Exuding confidence ahead of his high-profile meeting with Kim Jong-un later this month, US President Donald Trump has said the <a href="North Korea officials en-route to Vietnam ahead of Trump-Kim summit">second summit</a> will be a "very successful one" as he has established a "very good" relationship with the North Korean leader.

President Trump and Chairman Kim are scheduled to meet in Hanoi, Vietnam on February 27 and 28.

The two leaders had met on June 12 last year in Singapore for the first summit. Trump described his first-ever historic meeting with Kim as "really fantastic" and said they had agreed to sign an unspecified document after their "very positive" summit, aimed at normalising ties and complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

"I hope we have the same good luck as we had in the first summit. A lot was done in the first summit. No more rockets going up. No more missiles going up. No more testing of nuclear (weapons). Got back our remains, the remains of our great heroes from the Korean War. We got back our hostages," Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday.

"We hope we are going to be very much equally as successful. I'm in no rush for speed. We just don't want to test," he said.

Noting that the sanctions against North Koreans remain in place, Trump&nbsp;said both China and Russia were helping the US and he was also working closely with South Korea and Japan.

"But China, Russia, on the border, have really been at least partially living up to what they're supposed to be doing," he said.

"So we will have a meeting on the 27th and 28th of February, and I think that will be a very successful one. I look forward to seeing Chairman Kim.&nbsp;We have also established a very good relationship, which has never happened between him or his family and the United States. They have really taken advantage of the United States. Billions of dollars have been paid to them. And we won't let that happen," said the US President.

Trump said North Korea had tremendous potential as an economic force.

"Their location between South Korea and then Russia and China - right smack in the middle - is phenomenal. We think that they have a great chance for tremendous economic prosperity in the future. So I look forward to seeing Chairman Kim in Vietnam," he said.

"A lot has been accomplished. We're dealing with them, we're talking to them," he said.

The US president had said after the first summit that he believed he and Kim will "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" and that by working together, "we will get it taken care of".

The summit at Singapore's Sentosa island - the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader - had marked a turnaround of relations between Trump, 72, and Kim, 36, after a long-running exchange of threats and insults.

"When I came into office, I met right there, in the Oval Office, with President Obama. And I sat in those beautiful chairs and we talked. It was supposed to be 15 minutes. As you know, it ended up being many times longer than that," he said, recollecting his first conversation with his predecessor&nbsp; 
Barack Obama.

"I said, "What's the biggest problem?" He said, By far, North Korea" And I don't want to speak for him, but I believe he would have gone to war with North Korea. I think he was ready to go to war. In fact, he told me he was so close to starting a big war with North Korea. And where are we now? No missiles. No rockets. No nuclear testing. We've learned a lot," he said.

"But much more importantly than all of it - much more important - much, much more important that that is we have a great relationship. I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un," Trump said ahead of his meeting.

The US insists it will accept nothing less than complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

Exuding confidence ahead of his high-profile meeting with Kim Jong-un later this month, US President Donald Trump has said the second summit will be a "very successful one" as he has established a "very good" relationship with the North Korean leader.

Exuding confidence ahead of his high-profile meeting with Kim Jong-un later this month, US President Donald Trump has said the second summit will be a "very successful one" as he has established a "very good" relationship with the North Korean leader. President Trump and Chairman Kim are scheduled to meet in Hanoi, Vietnam on February 27 and 28. The two leaders had met on June 12 last year in Singapore for the first summit. Trump described his first-ever historic meeting with Kim as "really fantastic" and said they had agreed to sign an unspecified document after their "very positive" summit, aimed at normalising ties and complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. "I hope we have the same good luck as we had in the first summit. A lot was done in the first summit. No more rockets going up. No more missiles going up. No more testing of nuclear (weapons). Got back our remains, the remains of our great heroes from the Korean War. We got back our hostages," Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday. "We hope we are going to be very much equally as successful. I'm in no rush for speed. We just don't want to test," he said. Noting that the sanctions against North Koreans remain in place, Trump said both China and Russia were helping the US and he was also working closely with South Korea and Japan. "But China, Russia, on the border, have really been at least partially living up to what they're supposed to be doing," he said. "So we will have a meeting on the 27th and 28th of February, and I think that will be a very successful one. I look forward to seeing Chairman Kim. We have also established a very good relationship, which has never happened between him or his family and the United States. They have really taken advantage of the United States. Billions of dollars have been paid to them. And we won't let that happen," said the US President. Trump said North Korea had tremendous potential as an economic force. "Their location between South Korea and then Russia and China - right smack in the middle - is phenomenal. We think that they have a great chance for tremendous economic prosperity in the future. So I look forward to seeing Chairman Kim in Vietnam," he said. "A lot has been accomplished. We're dealing with them, we're talking to them," he said. The US president had said after the first summit that he believed he and Kim will "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" and that by working together, "we will get it taken care of". The summit at Singapore's Sentosa island - the first between a sitting US president and a North Korean leader - had marked a turnaround of relations between Trump, 72, and Kim, 36, after a long-running exchange of threats and insults. "When I came into office, I met right there, in the Oval Office, with President Obama. And I sat in those beautiful chairs and we talked. It was supposed to be 15 minutes. As you know, it ended up being many times longer than that," he said, recollecting his first conversation with his predecessor Barack Obama. "I said, "What's the biggest problem?" He said, By far, North Korea" And I don't want to speak for him, but I believe he would have gone to war with North Korea. I think he was ready to go to war. In fact, he told me he was so close to starting a big war with North Korea. And where are we now? No missiles. No rockets. No nuclear testing. We've learned a lot," he said. "But much more importantly than all of it - much more important - much, much more important that that is we have a great relationship. I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un," Trump said ahead of his meeting. The US insists it will accept nothing less than complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

