperation in various fields during the "landmark event in high-level bilateral ties".

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-tells-venezuela-military-to-back-opposition-leader-guaido-or-lose-everything-198182">Trump tells Venezuela military to back opposition leader Guaido or 'lose everything'</a>

US President Donald Trump urged Venezuela's military Monday to accept opposition leader Juan Guaido's amnesty offer, or stand to "lose everything," as a crisis deepened over President Nicolas Maduro's refusal to let in desperately needed humanitarian aid.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/israel-readies-to-launch-worlds-first-private-spacecraft-to-moon-198194">Israel readies to launch </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/israel-readies-to-launch-worlds-first-private-spacecraft-to-moon-198194">world's</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/israel-readies-to-launch-worlds-first-private-spacecraft-to-moon-198194"> first private spacecraft to </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/israel-readies-to-launch-worlds-first-private-spacecraft-to-moon-198194">moon</a>

Israel was gearing up to launch a spacecraft to the moon that will be the first private initiative of its kind in the world, the non-profit organization responsible for the project announced on Monday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kissing-sailor-in-iconic-new-york-picture-dies-at-95-198199">'Kissing sailor' in iconic New York picture dies at 95</a>

The sailor pictured kissing a woman in Times Square as people celebrated the end of World War II has died at age 95, his daughter told The Providence Journal.

George Mendonsa had a seizure Sunday after falling at an assisted living facility in Middletown, Rhode Island, his daughter Sharon Molleur said.

Sixteen US states sue Trump after he declares emergency to fund border wall Sixteen US states sued President Donald Trump's administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico, saying the move violated the constitution.

Sixteen US states sue Trump after he declares emergency to fund border wall Sixteen US states sued President Donald Trump's administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico, saying the move violated the constitution. Saudi Crown Prince Salman to land in India today Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad-bin Salman will arrive in New Delhi on Tuesday on his maiden visit to the country. India is likely to raise the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and the two countries are expected to sign ties to enhance cooperation in various fields during the "landmark event in high-level bilateral ties". Trump tells Venezuela military to back opposition leader Guaido or 'lose everything' US President Donald Trump urged Venezuela's military Monday to accept opposition leader Juan Guaido's amnesty offer, or stand to "lose everything," as a crisis deepened over President Nicolas Maduro's refusal to let in desperately needed humanitarian aid. Israel readies to launch world's first private spacecraft to moon Israel was gearing up to launch a spacecraft to the moon that will be the first private initiative of its kind in the world, the non-profit organization responsible for the project announced on Monday. 'Kissing sailor' in iconic New York picture dies at 95 The sailor pictured kissing a woman in Times Square as people celebrated the end of World War II has died at age 95, his daughter told The Providence Journal. George Mendonsa had a seizure Sunday after falling at an assisted living facility in Middletown, Rhode Island, his daughter Sharon Molleur said.

The United States has blocked efforts by a UN agency to improve civil aviation in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-faces-historic-turning-point-says-state-media-ahead-of-us-summit-198008">North Korea at a time</a> when Pyongyang is trying to reopen part of its airspace to foreign flights, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The US&nbsp;move is part of a negotiating tactic to maintain sanctions pressure on North Korea, one of the sources said, ahead of the second summit between President Donald Trump and leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam in late February.

Washington is seeking concrete commitments from Pyongyang at the summit to abandon its nuclear and missile programmes.

The United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), with 192 member countries, has been working with Pyongyang to open a new air route that would pass through North and South Korean airspace.

Airlines currently take indirect routings to avoid North Korea due to the threat of unannounced missile launches, which have been witnessed by some passengers on commercial flights.

If space was deemed safe, international airlines could save fuel and time on some routes between Asia and Europe and North America, and North Korea could begin reviving its own commercial aviation industry.

The cash-strapped country has a population of more than 25 million but its economy has been squeezed by a series of sanctions for its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

Montreal-based ICAO was prepared to help improve North Korea's aviation system by leading training sessions between its military and civil aviation staff, two sources said.

North Korea also asked ICAO for access to US-produced aeronautical charts, they said.

US SEEKS LEVERAGE

But the United States discouraged the UN agency from helping North Korea with its air programme as Washington wanted to "pool all the leverages and incentives" until Pyongyang makes substantial progress on denuclearisation, a third source said.

"They would keep tight hold of all available leverage to make sure there is no loophole until the North Koreans take action that deserves a reward," the source said.

All sources spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

ICAO cannot impose binding rules on governments, but wields clout through its safety and security standards which are approved by its member states.

Asked for comment, a US State Department official said it does not publicly discuss details of diplomatic conversations. An ICAO spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

South Korea's foreign ministry declined to comment, and North Korean mission to the United Nations in New York did not respond to a request for comment.

In 2017, the United States proposed the UN Security Council freeze the assets of state-carrier Air Koryo, which flies to a handful of cities in China and Russia, as part of new sanctions on Pyongyang. The measure was dropped during negotiations between the 15 members.

Airlines including Air Koryo and Air China Ltd offer less than 200,000 available seats a year in the North Korean market, according to a January note from independent research firm CAPA Centre for Aviation.

That compares with over 13 million seats available in the South Korean market, which has roughly double the population, CAPA said.

The biggest beneficiaries of lifting air restrictions over North Korea would be South Korean carriers including Korean Air Lines and Asiana Airlines Inc, according to CAPA.

DENUCLEARISATION PRESSURE

The United States has doubled down on sanctions enforcement ahead of the planned second summit amid concerns Pyongyang is not committed to denuclearisation, though Washington promised to relax some rules on humanitarian aid.

South and North Korea, meanwhile, have rapidly advanced relations, which prompted US officials to openly warn against moving too quickly without sufficient progress on denuclearisation.

A fourth source told Reuters that the US move to facilitate humanitarian aid was intended to appease South Korea, facing some complaints that Washington is not willing to make any concessions.

"But they made it clear that there will be no relief of economic sanctions until they see substantial progress," said the source who also spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.

The United States has blocked efforts by a UN agency to improve civil aviation in North Korea at a time when Pyongyang is trying to reopen part of its airspace to foreign flights, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The United States has blocked efforts by a UN agency to improve civil aviation in North Korea at a time when Pyongyang is trying to reopen part of its airspace to foreign flights, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. The US move is part of a negotiating tactic to maintain sanctions pressure on North Korea, one of the sources said, ahead of the second summit between President Donald Trump and leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam in late February. Washington is seeking concrete commitments from Pyongyang at the summit to abandon its nuclear and missile programmes. The United Nations' International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), with 192 member countries, has been working with Pyongyang to open a new air route that would pass through North and South Korean airspace. Airlines currently take indirect routings to avoid North Korea due to the threat of unannounced missile launches, which have been witnessed by some passengers on commercial flights. If space was deemed safe, international airlines could save fuel and time on some routes between Asia and Europe and North America, and North Korea could begin reviving its own commercial aviation industry. The cash-strapped country has a population of more than 25 million but its economy has been squeezed by a series of sanctions for its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Montreal-based ICAO was prepared to help improve North Korea's aviation system by leading training sessions between its military and civil aviation staff, two sources said. North Korea also asked ICAO for access to US-produced aeronautical charts, they said. US SEEKS LEVERAGE But the United States discouraged the UN agency from helping North Korea with its air programme as Washington wanted to "pool all the leverages and incentives" until Pyongyang makes substantial progress on denuclearisation, a third source said. "They would keep tight hold of all available leverage to make sure there is no loophole until the North Koreans take action that deserves a reward," the source said. All sources spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. ICAO cannot impose binding rules on governments, but wields clout through its safety and security standards which are approved by its member states. Asked for comment, a US State Department official said it does not publicly discuss details of diplomatic conversations. An ICAO spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. South Korea's foreign ministry declined to comment, and North Korean mission to the United Nations in New York did not respond to a request for comment. In 2017, the United States proposed the UN Security Council freeze the assets of state-carrier Air Koryo, which flies to a handful of cities in China and Russia, as part of new sanctions on Pyongyang. The measure was dropped during negotiations between the 15 members. Airlines including Air Koryo and Air China Ltd offer less than 200,000 available seats a year in the North Korean market, according to a January note from independent research firm CAPA Centre for Aviation. That compares with over 13 million seats available in the South Korean market, which has roughly double the population, CAPA said. The biggest beneficiaries of lifting air restrictions over North Korea would be South Korean carriers including Korean Air Lines and Asiana Airlines Inc, according to CAPA. DENUCLEARISATION PRESSURE The United States has doubled down on sanctions enforcement ahead of the planned second summit amid concerns Pyongyang is not committed to denuclearisation, though Washington promised to relax some rules on humanitarian aid. South and North Korea, meanwhile, have rapidly advanced relations, which prompted US officials to openly warn against moving too quickly without sufficient progress on denuclearisation. A fourth source told Reuters that the US move to facilitate humanitarian aid was intended to appease South Korea, facing some complaints that Washington is not willing to make any concessions. "But they made it clear that there will be no relief of economic sanctions until they see substantial progress," said the source who also spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.

US blocks North Korean air traffic revival ahead of Trump-Kim summit: Sources

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-calls-discussions-about-removing-him-treasonous-198179">US President Donald Trump</a> urged Venezuela's military Monday to accept opposition leader Juan Guaido's amnesty offer, or stand to "lose everything," as a crisis deepened over President Nicolas Maduro's refusal to let in desperately needed humanitarian aid.

Bringing in humanitarian aid is crucial to the viability of Guaido, who has denounced Maduro's re-election last year as fraudulent and in January declared himself interim president, a move recognized by some 50 countries.

He has given the Maduro government until Saturday to let the shipments into the country, which is in the grip of a humanitarian crisis due to shortages of food and medicine exacerbated by hyperinflation.

Addressing supporters and Venezuelan expatriates in Miami on Sunday, Trump declared he had a message for officials helping keep Maduro in place.

"The eyes of the entire world are upon you today, every day and every day in the future," he said.

"You cannot hide from the choice that now confronts you. You can choose to accept president Guaido's generous offer of amnesty to live your life in peace with your families and your countrymen.

"Or you can choose the second path: continuing to support Maduro. If you choose this path, you will find no safe harbour, no easy exit and no way out. You will lose everything."

Guaido has set a target of signing up to a million volunteers to help bring in the aid, with 600,000 already registered.

"On February 23, we have the opportunity to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans," he said on Sunday.

Opposition officials Sunday hit out at state internet provider CANTV for blocking the website where volunteers are signing up to help bring in the aid, mostly supplied by the United States but stockpiled in Colombia just over the border from Venezuela.

Committed to change&nbsp;

A second aid collection centre is due to begin operations in Brazil's northeastern state of Roraima, which borders Venezuela. But there is much uncertainty over the aid in Brazil, with officials there saying they have no information at this point.

Military officials in Roraima said they had yet to receive orders, although a collection centre could be set up quickly, with some businesses having already provided warehouses to that effect.

A third centre is due to open this week on the Dutch island of Curacao, off Venezuela's north coast.

Tensions mounted on Sunday after Guaido branded the government "irrational" for expelling five visiting European lawmakers.

The European Parliament members were being tossed out with no explanation, said Spanish MEP Esteban Gonzalez Pons, who led a group including fellow Spaniards Jose Ignacio Salafranca and Gabriel Mato Adrover, as well as Esther de Lange of the Netherlands and Paulo Rangel of Portugal.

Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said the Europeans had "conspiratorial aims" and were sent back from the country's main Maiquetia airport.

The humanitarian aid standoff is due to come to a head this weekend when caravans of buses are set to carry volunteers to border entry points to meet and transport arriving cargo.

It is unclear how Guaido will overcome the border barriers put up by the Venezuelan military, on Maduro's orders.

Volunteer groups have begun meeting in "humanitarian camps" in several Venezuelan states to organize and prepare for the arrival of the aid to alleviate hardship from an imploding economy has driven an estimated 2.3 million Venezuelans to migrate from the oil-rich country.&nbsp;

Maduro, who denies the existence of a humanitarian crisis, dismisses the opposition moves as a "political show" and a cover for a US invasion.

An 'international crime'&nbsp;

"Whoever prevents the entry of humanitarian aid is condemned to spend the rest of their lives fleeing international justice, because that is an international crime," US Senator Marco Rubio said as he toured the Colombian collection centre in Cucuta on Sunday.

Three US military cargo planes delivered several dozen tons of food assistance to Cucuta on Saturday. Another US aircraft is due in Curacao from Miami on Tuesday.

On Friday, Maduro instructed his army to prepare a "special deployment plan" for the 2,200-kilometer (1,370-mile) border with Colombia.

Guaido has ordered the armed forces to let the aid pass, but they remain loyal to Maduro's regime.

Maduro has dismissed the humanitarian assistance as "crumbs" and "rotten and contaminated food," while blaming shortages of food and medicine on US sanctions.

In Maduro-friendly Cuba, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said he urged the more than 100 ambassadors and heads of mission serving on the communist island to reject "the US military's aggression of Venezuela" in a meeting.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump urged Venezuela's military Monday to accept opposition leader Juan Guaido's amnesty offer, or stand to "lose everything," as a crisis deepened over President Nicolas Maduro's refusal to let in desperately needed humanitarian aid.

US President Donald Trump urged Venezuela's military Monday to accept opposition leader Juan Guaido's amnesty offer, or stand to "lose everything," as a crisis deepened over President Nicolas Maduro's refusal to let in desperately needed humanitarian aid. Bringing in humanitarian aid is crucial to the viability of Guaido, who has denounced Maduro's re-election last year as fraudulent and in January declared himself interim president, a move recognized by some 50 countries. He has given the Maduro government until Saturday to let the shipments into the country, which is in the grip of a humanitarian crisis due to shortages of food and medicine exacerbated by hyperinflation. Addressing supporters and Venezuelan expatriates in Miami on Sunday, Trump declared he had a message for officials helping keep Maduro in place. "The eyes of the entire world are upon you today, every day and every day in the future," he said. "You cannot hide from the choice that now confronts you. You can choose to accept president Guaido's generous offer of amnesty to live your life in peace with your families and your countrymen. "Or you can choose the second path: continuing to support Maduro. If you choose this path, you will find no safe harbour, no easy exit and no way out. You will lose everything." Guaido has set a target of signing up to a million volunteers to help bring in the aid, with 600,000 already registered. "On February 23, we have the opportunity to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans," he said on Sunday. Opposition officials Sunday hit out at state internet provider CANTV for blocking the website where volunteers are signing up to help bring in the aid, mostly supplied by the United States but stockpiled in Colombia just over the border from Venezuela. Committed to change A second aid collection centre is due to begin operations in Brazil's northeastern state of Roraima, which borders Venezuela. But there is much uncertainty over the aid in Brazil, with officials there saying they have no information at this point. Military officials in Roraima said they had yet to receive orders, although a collection centre could be set up quickly, with some businesses having already provided warehouses to that effect. A third centre is due to open this week on the Dutch island of Curacao, off Venezuela's north coast. Tensions mounted on Sunday after Guaido branded the government "irrational" for expelling five visiting European lawmakers. The European Parliament members were being tossed out with no explanation, said Spanish MEP Esteban Gonzalez Pons, who led a group including fellow Spaniards Jose Ignacio Salafranca and Gabriel Mato Adrover, as well as Esther de Lange of the Netherlands and Paulo Rangel of Portugal. Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said the Europeans had "conspiratorial aims" and were sent back from the country's main Maiquetia airport. The humanitarian aid standoff is due to come to a head this weekend when caravans of buses are set to carry volunteers to border entry points to meet and transport arriving cargo. It is unclear how Guaido will overcome the border barriers put up by the Venezuelan military, on Maduro's orders. Volunteer groups have begun meeting in "humanitarian camps" in several Venezuelan states to organize and prepare for the arrival of the aid to alleviate hardship from an imploding economy has driven an estimated 2.3 million Venezuelans to migrate from the oil-rich country. Maduro, who denies the existence of a humanitarian crisis, dismisses the opposition moves as a "political show" and a cover for a US invasion. An 'international crime' "Whoever prevents the entry of humanitarian aid is condemned to spend the rest of their lives fleeing international justice, because that is an international crime," US Senator Marco Rubio said as he toured the Colombian collection centre in Cucuta on Sunday. Three US military cargo planes delivered several dozen tons of food assistance to Cucuta on Saturday. Another US aircraft is due in Curacao from Miami on Tuesday. On Friday, Maduro instructed his army to prepare a "special deployment plan" for the 2,200-kilometer (1,370-mile) border with Colombia. Guaido has ordered the armed forces to let the aid pass, but they remain loyal to Maduro's regime. Maduro has dismissed the humanitarian assistance as "crumbs" and "rotten and contaminated food," while blaming shortages of food and medicine on US sanctions. In Maduro-friendly Cuba, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said he urged the more than 100 ambassadors and heads of mission serving on the communist island to reject "the US military's aggression of Venezuela" in a meeting.

Trump tells Venezuela military to back opposition leader Guaido or 'lose everything'

A coalition of 16 US&nbsp;states led by California sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration on Monday to block his decision to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-emergency-declaration-sparks-protests-outside-white-house-198188">declare a national emergency</a> to obtain funds for building a wall along the US-Mexico border.

The lawsuit filed in US&nbsp;District Court for the Northern District of California came after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise.

Trump's order would allow him to spend on the wall money that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Congress declined to fulfil his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall this year.

"Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

"We’re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the office of the presidency is not a place for theatre," added Becerra, a Democrat.

The White House declined to comment on the filing.

In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly $1.4 billion was allocated toward border fencing. Trump's emergency order would give him an additional $6.7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized.

Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump's move on Friday, saying it violated the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights.

The legal challenges could slow Trump's efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The lawsuits could end up at the conservative-leaning US&nbsp;Supreme Court.

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Michigan joined California in the lawsuit.

The states said Trump's order would cause them to lose millions of dollars in federal funding for national guard units dealing with counter-drug activities and redirection of funds from authorized military construction projects would damage their economies.

In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trump's own words against him as evidence that there was no national emergency to declare.

Trump said on Friday he did not need to make the emergency declaration but wanted to speed the process of building the wall. That comment could undercut the government's legal argument.

"By the president’s own admission, an emergency declaration is not necessary," the states said in the lawsuit. "The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants the construction of a wall."

A coalition of 16 US states led by California sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration on Monday to block his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the US-Mexico border.

A coalition of 16 US states led by California sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration on Monday to block his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the US-Mexico border. The lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California came after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise. Trump's order would allow him to spend on the wall money that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Congress declined to fulfil his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall this year. "Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. "We’re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the office of the presidency is not a place for theatre," added Becerra, a Democrat. The White House declined to comment on the filing. In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly $1.4 billion was allocated toward border fencing. Trump's emergency order would give him an additional $6.7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized. Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump's move on Friday, saying it violated the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights. The legal challenges could slow Trump's efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The lawsuits could end up at the conservative-leaning US Supreme Court. Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Michigan joined California in the lawsuit. The states said Trump's order would cause them to lose millions of dollars in federal funding for national guard units dealing with counter-drug activities and redirection of funds from authorized military construction projects would damage their economies. In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trump's own words against him as evidence that there was no national emergency to declare. Trump said on Friday he did not need to make the emergency declaration but wanted to speed the process of building the wall. That comment could undercut the government's legal argument. "By the president’s own admission, an emergency declaration is not necessary," the states said in the lawsuit. "The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants the construction of a wall."

Coalition of US states sue Trump administration in showdown over border wall funds

Relations between the United States and Venezuela have been strained since the late Hugo Chávez rose to power two decades ago. They got worse when the Trump administration recognised opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the South American country’s president instead of Chávez successor Nicolás Maduro in January 2019.

These tensions could become a full-blown crisis, as has become clear along the Venezuela-Colombia border, where Maduro is blocking the entry of US humanitarian aid. The United States says it is sending $20 million in food and medical supplies to alleviate suffering at a time when Venezuelans are experiencing widespread malnutrition and lack access to health care. Maduro contends that these shipments are a plot to meddle in his country’s internal affairs – a Trojan horse courtesy of Uncle Sam to undermine Venezuelan democracy.

Although there is no clear evidence of an ulterior motive, history does give Maduro reasons to be skeptical of US intentions. As a political scientist who studies both the political ramifications of international assistance and Venezuela’s growing instability, I find that humanitarian aid is rarely just about saving lives. In Venezuela, I believe that US-supplied aid may have substantial political consequences.

A foreign policy tool

USAID, the primary federal aid agency in the US, officially operates independently. However, in practice it has worked closely with the State Department, and the Trump administration discussed making it part of the department when Rex Tillerson served as secretary of state.

The US government generally considers aid and development assistance as part of their broader foreign policy. The State Department officially calls USAID an “important contributor to the objectives of the National Security Strategy of the United States.” In other words, USAID’s work abroad is at least partially intended to safeguard American security and promote US interests.

President Donald Trump recently told the UN General Assembly that the US is “only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends,” a statement that appeared to be a threat to cut off American assistance to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador unless they curb the flow of US-bound asylum-seekers and other immigrants.

The US gives those three countries a total of about $450 million a year in foreign aid and the Trump administration has pledged additional funds to slow the flow of people across the border.

Using aid to advance the national interest is not new.

In 2001, when the war in Afghanistan got underway, the Bush administration used aid to complement the military effort to prevent terrorism. Because Afghanistan had harboured Osama bin Laden and others tied to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, USAID got a broad mandate and billions of dollars to help win the hearts and minds of Afghans. That policy was essentially a bet that once military intervention had defused the hostilities, Afghans would have a more favourable view of the US – reducing the risk that terrorists would use Afghanistan as a launching pad.

USAID has also played an explicit role in attempting to win hearts and minds in Iraq in the early 2000s, Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, and elsewhere.

(Morten Wendelbo is Research Fellow, American University School of Public Affairs)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-maduro-is-blocking-venezuela-bound-humanitarian-aid-when-so-many-people-in-his-country-need-it-111585">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.) 
&nbsp;

Relations between the United States and Venezuela have been strained since the late Hugo Chávez rose to power two decades ago. They got worse when the Trump administration recognised opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the South American country’s president instead of Chávez successor Nicolás Maduro in January 2019.

Relations between the United States and Venezuela have been strained since the late Hugo Chávez rose to power two decades ago. They got worse when the Trump administration recognised opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the South American country’s president instead of Chávez successor Nicolás Maduro in January 2019. These tensions could become a full-blown crisis, as has become clear along the Venezuela-Colombia border, where Maduro is blocking the entry of US humanitarian aid. The United States says it is sending $20 million in food and medical supplies to alleviate suffering at a time when Venezuelans are experiencing widespread malnutrition and lack access to health care. Maduro contends that these shipments are a plot to meddle in his country’s internal affairs – a Trojan horse courtesy of Uncle Sam to undermine Venezuelan democracy. Although there is no clear evidence of an ulterior motive, history does give Maduro reasons to be skeptical of US intentions. As a political scientist who studies both the political ramifications of international assistance and Venezuela’s growing instability, I find that humanitarian aid is rarely just about saving lives. In Venezuela, I believe that US-supplied aid may have substantial political consequences. A foreign policy tool USAID, the primary federal aid agency in the US, officially operates independently. However, in practice it has worked closely with the State Department, and the Trump administration discussed making it part of the department when Rex Tillerson served as secretary of state. The US government generally considers aid and development assistance as part of their broader foreign policy. The State Department officially calls USAID an “important contributor to the objectives of the National Security Strategy of the United States.” In other words, USAID’s work abroad is at least partially intended to safeguard American security and promote US interests. President Donald Trump recently told the UN General Assembly that the US is “only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends,” a statement that appeared to be a threat to cut off American assistance to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador unless they curb the flow of US-bound asylum-seekers and other immigrants. The US gives those three countries a total of about $450 million a year in foreign aid and the Trump administration has pledged additional funds to slow the flow of people across the border. Using aid to advance the national interest is not new. In 2001, when the war in Afghanistan got underway, the Bush administration used aid to complement the military effort to prevent terrorism. Because Afghanistan had harboured Osama bin Laden and others tied to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, USAID got a broad mandate and billions of dollars to help win the hearts and minds of Afghans. That policy was essentially a bet that once military intervention had defused the hostilities, Afghans would have a more favourable view of the US – reducing the risk that terrorists would use Afghanistan as a launching pad. USAID has also played an explicit role in attempting to win hearts and minds in Iraq in the early 2000s, Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, and elsewhere. (Morten Wendelbo is Research Fellow, American University School of Public Affairs) (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.)

Venezuela crisis: US-supplied humanitarian aid may have a political motive

Rod Rosenstein, the US deputy attorney general who appointed a special counsel to investigate possible ties between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign, is expected to step down by mid-March, a Justice Department official said on Monday.

Rosenstein had been expected to depart shortly after new Attorney General William Barr assumed office. Barr was confirmed for the role by the US Senate last week.

The Justice official said Rosenstein's departure was not related to renewed allegations that he considered wearing a wire in meetings with Trump and using the 25th amendment of the US Constitution to remove the president from office.

Rosenstein, the No 2 official at the Justice Department, in May 2017 named Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate ties between Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign and Moscow. The investigation continues.

A registered Republican, Rosenstein made the decision because his then-boss, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Trump supporter during the 2016 campaign, had recused himself from the issue.

Last September, the New York Times reported Rosenstein in 2017 had suggested secretly recording Trump and recruiting Cabinet members to oust the president using the provisions of the Constitution's 25th Amendment.

In an interview broadcast on Sunday with CBS News "60 Minutes," former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe confirmed the Times account that Rosenstein considered wearing a wire in meetings with Trump.

Rosenstein said both the Times story and McCabe's account were "inaccurate and factually incorrect," which a Justice Department spokeswoman reiterated after the "60 Minutes" interview.

Earlier on Monday Trump accused both McCabe and Rosenstein of planning a "very illegal act," which he described in a tweet as "illegal and treasonous."

Rosenstein ceased overseeing Mueller's probe on November 7 when Trump named Matt Whittaker acting attorney general.

Barr now has oversight of the investigation.

Rosenstein had attracted far more attention than is typical for the No 2 Justice Department official because of his decision to appoint Mueller to lead the investigation eight days after Trump fired James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Trump has frequently and publicly seethed about the Mueller probe, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department, which oversees them both.

The president has denied any collusion and Russia says there was no election meddling, despite findings to the contrary by US intelligence agencies.

Mueller's investigation, which the president has repeatedly called a "witch hunt," has so far netted 34 individuals and three companies who have pleaded guilty, been indicted or been otherwise swept up in the inquiry.

Rod Rosenstein, the US deputy attorney general who appointed a special counsel to investigate possible ties between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign, is expected to step down by mid-March, a Justice Department official said on Monday.

Rod Rosenstein, the US deputy attorney general who appointed a special counsel to investigate possible ties between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign, is expected to step down by mid-March, a Justice Department official said on Monday. Rosenstein had been expected to depart shortly after new Attorney General William Barr assumed office. Barr was confirmed for the role by the US Senate last week. The Justice official said Rosenstein's departure was not related to renewed allegations that he considered wearing a wire in meetings with Trump and using the 25th amendment of the US Constitution to remove the president from office. Rosenstein, the No 2 official at the Justice Department, in May 2017 named Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate ties between Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign and Moscow. The investigation continues. A registered Republican, Rosenstein made the decision because his then-boss, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Trump supporter during the 2016 campaign, had recused himself from the issue. Last September, the New York Times reported Rosenstein in 2017 had suggested secretly recording Trump and recruiting Cabinet members to oust the president using the provisions of the Constitution's 25th Amendment. In an interview broadcast on Sunday with CBS News "60 Minutes," former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe confirmed the Times account that Rosenstein considered wearing a wire in meetings with Trump. Rosenstein said both the Times story and McCabe's account were "inaccurate and factually incorrect," which a Justice Department spokeswoman reiterated after the "60 Minutes" interview. Earlier on Monday Trump accused both McCabe and Rosenstein of planning a "very illegal act," which he described in a tweet as "illegal and treasonous." Rosenstein ceased overseeing Mueller's probe on November 7 when Trump named Matt Whittaker acting attorney general. Barr now has oversight of the investigation. Rosenstein had attracted far more attention than is typical for the No 2 Justice Department official because of his decision to appoint Mueller to lead the investigation eight days after Trump fired James Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Trump has frequently and publicly seethed about the Mueller probe, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department, which oversees them both. The president has denied any collusion and Russia says there was no election meddling, despite findings to the contrary by US intelligence agencies. Mueller's investigation, which the president has repeatedly called a "witch hunt," has so far netted 34 individuals and three companies who have pleaded guilty, been indicted or been otherwise swept up in the inquiry.

US Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to step down in March: Official

US President Donald Trump said Monday a top Justice official's reported discussions about invoking the Constitution to remove him from office were part of an "illegal and treasonous" push against him.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raised the possibility of removing the president in 2017 after Trump fired FBI director James Comey, according to Andrew McCabe, who replaced Comey as the bureau's acting director.

McCabe and Rosenstein "look like they were planning a very illegal act, and got caught.....," Trump said in a series of tweets.

"This was the illegal and treasonous 'insurance policy' in full action!"

Trump has often attacked the federal investigations into his campaign's links to Russia as a "witch hunt" aimed at sabotaging his presidency.

The "insurance policy" he cited refers to an ambiguous text message a top FBI investigator sent to his lover in August 2016 that alludes to their concerns about then-candidate Trump, which the president often points to as evidence of a "deep state" conspiracy against him.&nbsp;

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I'm afraid we can’t take that risk," the investigator, Peter Strzok, wrote. "It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

Comey firing

Trump abruptly fired Comey May 9, 2017, as pressure rose over the Russia investigation, setting off alarm bells in the FBI and Justice Department.

According to McCabe, in a lengthy interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," Rosenstein brought up the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution, which provides for the removal of a sitting president for incapacity.

"Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," said McCabe, who has a book coming out, "The Threat."

Rosenstein even pondered wearing a wire to secretly record his conversations with the president, he said.

The deputy attorney general, who remains in office but no longer supervises the Russia investigation, appears never to have acted on those ideas.

"But what I can say is the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time," McCabe said.

McCabe himself was fired in March 2018 for "lack of candour" in an internal investigation into the FBI's handling of a 2016 probe into Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

In the interview, McCabe also touched on Trump's inclination to believe Russian President Vladimir Putin over what his own intelligence services are telling him.

He recounts a meeting he did not attend but was witnessed by another FBI agent, in which Trump reportedly said he did not believe North Korea had missiles capable of reaching the United States because Putin had told him that.

"Intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses," McCabe said. "To which the president replied, 'I don't care. I believe Putin.'"

US President Donald Trump said Monday a top Justice official's reported discussions about invoking the Constitution to remove him from office were part of an "illegal and treasonous" push against him.

US President Donald Trump said Monday a top Justice official's reported discussions about invoking the Constitution to remove him from office were part of an "illegal and treasonous" push against him. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raised the possibility of removing the president in 2017 after Trump fired FBI director James Comey, according to Andrew McCabe, who replaced Comey as the bureau's acting director. McCabe and Rosenstein "look like they were planning a very illegal act, and got caught.....," Trump said in a series of tweets. "This was the illegal and treasonous 'insurance policy' in full action!" Trump has often attacked the federal investigations into his campaign's links to Russia as a "witch hunt" aimed at sabotaging his presidency. The "insurance policy" he cited refers to an ambiguous text message a top FBI investigator sent to his lover in August 2016 that alludes to their concerns about then-candidate Trump, which the president often points to as evidence of a "deep state" conspiracy against him. "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I'm afraid we can’t take that risk," the investigator, Peter Strzok, wrote. "It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40." Comey firing Trump abruptly fired Comey May 9, 2017, as pressure rose over the Russia investigation, setting off alarm bells in the FBI and Justice Department. According to McCabe, in a lengthy interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," Rosenstein brought up the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution, which provides for the removal of a sitting president for incapacity. "Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," said McCabe, who has a book coming out, "The Threat." Rosenstein even pondered wearing a wire to secretly record his conversations with the president, he said. The deputy attorney general, who remains in office but no longer supervises the Russia investigation, appears never to have acted on those ideas. "But what I can say is the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time," McCabe said. McCabe himself was fired in March 2018 for "lack of candour" in an internal investigation into the FBI's handling of a 2016 probe into Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. In the interview, McCabe also touched on Trump's inclination to believe Russian President Vladimir Putin over what his own intelligence services are telling him. He recounts a meeting he did not attend but was witnessed by another FBI agent, in which Trump reportedly said he did not believe North Korea had missiles capable of reaching the United States because Putin had told him that. "Intelligence officials in the briefing responded that that was not consistent with any of the intelligence our government possesses," McCabe said. "To which the president replied, 'I don't care. I believe Putin.'"

Trump calls discussions about removing him 'treasonous'

A top adviser to Donald Trump said Sunday that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-signs-border-wall-deal-197774">president's emergency declaration</a> could allow "hundreds of miles" of barriers to be built on the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/no-decision-made-on-spending-for-trumps-wall-pentagon-chief-197844">Mexican border </a>before the 2020 election.

"You're looking at hundreds of miles," Stephen Miller said on Fox News Sunday, "probably a couple hundred miles" by September 2020, two months before the election.

Trump has made clear he plans to exploit the issue in his re-election campaign, even amid sharp criticism from Democrats, rights groups, border-state landowners — and several prominent Republicans.

The president on Friday invoked a "national emergency" to justify tapping military and other funds for barrier construction, after Congress approved less than a fourth the $5.7 billion he had sought for border security.

Miller, echoing Trump's arguments, said that an unsecured border allowed drugs and criminals to pour into the country. He dismissed government statistics showing illegal entries had fallen.

"You cannot have uncontrolled, unsecured areas of the border where people can pour in undetected," he said.

But asked to cite an example of a past president invoking an emergency after being denied funds by Congress, Miller could not do so. "If people don't like that, they can address it," he said.

An 'imminent' challenge

Given the near-certainty of legal challenges and of a possible blocking move in Congress, it is far from clear how quickly barrier construction can advance on the 1,950-mile (3,140-kilometer) border.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, told ABC his state would be filing a lawsuit against the project "definitely, and imminently."

He said California and other states had legal standing in the case because they risked losing moneys intended for military projects, disaster assistance and other purposes. Several states "will be harmed," he said.

Another Democrat, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, said she thought Congress could pass a resolution to block Trump's action but might not be able to summon the votes to override a likely Trump veto.

Miller stopped just short of predicting a Trump veto, saying simply, "He will protect his national emergency declaration -- guaranteed."

Several Republican senators have decried the emergency declaration, saying it establishes a dangerous precedent and amounts to executive overreach. How they might vote on a resolution is unclear.

But one well-known Republican, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, is even entertaining a 2020 primary challenge to the president.&nbsp;

While his chances would appear slim, he argued Sunday on ABC that Americans cannot afford six more years of a president who "wants to divide the country" and is "reckless" in running up trillion-dollar deficits.&nbsp;

He said the emergency declaration was an example of Trump trying to "make himself seem indispensable," then added, "He's not indispensable at all."

A top adviser to Donald Trump said Sunday that the president's emergency declaration could allow "hundreds of miles" of barriers to be built on the Mexican border before the 2020 election.

A top adviser to Donald Trump said Sunday that the president's emergency declaration could allow "hundreds of miles" of barriers to be built on the Mexican border before the 2020 election. "You're looking at hundreds of miles," Stephen Miller said on Fox News Sunday, "probably a couple hundred miles" by September 2020, two months before the election. Trump has made clear he plans to exploit the issue in his re-election campaign, even amid sharp criticism from Democrats, rights groups, border-state landowners — and several prominent Republicans. The president on Friday invoked a "national emergency" to justify tapping military and other funds for barrier construction, after Congress approved less than a fourth the $5.7 billion he had sought for border security. Miller, echoing Trump's arguments, said that an unsecured border allowed drugs and criminals to pour into the country. He dismissed government statistics showing illegal entries had fallen. "You cannot have uncontrolled, unsecured areas of the border where people can pour in undetected," he said. But asked to cite an example of a past president invoking an emergency after being denied funds by Congress, Miller could not do so. "If people don't like that, they can address it," he said. An 'imminent' challenge Given the near-certainty of legal challenges and of a possible blocking move in Congress, it is far from clear how quickly barrier construction can advance on the 1,950-mile (3,140-kilometer) border. Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, told ABC his state would be filing a lawsuit against the project "definitely, and imminently." He said California and other states had legal standing in the case because they risked losing moneys intended for military projects, disaster assistance and other purposes. Several states "will be harmed," he said. Another Democrat, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, said she thought Congress could pass a resolution to block Trump's action but might not be able to summon the votes to override a likely Trump veto. Miller stopped just short of predicting a Trump veto, saying simply, "He will protect his national emergency declaration -- guaranteed." Several Republican senators have decried the emergency declaration, saying it establishes a dangerous precedent and amounts to executive overreach. How they might vote on a resolution is unclear. But one well-known Republican, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, is even entertaining a 2020 primary challenge to the president. While his chances would appear slim, he argued Sunday on ABC that Americans cannot afford six more years of a president who "wants to divide the country" and is "reckless" in running up trillion-dollar deficits. He said the emergency declaration was an example of Trump trying to "make himself seem indispensable," then added, "He's not indispensable at all."

Trump aide Stephen Miller predicts 'hundreds of miles' of border wall before 2020 election

North Korea is facing a "significant, historic turning point", state media said on Monday, ahead of a highly-anticipated second summit between <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-confident-about-his-second-summit-with-kim-says-it-will-be-very-successful-one-197734">Donald Trump</a> and <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kim-jong-un-to-arrive-in-vietnam-on-february-25-ahead-of-trump-summit-197828">Kim Jong Un</a>.

The meeting between the two leaders -- which will be the second time the pair have come together following their Singapore summit in June -- is scheduled for Hanoi, Vietnam on February 27-28.&nbsp;

Attention has been focused on whether the US team will offer to lift some economic sanctions on North Korea, in return for Pyongyang taking concrete steps toward denuclearisation. &nbsp;

"It is time for us to tighten our shoe strings and run fast, looking for a higher goal as we face this decisive moment," the Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in an editorial.

"Our country is facing a significant, historic turning point," it added, without explicitly referencing the summit.

Earlier this month, US President Trump tweeted that North Korea will become a "great Economic Powerhouse" under Kim.

"He may surprise some but he won't surprise me, because I have gotten to know him &amp; fully understand how capable he is," said Trump.

The Rodong Sinmun commentary called on North Koreans to make greater efforts to boost the country's economy.

North Korea is rising as a "strong, socialist nation," and one's true act of patriotism begins at one's workplace, the commentary added.

"Each and every product should be made to make our country shine."

North Korea, which holds most of the peninsula's mineral resources, was once wealthier than the South, but decades of mismanagement and the demise of its former paymaster the Soviet Union have left it deeply impoverished.

In 2017 the UN Security Council banned the North's main exports -- coal and other mineral resources, fisheries and textile products -- to cut off its access to hard currency in response to Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.&nbsp;

North Korea is facing a "significant, historic turning point", state media said on Monday, ahead of a highly-anticipated second summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un.

North Korea is facing a "significant, historic turning point", state media said on Monday, ahead of a highly-anticipated second summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. The meeting between the two leaders -- which will be the second time the pair have come together following their Singapore summit in June -- is scheduled for Hanoi, Vietnam on February 27-28. Attention has been focused on whether the US team will offer to lift some economic sanctions on North Korea, in return for Pyongyang taking concrete steps toward denuclearisation. "It is time for us to tighten our shoe strings and run fast, looking for a higher goal as we face this decisive moment," the Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in an editorial. "Our country is facing a significant, historic turning point," it added, without explicitly referencing the summit. Earlier this month, US President Trump tweeted that North Korea will become a "great Economic Powerhouse" under Kim. "He may surprise some but he won't surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is," said Trump. The Rodong Sinmun commentary called on North Koreans to make greater efforts to boost the country's economy. North Korea is rising as a "strong, socialist nation," and one's true act of patriotism begins at one's workplace, the commentary added. "Each and every product should be made to make our country shine." North Korea, which holds most of the peninsula's mineral resources, was once wealthier than the South, but decades of mismanagement and the demise of its former paymaster the Soviet Union have left it deeply impoverished. In 2017 the UN Security Council banned the North's main exports -- coal and other mineral resources, fisheries and textile products -- to cut off its access to hard currency in response to Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

North Korea faces 'historic turning point': State media ahead of US summit

Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman who helped play a role in Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 US presidential election, has been released from federal prison after serving about 14 months for exchanging sexually explicit texts with a 15-year-old girl.

Weiner, 54, has been released from the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts, and is under the supervision of a residential re-entry management office in Brooklyn, according to prison records.

The seven-term congressman who ran unsuccessfully several times for New York City mayor will be free on May 14, records show, about three months earlier than his 21-month sentence. He had pleaded guilty to sending the texts and had faced up to 10 years in prison.

The FBI discovered a trove of emails belonging to his then-wife, Huma Abedin, a senior aide to Hillary Clinton, on Weiner's laptop.

Then-FBI Director James Comey announced just weeks before the presidential election that his agency was reopening an investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while she was US secretary of state.

Clinton said the move contributed to her stunning loss to Republican Donald Trump.

Abedin filed for divorce. The couple has a 7-year-old son, Jordan.

Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman who helped play a role in Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 US presidential election, has been released from federal prison after serving about 14 months for exchanging sexually explicit texts with a 15-year-old girl.

Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman who helped play a role in Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 US presidential election, has been released from federal prison after serving about 14 months for exchanging sexually explicit texts with a 15-year-old girl. Weiner, 54, has been released from the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts, and is under the supervision of a residential re-entry management office in Brooklyn, according to prison records. The seven-term congressman who ran unsuccessfully several times for New York City mayor will be free on May 14, records show, about three months earlier than his 21-month sentence. He had pleaded guilty to sending the texts and had faced up to 10 years in prison. The FBI discovered a trove of emails belonging to his then-wife, Huma Abedin, a senior aide to Hillary Clinton, on Weiner's laptop. Then-FBI Director James Comey announced just weeks before the presidential election that his agency was reopening an investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while she was US secretary of state. Clinton said the move contributed to her stunning loss to Republican Donald Trump. Abedin filed for divorce. The couple has a 7-year-old son, Jordan.

Ex-congressman Weiner released from prison after sexting scandal

The White House received Monday a Commerce Department report on the auto industry that could trigger tariffs against imported cars and intensify tensions with Europe.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has labelled as "frightening" the prospect that European car imports could be declared a national security threat to the United States.

Two people familiar with the matter earlier told AFP that the Commerce Department report has concluded that auto imports pose such a threat.

As part of his "America First" agenda, US President Donald Trump has already imposed a range of tariffs against allies, as well as China.

"Today, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross formally submitted to President Donald J. Trump the results of the Department of Commerce's investigation into the effect of imports of automobiles and automobile parts on the national security of the United States," a Commerce Department statement issued late Sunday said.

It gave no further details. Sunday was the deadline for Ross to file his report.

Trump ordered the investigation in May, and after receiving the report he now has 90 days to decide whether or not to impose tariffs.

Trump has threatened 25 per cent duties on European autos, especially targeting Germany, which he says has harmed the American car industry.

In July, Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reached a trade truce under which they pledged no new tariffs while negotiations continued.

The White House has already used the national security argument -- saying that undermining the American manufacturing base impairs military readiness, among other claims -- to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.&nbsp;

His action drew instant retaliation from the EU, Canada, Mexico and China.

In 2017 just under half of the 17 million cars sold in the United States were imported, most of them produced in Canada and Mexico. Those two countries have reached a new free trade pact with Washington and are expected to be exempt from any new automobile duties.

German automobile groups last year exported 470,000 cars from Germany to the United States, according to the VDA manufacturers' federation.

Aside from economic matters, US-European ties are already upended over Trump's approach towards Iran and Syria, as well as other issues.

&nbsp;

The White House received Monday a Commerce Department report on the auto industry that could trigger tariffs against imported cars and intensify tensions with Europe.

The White House received Monday a Commerce Department report on the auto industry that could trigger tariffs against imported cars and intensify tensions with Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has labelled as "frightening" the prospect that European car imports could be declared a national security threat to the United States. Two people familiar with the matter earlier told AFP that the Commerce Department report has concluded that auto imports pose such a threat. As part of his "America First" agenda, US President Donald Trump has already imposed a range of tariffs against allies, as well as China. "Today, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross formally submitted to President Donald J. Trump the results of the Department of Commerce's investigation into the effect of imports of automobiles and automobile parts on the national security of the United States," a Commerce Department statement issued late Sunday said. It gave no further details. Sunday was the deadline for Ross to file his report. Trump ordered the investigation in May, and after receiving the report he now has 90 days to decide whether or not to impose tariffs. Trump has threatened 25 per cent duties on European autos, especially targeting Germany, which he says has harmed the American car industry. In July, Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reached a trade truce under which they pledged no new tariffs while negotiations continued. The White House has already used the national security argument -- saying that undermining the American manufacturing base impairs military readiness, among other claims -- to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. His action drew instant retaliation from the EU, Canada, Mexico and China. In 2017 just under half of the 17 million cars sold in the United States were imported, most of them produced in Canada and Mexico. Those two countries have reached a new free trade pact with Washington and are expected to be exempt from any new automobile duties. German automobile groups last year exported 470,000 cars from Germany to the United States, according to the VDA manufacturers' federation. Aside from economic matters, US-European ties are already upended over Trump's approach towards Iran and Syria, as well as other issues.

White House gets report that could trigger auto tariffs

By Jeff Bachman

The US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation to deny further military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

The bipartisan vote for the bill was a repudiation of the Obama and Trump administrations’ support for the Saudis and a war that many charge includes violations of human rights. A Saudi-led coalition of states has been aggressively bombing Yemen and imposing an air and naval blockade of its ports for more than three years, leading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to describe Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”

The legislation now goes to the Senate. President Trump has said that he would veto it if passed.

Guterres put the crisis in stark perspective, emphasising the near complete lack of security for the Yemeni people. More than 22 million people out of a total population of 28 million are in need of humanitarian aid and protection. Eighteen million people lack reliable access to food; 8.4 million people “do not know how they will obtain their next meal.”

As a scholar of genocide and human rights, I believe the destruction brought about by these attacks combined with the blockade amounts to genocide.

Based on my research, published online by Third World Quarterly, I believe the coalition would not be capable of committing this crime without the material and logistical support of both the Obama and Trump administrations.

A ‘storm’ recast as ‘hope’

Yemen has been gripped by a civil war since 2015, pitting the Shia Houthi movement – which has fought for centuries for control of parts of Yemen – against a government backed by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Because of these religious differences, it would be easy to recast what is largely a political conflict in Yemen as a sectarian one.

That characterisation fits Saudi and US assertions that the Houthis are controlled by Shiite Iran, a claim that has not gone uncontested. Both the Saudis and the US are hostile to Iran, so US support of Saudia Arabia in Yemen represents what US administrations have said are strategic interests in the region.

Besides Saudi Arabia, the coalition attacking Yemen includes the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and Bahrain. Qatar was part of the coalition but is no longer.

During the first three years of “Operation Decisive Storm,” later renamed “Operation Renewal of Hope,” 16,749 coalition air attacks in Yemen were documented by the Yemen Data Project, which describes itself as an “independent data collection project aimed at collecting and disseminating data on the conduct of the war in Yemen.”

Based on the information available to it using open sources, the Yemen Data Project reports that two-thirds of the coalition’s bombing attacks have been against nonmilitary and unknown targets. The coalition isn’t accidentally attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure – it’s doing it deliberately.

That’s evident from the kind – and volume – of civilian targets documented. They include places that are generally protected against attack even under the lax rules of international humanitarian law: Residential areas, vehicles, marketplaces and mosques as well as boats, social gatherings and camps for internally displaced persons.

Because of the role it plays in movement of people, food and medicine, Yemen’s transportation infrastructure is especially important. Airports, ports, bridges and roads have all been repeatedly attacked.

Yemen’s economic infrastructure – farms, private businesses and factories, oil and gas facilities, water and electricity lines and food storage – have also been hit. And the coalition has targeted and destroyed schools and medical facilities, too.

Finally, Yemen’s cultural heritage has been attacked. In all, at least 78 cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, including archaeological sites, museums, mosques, churches and tombs, as well as numerous other monuments and residences that have great historical and cultural significance.

How to make a crisis

The attacks aren’t the only way the coalition is creating a massive humanitarian crisis.

The air and naval blockade, in effect since March 2015, “is essentially using the threat of starvation as a bargaining tool and an instrument of war,” according to the UN panel of experts on Yemen.

The blockade stops and inspects vessels seeking entry to Yemen’s ports. That allows the coalition to regulate and restrict Yemenis’ access to food, fuel, medical supplies and humanitarian aid.

In his analysis of the blockade’s legality, Dutch military scholar Martin Fink writes that the blockade means “massive time delays and uncertainty on what products would be allowed to enter.”

Despite U.N. efforts to alleviate some of the worst delays, imports are often held up for a long time. In some cases, food that makes it through the blockade has already spoiled, if the entry is not denied altogether.

In some ways, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unprecedented and can be tied directly to the conflict. As the World Bank notes, “Yemen’s very difficult economic challenges before the current conflict cannot be compared to the intensely critical situation the country is facing today.”

Similarly, Tufts University scholar Alex de Waal describes Yemen as “the greatest famine atrocity of our lifetimes.” It was caused, writes de Waal, by the coalition “deliberately destroying the country’s food-producing infrastructure.”

The failing security for the people of Yemen has been compounded by a failing health system. The World Health Organisation reported in September 2017 that only 45 per cent of health facilities in Yemen were functional.

As Secretary-General Guterres put it, “Treatable illnesses become a death sentence when local health services are suspended and it is impossible to travel outside the country.”

As of February 2018, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the coalition had killed 6,000 people in airstrikes and wounded nearly 10,000 more.

Yet, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report, these counts are conservative. Tens of thousands of Yemenis have also died from causes related to the war. According to Save the Children, an estimated 85,000 children under five may have died since 2015, with more than 50,000 child deaths in 2017 alone from hunger and related causes.

Coalition actions in Yemen amount to nothing short of what Raphael Lemkin, the individual who coined the term “genocide,” referred to as a “synchronized attack on different aspects of life.”

The US contribution

The coalition’s genocide in Yemen would not be possible without the complicity of the US. This has been a bipartisan presidential effort, covering both the Obama and Trump administrations.

US arms are being used to kill Yemenis and destroy their country. In 2016, well after the coalition began its genocidal assault on Yemen, four of the top five recipients of US arms sales were members of the coalition.

The U.S. has also provided the coalition with logistical support, including mid-air refuelling, targeting advice and support, intelligence, expedited munitions resupply and maintenance.

Other than the sale of arms, perhaps the most significant contribution to the coalition’s ability to commit genocide in Yemen has been the provision of fuel and midair refuelling of coalition warplanes, which was halted in early November 2018. By the middle of 2017, the US had delivered over 67 million pounds of fuel to the coalition and refuelled coalition aircraft more than 9,000 times.

Shared responsibility for genocide

As a genocide scholar, I believe that under international law, the US shares responsibility with the coalition for genocide in Yemen.

What does this mean? It means that the US must cease and desist all activities that facilitate genocide in Yemen. This would include stopping all sales of weapons and ending logistical support for coalition action. The legislation passed by the House would largely accomplish this, though the House bill would allow intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia to continue when “appropriate in the national security interest of the United States.”

However, even if the Senate passes it, the president’s likely veto of the bill will mean no change in the deadly status quo unless the legislation garners enough support to override a presidential veto.

In an ideal world, one in which all states are equally subjects before international law, the U.S. would also seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding what restitution it owes the people of Yemen for its role in the coalition’s genocide.

Similarly, the US would request an International Criminal Court investigation into individual culpability of US officials in both the Obama and Trump administrations for their role in facilitating the crimes committed in Yemen.

Of course, this is not an ideal world.

The US recognises neither the International Court of Justice’s authority to judge the legality of its actions, nor the International Criminal Court’s authority to investigate the suspected criminal acts of individual US officials. Such an investigation could be triggered by a UN Security Council referral, but the US would simply veto any such effort.

All that is left, then, is for the people of the US to hold their own to account for the crimes committed in their names. 
 
(Jeff Bachman is Professorial Lecturer in Human Rights, American University School of International Service)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-vote-could-end-us-complicity-in-the-saudi-led-genocide-in-yemen-111952">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Jeff Bachman The US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation to deny further military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

By Jeff Bachman The US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation to deny further military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. The bipartisan vote for the bill was a repudiation of the Obama and Trump administrations’ support for the Saudis and a war that many charge includes violations of human rights. A Saudi-led coalition of states has been aggressively bombing Yemen and imposing an air and naval blockade of its ports for more than three years, leading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to describe Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.” The legislation now goes to the Senate. President Trump has said that he would veto it if passed. Guterres put the crisis in stark perspective, emphasising the near complete lack of security for the Yemeni people. More than 22 million people out of a total population of 28 million are in need of humanitarian aid and protection. Eighteen million people lack reliable access to food; 8.4 million people “do not know how they will obtain their next meal.” As a scholar of genocide and human rights, I believe the destruction brought about by these attacks combined with the blockade amounts to genocide. Based on my research, published online by Third World Quarterly, I believe the coalition would not be capable of committing this crime without the material and logistical support of both the Obama and Trump administrations. A ‘storm’ recast as ‘hope’ Yemen has been gripped by a civil war since 2015, pitting the Shia Houthi movement – which has fought for centuries for control of parts of Yemen – against a government backed by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Because of these religious differences, it would be easy to recast what is largely a political conflict in Yemen as a sectarian one. That characterisation fits Saudi and US assertions that the Houthis are controlled by Shiite Iran, a claim that has not gone uncontested. Both the Saudis and the US are hostile to Iran, so US support of Saudia Arabia in Yemen represents what US administrations have said are strategic interests in the region. Besides Saudi Arabia, the coalition attacking Yemen includes the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and Bahrain. Qatar was part of the coalition but is no longer. During the first three years of “Operation Decisive Storm,” later renamed “Operation Renewal of Hope,” 16,749 coalition air attacks in Yemen were documented by the Yemen Data Project, which describes itself as an “independent data collection project aimed at collecting and disseminating data on the conduct of the war in Yemen.” Based on the information available to it using open sources, the Yemen Data Project reports that two-thirds of the coalition’s bombing attacks have been against nonmilitary and unknown targets. The coalition isn’t accidentally attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure – it’s doing it deliberately. That’s evident from the kind – and volume – of civilian targets documented. They include places that are generally protected against attack even under the lax rules of international humanitarian law: Residential areas, vehicles, marketplaces and mosques as well as boats, social gatherings and camps for internally displaced persons. Because of the role it plays in movement of people, food and medicine, Yemen’s transportation infrastructure is especially important. Airports, ports, bridges and roads have all been repeatedly attacked. Yemen’s economic infrastructure – farms, private businesses and factories, oil and gas facilities, water and electricity lines and food storage – have also been hit. And the coalition has targeted and destroyed schools and medical facilities, too. Finally, Yemen’s cultural heritage has been attacked. In all, at least 78 cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, including archaeological sites, museums, mosques, churches and tombs, as well as numerous other monuments and residences that have great historical and cultural significance. How to make a crisis The attacks aren’t the only way the coalition is creating a massive humanitarian crisis. The air and naval blockade, in effect since March 2015, “is essentially using the threat of starvation as a bargaining tool and an instrument of war,” according to the UN panel of experts on Yemen. The blockade stops and inspects vessels seeking entry to Yemen’s ports. That allows the coalition to regulate and restrict Yemenis’ access to food, fuel, medical supplies and humanitarian aid. In his analysis of the blockade’s legality, Dutch military scholar Martin Fink writes that the blockade means “massive time delays and uncertainty on what products would be allowed to enter.” Despite U.N. efforts to alleviate some of the worst delays, imports are often held up for a long time. In some cases, food that makes it through the blockade has already spoiled, if the entry is not denied altogether. In some ways, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unprecedented and can be tied directly to the conflict. As the World Bank notes, “Yemen’s very difficult economic challenges before the current conflict cannot be compared to the intensely critical situation the country is facing today.” Similarly, Tufts University scholar Alex de Waal describes Yemen as “the greatest famine atrocity of our lifetimes.” It was caused, writes de Waal, by the coalition “deliberately destroying the country’s food-producing infrastructure.” The failing security for the people of Yemen has been compounded by a failing health system. The World Health Organisation reported in September 2017 that only 45 per cent of health facilities in Yemen were functional. As Secretary-General Guterres put it, “Treatable illnesses become a death sentence when local health services are suspended and it is impossible to travel outside the country.” As of February 2018, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the coalition had killed 6,000 people in airstrikes and wounded nearly 10,000 more. Yet, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report, these counts are conservative. Tens of thousands of Yemenis have also died from causes related to the war. According to Save the Children, an estimated 85,000 children under five may have died since 2015, with more than 50,000 child deaths in 2017 alone from hunger and related causes. Coalition actions in Yemen amount to nothing short of what Raphael Lemkin, the individual who coined the term “genocide,” referred to as a “synchronized attack on different aspects of life.” The US contribution The coalition’s genocide in Yemen would not be possible without the complicity of the US. This has been a bipartisan presidential effort, covering both the Obama and Trump administrations. US arms are being used to kill Yemenis and destroy their country. In 2016, well after the coalition began its genocidal assault on Yemen, four of the top five recipients of US arms sales were members of the coalition. The U.S. has also provided the coalition with logistical support, including mid-air refuelling, targeting advice and support, intelligence, expedited munitions resupply and maintenance. Other than the sale of arms, perhaps the most significant contribution to the coalition’s ability to commit genocide in Yemen has been the provision of fuel and midair refuelling of coalition warplanes, which was halted in early November 2018. By the middle of 2017, the US had delivered over 67 million pounds of fuel to the coalition and refuelled coalition aircraft more than 9,000 times. Shared responsibility for genocide As a genocide scholar, I believe that under international law, the US shares responsibility with the coalition for genocide in Yemen. What does this mean? It means that the US must cease and desist all activities that facilitate genocide in Yemen. This would include stopping all sales of weapons and ending logistical support for coalition action. The legislation passed by the House would largely accomplish this, though the House bill would allow intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia to continue when “appropriate in the national security interest of the United States.” However, even if the Senate passes it, the president’s likely veto of the bill will mean no change in the deadly status quo unless the legislation garners enough support to override a presidential veto. In an ideal world, one in which all states are equally subjects before international law, the U.S. would also seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding what restitution it owes the people of Yemen for its role in the coalition’s genocide. Similarly, the US would request an International Criminal Court investigation into individual culpability of US officials in both the Obama and Trump administrations for their role in facilitating the crimes committed in Yemen. Of course, this is not an ideal world. The US recognises neither the International Court of Justice’s authority to judge the legality of its actions, nor the International Criminal Court’s authority to investigate the suspected criminal acts of individual US officials. Such an investigation could be triggered by a UN Security Council referral, but the US would simply veto any such effort. All that is left, then, is for the people of the US to hold their own to account for the crimes committed in their names. (Jeff Bachman is Professorial Lecturer in Human Rights, American University School of International Service) (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.)

Senate vote could end US complicity in the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen

Geopolitics, like thermodynamics, has its laws of conservation. If a wall comes down in one place, you can bet that it will go up somewhere else. It wasn’t long after the Berlin Wall fell that different kinds of walls went up in Eastern Europe. New borders separated the Czech Republic from Slovakia, and then, after much bloodshed, the new successor states of former Yugoslavia.

By the end of the 1990s, barriers were being established in small towns in the Czech Republic, in Slovakia and in Romania to separate Roma and non-Roma populations. Germans on both sides of the former Berlin Wall were declaring that they were one people. But in other countries in the region, the majority population was insisting, rule of law notwithstanding, that the citizenry was not one people and a wall was necessary to emphasise the distinction.

These discriminatory walls anticipated the next round of walls in the region: to keep out immigrants. Hungary built a wall on its border with Serbia in 2015, and then a second one in 2017 just to be sure. Germany was letting in more than a million desperate people. Hungary and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, after making the earlier case that they belonged in the European Union, were shutting the door after themselves.

It’s not just Eastern Europe. The Brexit vote was basically an effort to build a big wall across the English Channel to separate the United Kingdom from Europe. Keeping out immigrants was a major motivating factor.

Walls are practically everywhere, alas. You can find a very sad set of walls separating Israel from the Occupied Territories. Spain has walled off its cities of Ceuta and Melilla from the rest of Morocco (yes, there are two Spanish towns in North Africa). There’s a wall between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. According to Elisabeth Vallet, a geography professor at the University of Quebec-Montreal, there were 15 border walls around the world in 1989. That has jumped to 77 today.

Donald Trump's wall 
 
As with so many of his fixations, Donald Trump’s call for a wall is hardly original. And this wall, too, is a response to the collapse of walls elsewhere. Economic globalisation was responsible, from the 1980s on, for gradually tearing down all manner of barriers: to trade, to finance and to the movement of manufacturers. Trump and his economic populists have done as much as they can to put back some of those barriers — for instance, by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and by slapping tariffs on products from allies and adversaries.

But Trump’s wall along the US-Mexico border is first and foremost about keeping people out. Economic globalisation removed some barriers to the movement of people, but primarily those with highly sought-after skills. As for the truly desperate who were trying to climb over walls and breach borders, they were often motivated more by war and the violence of non-state actors.

These two types of “open borders” — one for money, the other for bodies — have often been confused in the public imagination. Or politicians have deliberately conflated the two, as Trump supporters did in the case of the infamous Hillary Clinton quote about “open borders.” She quite obviously meant economic globalization, not immigration, which was troubling in its own right, but for different reasons.

Trump is not a big fan of openness, in any of its manifestations. He loves the idea of exclusivity: private jets, elite parties, membership-only clubs like Mar-a-Lago. He prefers not to reveal his tax returns. He’d like to keep all of his financials well hidden. In Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege. Whenever he can wall off the press, his “low-intelligence” critics, the populations of “shit-hole” countries, he does so in a New York minute. He devises travel bans. He instructs his press secretary to dispense with the traditional daily press briefings. He stays within his Fox News enclosure. Even when he prances before the public in mass events, he wants to make sure that everyone in the crowd is on his side.

The Trump brand has always been about exclusivity, though of a rather tawdry variety: the appearance of prestige instead of the reality. As the writer Fran Lebowitz once remarked, Trump is “a poor person’s idea of a rich person.” It could also be said that he’s a non-political person’s idea of a president. He projects the appearance of a president — handshakes with other leaders, photo ops in the Oval Office — without any of the substance. All of his talk of “fake news” is just an indirect admission of his own doubts about his own authenticity as a president.

No surprise, then, that Trump is offering the appearance of security rather than the reality of security. A wall is largely a symbol. It means nothing when the United States refuses to address the true causes of insecurity, both at home and abroad. Nicholas Kristof did a nice column in The New York Times, drawn in part from my IPS colleagues’ National Priorities Project data, about all the sensible ways to spend $5.7 billion: on America’s children, on gun buybacks and drug treatment programs, on job training for prisoners, and on helping people overseas. That’s what a real president would support, not a “fake president.”

Insecurity

But let’s dig a little deeper. The wall addresses a core psychological insecurity. Trump supporters — and many others — feel as if their own privileges are evaporating. Those privileges are connected to race and gender (the angry white men who now swell the ranks of the Republican Party). But they are also connected to class (the blue-collar workers that once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party).

And don’t forget the oft-overlooked privilege of being American. US citizens are feeling increasingly anxious as they watch the United States fail to achieve its objectives in one war after another — even as China expands its influence and Russia regains its great power status. Americans watch conflict, extremism, disease and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse engulf other countries, and they feel as if America can no longer ride in on its white horse to save the day (the last time was perhaps World War II). Worse, they can hear the drumbeat of those hooves approaching the very shores of this country.

Trump and his supporters want that wall to prevent all these privileges — individual, communal, national — from leaking out. It’s the architectural equivalent of a gun. It’s for defense, a way for people to “stand their ground.” But it’s also compensation for powerlessness and lack of control. As with guns, the sense of safety and security is almost entirely illusory.

Liberals, unfortunately, don’t offer much of an alternative. They use more inclusive language when it comes to individual and communal privilege — though liberals are also guilty of constructing walls when they live in the ghettoes of the wealthy, send their children to private schools or expunge any discordant viewpoints from their social media networks. These walls are largely invisible — just like the financial red lines that helped to create America’s urban wastelands — but they are no less powerful.

In terms of national privilege, liberals also believe in American supremacy, though they speak more in terms of restoring American leadership. America, in other words, has not really adjusted to a multipolar world, its more modest place within it or the resulting anxieties that torment the souls of Americans.

The US military, after all its failures around the world, no longer preserves American privilege. The US dollar, weakened by US debt and the strengthening of other national currencies, may soon lose its special glow. A wall is a fallback position, and a rather pathetic one at that. The United States desperately needs a leader — actually, a cadre of leaders — who can reconcile America’s relationship with the world, who can redefine US privilege and who can see the importance of a shift from global power over to global power with. It would be a true privilege to elect such visionaries to leadership positions. The world is waiting.

(John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies)

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/us-mexico-border-wall-donald-trump-american-politics-world-news-headlines-today-79083/">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Geopolitics, like thermodynamics, has its laws of conservation. If a wall comes down in one place, you can bet that it will go up somewhere else. It wasn’t long after the Berlin Wall fell that different kinds of walls went up in Eastern Europe.

Geopolitics, like thermodynamics, has its laws of conservation. If a wall comes down in one place, you can bet that it will go up somewhere else. It wasn’t long after the Berlin Wall fell that different kinds of walls went up in Eastern Europe. New borders separated the Czech Republic from Slovakia, and then, after much bloodshed, the new successor states of former Yugoslavia. By the end of the 1990s, barriers were being established in small towns in the Czech Republic, in Slovakia and in Romania to separate Roma and non-Roma populations. Germans on both sides of the former Berlin Wall were declaring that they were one people. But in other countries in the region, the majority population was insisting, rule of law notwithstanding, that the citizenry was not one people and a wall was necessary to emphasise the distinction. These discriminatory walls anticipated the next round of walls in the region: to keep out immigrants. Hungary built a wall on its border with Serbia in 2015, and then a second one in 2017 just to be sure. Germany was letting in more than a million desperate people. Hungary and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, after making the earlier case that they belonged in the European Union, were shutting the door after themselves. It’s not just Eastern Europe. The Brexit vote was basically an effort to build a big wall across the English Channel to separate the United Kingdom from Europe. Keeping out immigrants was a major motivating factor. Walls are practically everywhere, alas. You can find a very sad set of walls separating Israel from the Occupied Territories. Spain has walled off its cities of Ceuta and Melilla from the rest of Morocco (yes, there are two Spanish towns in North Africa). There’s a wall between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. According to Elisabeth Vallet, a geography professor at the University of Quebec-Montreal, there were 15 border walls around the world in 1989. That has jumped to 77 today. Donald Trump's wall As with so many of his fixations, Donald Trump’s call for a wall is hardly original. And this wall, too, is a response to the collapse of walls elsewhere. Economic globalisation was responsible, from the 1980s on, for gradually tearing down all manner of barriers: to trade, to finance and to the movement of manufacturers. Trump and his economic populists have done as much as they can to put back some of those barriers — for instance, by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and by slapping tariffs on products from allies and adversaries. But Trump’s wall along the US-Mexico border is first and foremost about keeping people out. Economic globalisation removed some barriers to the movement of people, but primarily those with highly sought-after skills. As for the truly desperate who were trying to climb over walls and breach borders, they were often motivated more by war and the violence of non-state actors. These two types of “open borders” — one for money, the other for bodies — have often been confused in the public imagination. Or politicians have deliberately conflated the two, as Trump supporters did in the case of the infamous Hillary Clinton quote about “open borders.” She quite obviously meant economic globalization, not immigration, which was troubling in its own right, but for different reasons. Trump is not a big fan of openness, in any of its manifestations. He loves the idea of exclusivity: private jets, elite parties, membership-only clubs like Mar-a-Lago. He prefers not to reveal his tax returns. He’d like to keep all of his financials well hidden. In Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege. Whenever he can wall off the press, his “low-intelligence” critics, the populations of “shit-hole” countries, he does so in a New York minute. He devises travel bans. He instructs his press secretary to dispense with the traditional daily press briefings. He stays within his Fox News enclosure. Even when he prances before the public in mass events, he wants to make sure that everyone in the crowd is on his side. The Trump brand has always been about exclusivity, though of a rather tawdry variety: the appearance of prestige instead of the reality. As the writer Fran Lebowitz once remarked, Trump is “a poor person’s idea of a rich person.” It could also be said that he’s a non-political person’s idea of a president. He projects the appearance of a president — handshakes with other leaders, photo ops in the Oval Office — without any of the substance. All of his talk of “fake news” is just an indirect admission of his own doubts about his own authenticity as a president. No surprise, then, that Trump is offering the appearance of security rather than the reality of security. A wall is largely a symbol. It means nothing when the United States refuses to address the true causes of insecurity, both at home and abroad. Nicholas Kristof did a nice column in The New York Times, drawn in part from my IPS colleagues’ National Priorities Project data, about all the sensible ways to spend $5.7 billion: on America’s children, on gun buybacks and drug treatment programs, on job training for prisoners, and on helping people overseas. That’s what a real president would support, not a “fake president.” Insecurity But let’s dig a little deeper. The wall addresses a core psychological insecurity. Trump supporters — and many others — feel as if their own privileges are evaporating. Those privileges are connected to race and gender (the angry white men who now swell the ranks of the Republican Party). But they are also connected to class (the blue-collar workers that once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party). And don’t forget the oft-overlooked privilege of being American. US citizens are feeling increasingly anxious as they watch the United States fail to achieve its objectives in one war after another — even as China expands its influence and Russia regains its great power status. Americans watch conflict, extremism, disease and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse engulf other countries, and they feel as if America can no longer ride in on its white horse to save the day (the last time was perhaps World War II). Worse, they can hear the drumbeat of those hooves approaching the very shores of this country. Trump and his supporters want that wall to prevent all these privileges — individual, communal, national — from leaking out. It’s the architectural equivalent of a gun. It’s for defense, a way for people to “stand their ground.” But it’s also compensation for powerlessness and lack of control. As with guns, the sense of safety and security is almost entirely illusory. Liberals, unfortunately, don’t offer much of an alternative. They use more inclusive language when it comes to individual and communal privilege — though liberals are also guilty of constructing walls when they live in the ghettoes of the wealthy, send their children to private schools or expunge any discordant viewpoints from their social media networks. These walls are largely invisible — just like the financial red lines that helped to create America’s urban wastelands — but they are no less powerful. In terms of national privilege, liberals also believe in American supremacy, though they speak more in terms of restoring American leadership. America, in other words, has not really adjusted to a multipolar world, its more modest place within it or the resulting anxieties that torment the souls of Americans. The US military, after all its failures around the world, no longer preserves American privilege. The US dollar, weakened by US debt and the strengthening of other national currencies, may soon lose its special glow. A wall is a fallback position, and a rather pathetic one at that. The United States desperately needs a leader — actually, a cadre of leaders — who can reconcile America’s relationship with the world, who can redefine US privilege and who can see the importance of a shift from global power over to global power with. It would be a true privilege to elect such visionaries to leadership positions. The world is waiting. (John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies) (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Psychology of the Wall: In Donald Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege

US and Chinese officials wrapped up days of trade talks in Beijing on Friday with plans to resume negotiations in Washington this week as the world's top two economies try to smooth out their thorny trade dispute.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump said the talks were going "extremely well", while his advisors deep in the details warned there was still "much work" to do.

Beijing and Washington have already imposed duties on more than $360 billion in two-way trade, which is weighing on their manufacturing sectors and has shaken global financial markets.&nbsp;

Trump has said he may extend a March 1 deadline after which tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods are set to more than double.

Here is a breakdown of the main sticking points:

IP theft &amp; tech transfer&nbsp;

Washington contends Beijing has encouraged theft of American intellectual property while forcing US companies to turn over trade secrets for market access.

Beijing has long denied the charges but is working to step up punishments for IP theft, fast-tracking a new foreign investment law which explicitly bans forced technology transfer.&nbsp;

It is also gradually increasing the scope of industries where foreign firms can operate without a Chinese joint venture partner. &nbsp;

It is unclear if the moves will be enough to appease the Trump Administration. The FBI recently said it is investigating Chinese economic espionage across the US while the Justice Department is leading a name, shame and prosecute the campaign against Chinese spying and theft.

US prosecutors recently ensnared Chinese tech giant Huawei with charges of trade secret theft, including an alleged programme to reward technology theft from rivals.

Industrial policy&nbsp;

China's industrial policy has raised concerns -- especially a "Made in China 2025" initiative that aims to make the Asian giant into a global leader in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, through generous state support for domestic firms.&nbsp;

Beijing and the Chinese state media have played down the policy this past year as it aroused controversy, but for China, the trade tensions have only reinforced the need to increase self-sufficiency in crucial technology like semiconductors.&nbsp;

Indeed, a brief US ban on sales to state-backed telecom giant ZTE nearly killed the company last year.

State subsidies&nbsp;

In recent years China's state-owned companies have strengthened their domestic dominance -- flying in the face of Western demands for market reforms.

Washington hopes China will lessen the role of the state in the economy and curtail generous subsidies for industries and companies.

But economist Cui Fan of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing cautioned China may not give ground if the US wants to discuss state subsidies beyond the remit of the World Trade Organization agreement.&nbsp;

"I am afraid it will be difficult to completely solve this month," he said.

Trade deficit&nbsp;

China's politically sensitive trade surplus with the US last year hit a record $323.3 billion as the tit-for-tat tariffs kept Chinese buyers away from American agricultural and energy commodities.

Beijing has pledged to pick up purchases of US soybeans and other goods and dangled a massive buying spree over negotiations to nudge the White House towards a deal. The White House Friday emphasised discussions on purchases to reduce the "large and persistent bilateral trade deficit".

But any buying spree would have to rely heavily on the Chinese state-owned firms which Washington is battling to sideline.&nbsp;

Deal in sight?&nbsp;

The two sides are working towards a Memorandum of Understanding to detail their commitments ahead of a potential meeting between Trump and Xi.

The test will be if Trump can get on board with a deal to address the trade deficit that defers structural changes.

Earlier this month he told the American public a deal "must include a real structural change to end unfair trade practices", but Chinese analysts say that will take time.

"We are a slow-moving country. Some patience is needed," said Zhang Yansheng, chief researcher at China Center for International Economic Exchanges, a government-linked think tank, adding negotiating China's entry into the WTO took more than a decade.

Then there is the question of how to enforce whatever is agreed on. Beijing has long been wary of outside oversight.

US and Chinese officials wrapped up days of trade talks in Beijing on Friday with plans to resume negotiations in Washington this week as the world's top two economies try to smooth out their thorny trade dispute.

US and Chinese officials wrapped up days of trade talks in Beijing on Friday with plans to resume negotiations in Washington this week as the world's top two economies try to smooth out their thorny trade dispute. US President Donald Trump said the talks were going "extremely well", while his advisors deep in the details warned there was still "much work" to do. Beijing and Washington have already imposed duties on more than $360 billion in two-way trade, which is weighing on their manufacturing sectors and has shaken global financial markets. Trump has said he may extend a March 1 deadline after which tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods are set to more than double. Here is a breakdown of the main sticking points: IP theft & tech transfer Washington contends Beijing has encouraged theft of American intellectual property while forcing US companies to turn over trade secrets for market access. Beijing has long denied the charges but is working to step up punishments for IP theft, fast-tracking a new foreign investment law which explicitly bans forced technology transfer. It is also gradually increasing the scope of industries where foreign firms can operate without a Chinese joint venture partner. It is unclear if the moves will be enough to appease the Trump Administration. The FBI recently said it is investigating Chinese economic espionage across the US while the Justice Department is leading a name, shame and prosecute the campaign against Chinese spying and theft. US prosecutors recently ensnared Chinese tech giant Huawei with charges of trade secret theft, including an alleged programme to reward technology theft from rivals. Industrial policy China's industrial policy has raised concerns -- especially a "Made in China 2025" initiative that aims to make the Asian giant into a global leader in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, through generous state support for domestic firms. Beijing and the Chinese state media have played down the policy this past year as it aroused controversy, but for China, the trade tensions have only reinforced the need to increase self-sufficiency in crucial technology like semiconductors. Indeed, a brief US ban on sales to state-backed telecom giant ZTE nearly killed the company last year. State subsidies In recent years China's state-owned companies have strengthened their domestic dominance -- flying in the face of Western demands for market reforms. Washington hopes China will lessen the role of the state in the economy and curtail generous subsidies for industries and companies. But economist Cui Fan of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing cautioned China may not give ground if the US wants to discuss state subsidies beyond the remit of the World Trade Organization agreement. "I am afraid it will be difficult to completely solve this month," he said. Trade deficit China's politically sensitive trade surplus with the US last year hit a record $323.3 billion as the tit-for-tat tariffs kept Chinese buyers away from American agricultural and energy commodities. Beijing has pledged to pick up purchases of US soybeans and other goods and dangled a massive buying spree over negotiations to nudge the White House towards a deal. The White House Friday emphasised discussions on purchases to reduce the "large and persistent bilateral trade deficit". But any buying spree would have to rely heavily on the Chinese state-owned firms which Washington is battling to sideline. Deal in sight? The two sides are working towards a Memorandum of Understanding to detail their commitments ahead of a potential meeting between Trump and Xi. The test will be if Trump can get on board with a deal to address the trade deficit that defers structural changes. Earlier this month he told the American public a deal "must include a real structural change to end unfair trade practices", but Chinese analysts say that will take time. "We are a slow-moving country. Some patience is needed," said Zhang Yansheng, chief researcher at China Center for International Economic Exchanges, a government-linked think tank, adding negotiating China's entry into the WTO took more than a decade. Then there is the question of how to enforce whatever is agreed on. Beijing has long been wary of outside oversight.

US-China trade talks: What's under debate

By Chris Edelson

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, after Congress, in its new spending bill, denied him the full money to build it.

“We’re talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs,” Trump said in a speech on February 15 before signing the declaration.

Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi warned Trump against declaring a national emergency, saying that it set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to use that power. A number of liberal organizations have threatened to file challenges in court on the grounds that Trump’s move is an abuse of power.

But will the courts step in? What is Congress’s role in this situation?

As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress.

Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent.

The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency.

Now the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of passive spectator?

Gaining congressional approval

Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorization. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions.

This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labor strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a preexisting statute on the books weighed against Truman.

When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible.

Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted.

Congress’s role

Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes.

Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law.

The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in US waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute.

Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute.

Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action.

For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal.

Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. It is far from clear that courts will strike down Trump’s national emergency.

By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote.

That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress.

Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge.

All eyes should be on Congress.

(Chris Edelson is&nbsp;Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs.)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Chris Edelson President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, after Congress, in its new spending bill, denied him the full money to build it.

By Chris Edelson President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, after Congress, in its new spending bill, denied him the full money to build it. “We’re talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs,” Trump said in a speech on February 15 before signing the declaration. Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi warned Trump against declaring a national emergency, saying that it set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to use that power. A number of liberal organizations have threatened to file challenges in court on the grounds that Trump’s move is an abuse of power. But will the courts step in? What is Congress’s role in this situation? As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress. Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent. The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency. Now the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of passive spectator? Gaining congressional approval Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorization. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions. This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labor strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a preexisting statute on the books weighed against Truman. When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible. Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted. Congress’s role Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes. Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law. The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in US waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute. Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute. Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action. For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal. Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. It is far from clear that courts will strike down Trump’s national emergency. By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress. Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. All eyes should be on Congress. (Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs.) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Can Congress or the courts reverse Trump’s national emergency?

US President Donald Trump Sunday called on his European allies to take back alleged jihadists captured in Syria, as Islamic State group fighters defended the <a href="Last Islamic State 'caliphate' on brink of defeat in east Syria">last scrap of their "caliphate"</a>.

IS declared a proto-state across parts of Syria and neighbouring Iraq in 2014 but has since lost all of it except a tiny patch of less than half a kilometre square near the Iraqi border.

After years of fighting IS, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) hold hundreds of foreigners accused of fighting for the group, and well as related women and children.

Syria's Kurds have repeatedly called for their countries of origin to take them back, but these nations have been reluctant.

The issue has taken on greater urgency, however, amid fears of a security vacuum since Trump's shock announcement in December that US troops would withdraw.

"The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial," Trump said in a tweet, using another acronym for IS.

"The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them. The US does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go."

'European solution'

His tweet prompted a reaction from Paris, Brussels and Berlin.

In Syria, "it is the Kurds who hold them (the French jihadists) and we have every confidence in their ability to keep them detained," French junior interior minister Laurent Nunez told the BFM news channel.

If suspected jihadists return to France, "they will all be tried, and incarcerated," he said.

Coalition member France this month opened the door to bringing back its citizens.

A French source told AFP an estimated 150 French nationals, including 90 children, could be brought back to France, but authorities have not confirmed any planned transfer.

In Belgium, justice minister Koen Geens called for a collective "European solution" to the problem of foreign fighters, urging a solution that carries the least security risks.

"We currently have mothers and children in northern Syria, but also some fighters who are known," he told Belgian public television network VRT.

In Germany, foreign ministry sources said "the federal government is examining options to enable German citizens to leave Syria, especially in humanitarian cases".

Thousands of people have streamed out of the so-called "Baghouz pocket" in recent weeks, but hundreds of civilians are believed to still be inside.

At a collection point for new arrivals outside Baghouz on Sunday, dozens of tents and a few trucks sat empty.

Earlier in the week, the area had been thronging with people -- women and children, but also suspected jihadists led to one side.

"It's been two days since anyone came out," an SDF fighter told AFP.

'Human shields'

SDF spokesman Mustefa Bali said IS had blocked roads out of its holdout, preventing those remaining from escaping to safety.

"Daesh has sealed off all the streets" but up to 2,000 civilians could still be inside, he said, using the Arabic acronym for IS.

A spokesman for the US-led coalition said IS was using these women and children as "human shields".

"Civilians who have escaped are reporting ISIS is using them as human shields and killing innocent civilians in order to intimidate others from trying to leave," Sean Ryan said.

Trump on Friday promised announcements linked to "the eradication of the caliphate" within 24 hours, but a top SDF commander then warned the battle would take a few more days.

Beyond Baghouz, IS still has thousands of fighters and sleeper cells scattered across several countries.

In Syria, it retains a presence in the vast Badia desert, and has claimed deadly attacks in SDF-held territory.

"Over the past month, more than one foreign sleeper cell was arrested in multiple areas in Syria," spokesman Bali said.

Any withdrawal would leave Syria's Kurds exposed to a long-threatened attack by neighbouring Turkey, which views Kurdish fighters as "terrorists".

They have scrambled to seek a new ally in the Damascus government after spending most of Syria's civil war working towards self-rule.

Eight years into the conflict that has killed more than 360,000 people, President Bashar al-Assad's government controls nearly two-thirds of the country.

But the SDF hold around a third of the country still beyond its control.

US President Donald Trump Sunday called on his European allies to take back alleged jihadists captured in Syria, as Islamic State group fighters defended the last scrap of their "caliphate".

US President Donald Trump Sunday called on his European allies to take back alleged jihadists captured in Syria, as Islamic State group fighters defended the last scrap of their "caliphate". IS declared a proto-state across parts of Syria and neighbouring Iraq in 2014 but has since lost all of it except a tiny patch of less than half a kilometre square near the Iraqi border. After years of fighting IS, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) hold hundreds of foreigners accused of fighting for the group, and well as related women and children. Syria's Kurds have repeatedly called for their countries of origin to take them back, but these nations have been reluctant. The issue has taken on greater urgency, however, amid fears of a security vacuum since Trump's shock announcement in December that US troops would withdraw. "The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial," Trump said in a tweet, using another acronym for IS. "The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them. The US does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go." 'European solution' His tweet prompted a reaction from Paris, Brussels and Berlin. In Syria, "it is the Kurds who hold them (the French jihadists) and we have every confidence in their ability to keep them detained," French junior interior minister Laurent Nunez told the BFM news channel. If suspected jihadists return to France, "they will all be tried, and incarcerated," he said. Coalition member France this month opened the door to bringing back its citizens. A French source told AFP an estimated 150 French nationals, including 90 children, could be brought back to France, but authorities have not confirmed any planned transfer. In Belgium, justice minister Koen Geens called for a collective "European solution" to the problem of foreign fighters, urging a solution that carries the least security risks. "We currently have mothers and children in northern Syria, but also some fighters who are known," he told Belgian public television network VRT. In Germany, foreign ministry sources said "the federal government is examining options to enable German citizens to leave Syria, especially in humanitarian cases". Thousands of people have streamed out of the so-called "Baghouz pocket" in recent weeks, but hundreds of civilians are believed to still be inside. At a collection point for new arrivals outside Baghouz on Sunday, dozens of tents and a few trucks sat empty. Earlier in the week, the area had been thronging with people -- women and children, but also suspected jihadists led to one side. "It's been two days since anyone came out," an SDF fighter told AFP. 'Human shields' SDF spokesman Mustefa Bali said IS had blocked roads out of its holdout, preventing those remaining from escaping to safety. "Daesh has sealed off all the streets" but up to 2,000 civilians could still be inside, he said, using the Arabic acronym for IS. A spokesman for the US-led coalition said IS was using these women and children as "human shields". "Civilians who have escaped are reporting ISIS is using them as human shields and killing innocent civilians in order to intimidate others from trying to leave," Sean Ryan said. Trump on Friday promised announcements linked to "the eradication of the caliphate" within 24 hours, but a top SDF commander then warned the battle would take a few more days. Beyond Baghouz, IS still has thousands of fighters and sleeper cells scattered across several countries. In Syria, it retains a presence in the vast Badia desert, and has claimed deadly attacks in SDF-held territory. "Over the past month, more than one foreign sleeper cell was arrested in multiple areas in Syria," spokesman Bali said. Any withdrawal would leave Syria's Kurds exposed to a long-threatened attack by neighbouring Turkey, which views Kurdish fighters as "terrorists". They have scrambled to seek a new ally in the Damascus government after spending most of Syria's civil war working towards self-rule. Eight years into the conflict that has killed more than 360,000 people, President Bashar al-Assad's government controls nearly two-thirds of the country. But the SDF hold around a third of the country still beyond its control.

Donald Trump asks Europe take back jihadists, as IS in last stand in Syria

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki insisted Sunday that the question of Polish compensation for Jewish assets stolen by the Nazi was "definitively resolved", rebuffing a US call for further action.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who visited Poland last week, called on Warsaw to move forward with legislation to help "those who lost property during the Holocaust era".

But Morawiecki told the PAP news agency Sunday: "The question of restitution of assets to US citizens of Jewish origin has been definitively resolved.

"A law of compensation, signed with the United States settles the question, and frees Poland from these responsibilities," he said. The compensation law to which he was referring was passed in 1960.

"I want to underline that: This subject does not exist," he added.

The claims for compensation were based on a fundamental misunderstanding, he said. "Poland was the victim and not the executioner," he argued.

And Germany had never compensated Poland "for losses inflicted by the Third Reich's criminal policies", he added.

Morawiecki estimated Poland's losses at around $700 billion, and the government has not ruled out presenting Berlin with a request for payment.

Since the fall of communism in 1989, Poland has never managed to completely draw a line under the restitution question. Several bills drafted to deal with the issue failed to win the approval of lawmakers.

In Washington meanwhile, a new US law aimed at helping Holocaust survivors and families obtain compensation awaits signing by US President Donald Trump.

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki insisted Sunday that the question of Polish compensation for Jewish assets stolen by the Nazi was "definitively resolved", rebuffing a US call for further action.

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki insisted Sunday that the question of Polish compensation for Jewish assets stolen by the Nazi was "definitively resolved", rebuffing a US call for further action. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who visited Poland last week, called on Warsaw to move forward with legislation to help "those who lost property during the Holocaust era". But Morawiecki told the PAP news agency Sunday: "The question of restitution of assets to US citizens of Jewish origin has been definitively resolved. "A law of compensation, signed with the United States settles the question, and frees Poland from these responsibilities," he said. The compensation law to which he was referring was passed in 1960. "I want to underline that: This subject does not exist," he added. The claims for compensation were based on a fundamental misunderstanding, he said. "Poland was the victim and not the executioner," he argued. And Germany had never compensated Poland "for losses inflicted by the Third Reich's criminal policies", he added. Morawiecki estimated Poland's losses at around $700 billion, and the government has not ruled out presenting Berlin with a request for payment. Since the fall of communism in 1989, Poland has never managed to completely draw a line under the restitution question. Several bills drafted to deal with the issue failed to win the approval of lawmakers. In Washington meanwhile, a new US law aimed at helping Holocaust survivors and families obtain compensation awaits signing by US President Donald Trump.

Polish PM Mateusz Morawiecki says Jewish compensation issue 'resolved'

The US deputy attorney general discussed how many cabinet members would support removing US President Donald Trump from office in 2017, the FBI's former acting director said in an interview airing Sunday.

Andrew McCabe said invoking the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution was raised by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after Trump fired FBI director James Comey on May 9, 2017.

"Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," McCabe told CBS's "60 Minutes" news show.

A clip of that part of the interview was run early Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" show, the first time McCabe's actual comments on the explosive subject have been aired.

Rosenstein has dismissed reports that he discussed removing Trump from office -- and even pondered wearing a wire to secretly record his conversations with the president -- as a "joke," if indeed he made the comments.&nbsp;

In the interview, McCabe was asked whether Rosenstein seemed intent on "getting rid of the president of the United States one way or another."

"I can't confirm that," he said. "But what I can say is the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time."

The president abruptly fired Comey amid tensions over the FBI's investigation into possible links between Trump's 2016 campaign and a covert Russian effort to sway the US election in his favour.

Comey has said that Trump had been pressuring him to publicly declare that he was not a subject of the investigation.

The firing set off alarm bells at the FBI, and McCabe told CBS he scrambled to ensure that the Russia probe was on "absolutely solid ground" so it could not easily be shelved.

He told CBS he did not remember how the 25th Amendment came up in the discussion with Rosenstein.

"It was just another kind of topic that he jumped to in the midst of a wide-ranging conversation," he said.

The 25th Amendment sets out a process for the replacement of the president in the event of death, removal, resignation or incapacitation.

McCabe himself was fired in March 2018 for "lack of candor" in an internal investigation into the FBI's handling of a 2016 probe into Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. 
&nbsp;

The US deputy attorney general discussed how many cabinet members would support removing US President Donald Trump from office in 2017, the FBI's former acting director said in an interview airing Sunday.

The US deputy attorney general discussed how many cabinet members would support removing US President Donald Trump from office in 2017, the FBI's former acting director said in an interview airing Sunday. Andrew McCabe said invoking the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution was raised by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after Trump fired FBI director James Comey on May 9, 2017. "Rod raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," McCabe told CBS's "60 Minutes" news show. A clip of that part of the interview was run early Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" show, the first time McCabe's actual comments on the explosive subject have been aired. Rosenstein has dismissed reports that he discussed removing Trump from office -- and even pondered wearing a wire to secretly record his conversations with the president -- as a "joke," if indeed he made the comments. In the interview, McCabe was asked whether Rosenstein seemed intent on "getting rid of the president of the United States one way or another." "I can't confirm that," he said. "But what I can say is the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time." The president abruptly fired Comey amid tensions over the FBI's investigation into possible links between Trump's 2016 campaign and a covert Russian effort to sway the US election in his favour. Comey has said that Trump had been pressuring him to publicly declare that he was not a subject of the investigation. The firing set off alarm bells at the FBI, and McCabe told CBS he scrambled to ensure that the Russia probe was on "absolutely solid ground" so it could not easily be shelved. He told CBS he did not remember how the 25th Amendment came up in the discussion with Rosenstein. "It was just another kind of topic that he jumped to in the midst of a wide-ranging conversation," he said. The 25th Amendment sets out a process for the replacement of the president in the event of death, removal, resignation or incapacitation. McCabe himself was fired in March 2018 for "lack of candor" in an internal investigation into the FBI's handling of a 2016 probe into Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Top US official discussed Trump removal in 2017: Ex-FBI chief

The week that was, in pictures

Thousands of volunteers in Venezuela will begin mobilising on Sunday to bring American aid into their crisis-hit country despite a blockade by President Nicolas Maduro who claims the assistance could be cover for a US invasion.

Once-wealthy Venezuela is gripped by a power struggle between socialist leader Maduro and Juan Guaido, the head of the National Assembly who proclaimed himself interim president last month and now has the backing of more than 50 countries.&nbsp;

But even as the political battle pitting Guaido against Maduro continued to deepen, Caracas confirmed talks had taken place with an envoy for US President Donald Trump's administration.

The oil-rich country's economic meltdown under Maduro has left millions in poverty facing shortages of medicine and food, with hyperinflation making purchases impossible.

US aid that has been piling up in the Colombian border town of Cucuta has become the frontline of the confrontation between Guaido and Maduro.

"Venezuela is preparing for the humanitarian avalanche," Guaido told about 4,000 supporters clad in white T-shirts and green scarves who gathered Saturday to sign up as volunteers.

The throng included doctors, nurses and students.

Six hundred thousand people have registered to help bring aid in through border points, Guaido told the Caracas rally, asking the volunteers to meet in town councils on Sunday to get instructions about the process.

Without revealing details that could jeopardize the operation, Guaido said volunteer brigades will travel in a bus caravan to entry points for the aid which he wants to come in next Saturday.

Coromoto Crespo, 58, told AFP he volunteered because of the urgent need for supplies.

"To find medicines requires a miracle. I need tablets for high blood pressure, and what I find, I can't pay for," Crespo said.

"One of my relatives died because of a lack of antibiotics."

Guaido has targeted February 23 for entry of the aid, more of which arrived for the stockpile on Saturday. Three US military cargo planes delivered several dozen more tons (tonnes) of food assistance to Cucuta.&nbsp;

Another US aircraft is due in the Caribbean island of Curacao from Miami on Tuesday, and a collection centre for Brazilian aid will open Monday on the border, Guaido's team said.

The US shipment Saturday was accompanied by a delegation led by Mark Green, head of the US Agency for International Development.&nbsp;

US assistance has been blocked by containers which Maduro loyalists placed on a border bridge to prevent access.

On another front, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza confirmed having held two meetings with special US envoy Elliott Abrams. Arreaza, who traveled to New York on February 13, said he held the talks with Abrams at the request of the State Department. He declined to comment on the substance of their discussions.

Guaido repeated his call on Venezuela's military -- whose support for Maduro has been crucial -- to let the aid pass.

"You have, in your hands, the possibility of fighting alongside the people who are suffering the same shortages you are," Guaido said in a tweet addressed to soldiers.

A State Department spokeswoman, Julie Chung, issued a similar plea during a news conference in Cucuta, urging the military to stand aside at a time when Venezuelans are "dying of hunger."&nbsp;

'Crumbs' and 'rotten food'

Maduro asserts that aid could be used as a way for the United States to invade. He called for reinforced border security and dismissed the arriving "crumbs" as "rotten and contaminated food."

On Friday Maduro instructed his army to prepare a "special deployment plan" for the 2,200-kilometer (1,370-mile) border with Colombia. He said he would examine "what new forces" might be needed to keep the frontier "inviolable."&nbsp;

Maduro has assailed the US aid as a "show" but Arreaza said he would be willing to meet with "the devil" if it helped ensure Venezuelan sovereignty.

About 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2015 as the crisis intensified, according to the United Nations.

Guaido accuses Maduro of being a "usurper" over his controversial reelection last year in polls widely branded as fraudulent.

Maduro, the hand-picked successor to socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez, blames Venezuela's woes on US sanctions, more of which were added on Friday.

He said six million families had benefited from subsidized food boxes and he claimed to have bought 933 tons of medicines and medical supplies from China, Cuba and Russia, his main international allies.

"We paid for it with our own money because we're beggars to no one," Maduro said.

Thousands of volunteers in Venezuela will begin mobilising on Sunday to bring American aid into their crisis-hit country despite a blockade by President Nicolas Maduro who claims the assistance could be cover for a US invasion.

Thousands of volunteers in Venezuela will begin mobilising on Sunday to bring American aid into their crisis-hit country despite a blockade by President Nicolas Maduro who claims the assistance could be cover for a US invasion. Once-wealthy Venezuela is gripped by a power struggle between socialist leader Maduro and Juan Guaido, the head of the National Assembly who proclaimed himself interim president last month and now has the backing of more than 50 countries. But even as the political battle pitting Guaido against Maduro continued to deepen, Caracas confirmed talks had taken place with an envoy for US President Donald Trump's administration. The oil-rich country's economic meltdown under Maduro has left millions in poverty facing shortages of medicine and food, with hyperinflation making purchases impossible. US aid that has been piling up in the Colombian border town of Cucuta has become the frontline of the confrontation between Guaido and Maduro. "Venezuela is preparing for the humanitarian avalanche," Guaido told about 4,000 supporters clad in white T-shirts and green scarves who gathered Saturday to sign up as volunteers. The throng included doctors, nurses and students. Six hundred thousand people have registered to help bring aid in through border points, Guaido told the Caracas rally, asking the volunteers to meet in town councils on Sunday to get instructions about the process. Without revealing details that could jeopardize the operation, Guaido said volunteer brigades will travel in a bus caravan to entry points for the aid which he wants to come in next Saturday. Coromoto Crespo, 58, told AFP he volunteered because of the urgent need for supplies. "To find medicines requires a miracle. I need tablets for high blood pressure, and what I find, I can't pay for," Crespo said. "One of my relatives died because of a lack of antibiotics." Guaido has targeted February 23 for entry of the aid, more of which arrived for the stockpile on Saturday. Three US military cargo planes delivered several dozen more tons (tonnes) of food assistance to Cucuta. Another US aircraft is due in the Caribbean island of Curacao from Miami on Tuesday, and a collection centre for Brazilian aid will open Monday on the border, Guaido's team said. The US shipment Saturday was accompanied by a delegation led by Mark Green, head of the US Agency for International Development. US assistance has been blocked by containers which Maduro loyalists placed on a border bridge to prevent access. On another front, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza confirmed having held two meetings with special US envoy Elliott Abrams. Arreaza, who traveled to New York on February 13, said he held the talks with Abrams at the request of the State Department. He declined to comment on the substance of their discussions. Guaido repeated his call on Venezuela's military -- whose support for Maduro has been crucial -- to let the aid pass. "You have, in your hands, the possibility of fighting alongside the people who are suffering the same shortages you are," Guaido said in a tweet addressed to soldiers. A State Department spokeswoman, Julie Chung, issued a similar plea during a news conference in Cucuta, urging the military to stand aside at a time when Venezuelans are "dying of hunger." 'Crumbs' and 'rotten food' Maduro asserts that aid could be used as a way for the United States to invade. He called for reinforced border security and dismissed the arriving "crumbs" as "rotten and contaminated food." On Friday Maduro instructed his army to prepare a "special deployment plan" for the 2,200-kilometer (1,370-mile) border with Colombia. He said he would examine "what new forces" might be needed to keep the frontier "inviolable." Maduro has assailed the US aid as a "show" but Arreaza said he would be willing to meet with "the devil" if it helped ensure Venezuelan sovereignty. About 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2015 as the crisis intensified, according to the United Nations. Guaido accuses Maduro of being a "usurper" over his controversial reelection last year in polls widely branded as fraudulent. Maduro, the hand-picked successor to socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez, blames Venezuela's woes on US sanctions, more of which were added on Friday. He said six million families had benefited from subsidized food boxes and he claimed to have bought 933 tons of medicines and medical supplies from China, Cuba and Russia, his main international allies. "We paid for it with our own money because we're beggars to no one," Maduro said.

Thousands of Venezuela volunteers begin preparing US aid entry

European nations must take back hundreds of Islamic State group fighters captured in Syria, President Donald Trump said late Saturday, after a delay in announcing what he said would be the end of the "caliphate."

Trump shocked allies in December by declaring the pullout of roughly 2,000 US troops who had been assisting local forces in Syria against IS, whose sole remaining territory is half a square kilometer (one-fifth of a square mile) in eastern Syria.

The pending US pullout set off a countdown for governments whose citizens, having joined IS, were captured by the US-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

"The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-backed-syrian-forces-launch-final-battle-against-islamic-state-enclave-196295">800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria</a> and put them on trial," Trump said in a tweet, using another acronym for IS.

"The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them. The US&nbsp;does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them........
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1096980408401625088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 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>

Once the US-led coalition declares it has taken all IS territories, the White House is expected to withdraw American troops.

When that happens, the risk is high that "foreign terrorist fighters" will escape SDF control, posing a new threat.

For about two weeks, the Trump administration has been pushing its allies to take their citizens home, and the US said it was ready to help in the repatriation, but time has been running out.

Several countries, including France, that have chosen to leave the jihadists in SDF detention now confront a diplomatic, legal, political and logistical puzzle.&nbsp;

"We do so much, and spend so much - Time for others to step up and do the job that they are so capable of doing. We are pulling back after 100% Caliphate victory!" Trump said in his late-Saturday tweets.

On Friday he said announcements on the fall of the caliphate would be made "over the next 24 hours," but that deadline came and went.

Deep transatlantic rift 
An SDF commander said his US-backed forces slowed their advance to protect civilians.

The jihadists declared a "caliphate" in large parts of Syria and neighboring Iraq in 2014, but have since lost all but a tiny patch of territory near the Iraqi border.

Trump's Syria pullout has highlighted the deep trans-Atlantic rift that emerged under his presidency, and the differing views of the two sides were on display Saturday at a security conference in Munich.

A French government source criticized the Trump administration's approach as "we're leaving, you're staying" and added: "They're trying to manage the consequences of a hasty decision and making us carry the responsibility."

European nations must take back hundreds of Islamic State group fighters captured in Syria, President Donald Trump said late Saturday, after a delay in announcing what he said would be the end of the "caliphate.

European nations must take back hundreds of Islamic State group fighters captured in Syria, President Donald Trump said late Saturday, after a delay in announcing what he said would be the end of the "caliphate." Trump shocked allies in December by declaring the pullout of roughly 2,000 US troops who had been assisting local forces in Syria against IS, whose sole remaining territory is half a square kilometer (one-fifth of a square mile) in eastern Syria. The pending US pullout set off a countdown for governments whose citizens, having joined IS, were captured by the US-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). "The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial," Trump said in a tweet, using another acronym for IS. "The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them. The US does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go." The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them........ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2019 × Once the US-led coalition declares it has taken all IS territories, the White House is expected to withdraw American troops. When that happens, the risk is high that "foreign terrorist fighters" will escape SDF control, posing a new threat. For about two weeks, the Trump administration has been pushing its allies to take their citizens home, and the US said it was ready to help in the repatriation, but time has been running out. Several countries, including France, that have chosen to leave the jihadists in SDF detention now confront a diplomatic, legal, political and logistical puzzle. "We do so much, and spend so much - Time for others to step up and do the job that they are so capable of doing. We are pulling back after 100% Caliphate victory!" Trump said in his late-Saturday tweets. On Friday he said announcements on the fall of the caliphate would be made "over the next 24 hours," but that deadline came and went. Deep transatlantic rift An SDF commander said his US-backed forces slowed their advance to protect civilians. The jihadists declared a "caliphate" in large parts of Syria and neighboring Iraq in 2014, but have since lost all but a tiny patch of territory near the Iraqi border. Trump's Syria pullout has highlighted the deep trans-Atlantic rift that emerged under his presidency, and the differing views of the two sides were on display Saturday at a security conference in Munich. A French government source criticized the Trump administration's approach as "we're leaving, you're staying" and added: "They're trying to manage the consequences of a hasty decision and making us carry the responsibility."

Take back jihadists, Trump tells Europe

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

Trump signs 'Space Force' directive

We'll target US if Washington deploys missiles in Europe: Putin

News brief: Big stories of the day

Islamic State teen 'shocked' after UK revokes her citizenship

Trump nominates successor to one-time head of Russia collusion probe

Democrats warn Trump may rush nuclear transfer to Saudis

North Korea's Kim to travel to Vietnam for Trump summit by train, could take him over 2 days to get there

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

Donald Trump issues an ultimatum to the Venezuelan military: abandon Maduro or else

Protests against Donald Trump across US on Presidents Day

News brief: Big stories of the day

US blocks North Korean air traffic revival ahead of Trump-Kim summit: Sources

Trump tells Venezuela military to back opposition leader Guaido or 'lose everything'

Coalition of US states sue Trump administration in showdown over border wall funds

Venezuela crisis: US-supplied humanitarian aid may have a political motive

US Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to step down in March: Official

Trump calls discussions about removing him 'treasonous'

Trump aide Stephen Miller predicts 'hundreds of miles' of border wall before 2020 election

North Korea faces 'historic turning point': State media ahead of US summit

Ex-congressman Weiner released from prison after sexting scandal

White House gets report that could trigger auto tariffs

Senate vote could end US complicity in the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen

Psychology of the Wall: In Donald Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege

US-China trade talks: What's under debate

Can Congress or the courts reverse Trump’s national emergency?

Donald Trump asks Europe take back jihadists, as IS in last stand in Syria