Trump confident about his second summit with Kim, says it will be 'very successful one'

Trump claims Japanese PM Abe nominated him for Nobel Peace Prize

Even before any peace push-related drawdowns, the US military is expected to trim troop levels in Afghanistan as part of an efficiency drive by the new commander, a US general told Reuters on Friday, estimating the cuts may exceed 1,000 forces.

US President Donald Trump told Congress this month he intended to reduce US forces from Afghanistan as negotiators make progress in talks with Taliban insurgents, saying, "Great nations do not fight endless wars."

US Army General Joseph Votel, the head of the US military's Central Command, said the decision to reduce some of the roughly 14,000 American forces in Afghanistan was not linked to those peace efforts, however.

Instead, he said it was part of an effort by Army General Scott Miller, who took over the more than 17-year war effort in September, to make better use of US resources.

"This is something that he started as he got into the position here and was looking at how we (can) be as efficient and as effective as we can be on the ground," Votel said in an interview during a trip to Oman.

Miller's decision represents a reversal of sorts after years in which the US military sought to slow or halt troop drawdowns under Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, and previously lobbied for more troops under Trump.

It was unclear how far along any troop reductions might already be. The Pentagon says US troop levels in Afghanistan are at around 14,000 but adds the number can fluctuate.

Other sources offered lower estimates. Diplomatic sources believe the efficiency push, which has been raising eyebrows in Kabul, was already driving down US troop levels.

"We're watching this very closely," said a senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is clear General Miller's desire to streamline is already having an impact on numbers."

Asked whether Miller would likely cut more than 1,000 troops from Afghanistan under the efficiency drive, Votel said: "He probably will."

Votel added that some troops could be moved "over the horizon," still remotely supporting the war effort from overseas. That, he said, would also reduce vulnerabilities in America's longest war.

"This is his decision as commander here - how he most effectively uses the resources that he has and trying to be as efficient as he can be," Votel said, without offering a specific estimate of exactly how many troops Miller may withdraw.

Miller's spokesman, Army Colonel Dave Butler, declined to speculate on future troop levels. But Butler said Miller would still have surge capabilities into Afghanistan when needed for specific missions.

Costs have increasingly been a focus of discussions between Kabul and Washington. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently sent a letter to Trump offering to reduce US expenses in Afghanistan.

"How to do this more cost effectively is something that we have been working towards for a long time," Roya Rahmani, Afghanistan's ambassador to Washington, told Reuters.

Endless wars

US officials have held several rounds of talks with the Taliban in Qatar since last year in what is widely seen as the most serious bid for peace in the 17-year war. Taliban negotiators will meet their US counterparts on February 18 in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.

US officials have told Reuters the military is planning for what a withdrawal of about half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan would look like.

That has raised concerns about whether a smaller force would be able to support the Afghan military and whether other European armies that rely on American helicopters and other support would pull out.

It also raises questions about how big of a US counter-terrorism force might be able to remain in the country.

Votel declined to discuss any internal deliberations, noting he had not received orders for a withdrawal.

Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan offered a similar reassurance this week, telling nervous NATO allies on Thursday that any potential U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will be done in a coordinated fashion.

Asked about Trump's concerns about endless wars, Votel said: "We don't want to fight endless wars either. We want to accomplish the mission here."

"I think the strategy that the president has allowed to get put in place here, the South Asia strategy, focused on reconciliation, has been a good one," he said.

Beyond US troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon relies on thousands of private contractors.

A recent report by the US Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted there were an additional 861 Defense Department civilians and 10,698 contractors who were U.S. citizens.

Diplomats familiar with NATO operations told Reuters they believed the number of contractors was not expected to be reduced along with U.S. troop withdrawals, and could actually increase.

Even before any peace push-related drawdowns, the US military is expected to trim troop levels in Afghanistan as part of an efficiency drive by the new commander, a US general told Reuters on Friday, estimating the cuts may exceed 1,000 forces.

Even before any peace push-related drawdowns, the US military is expected to trim troop levels in Afghanistan as part of an efficiency drive by the new commander, a US general told Reuters on Friday, estimating the cuts may exceed 1,000 forces. US President Donald Trump told Congress this month he intended to reduce US forces from Afghanistan as negotiators make progress in talks with Taliban insurgents, saying, "Great nations do not fight endless wars." US Army General Joseph Votel, the head of the US military's Central Command, said the decision to reduce some of the roughly 14,000 American forces in Afghanistan was not linked to those peace efforts, however. Instead, he said it was part of an effort by Army General Scott Miller, who took over the more than 17-year war effort in September, to make better use of US resources. "This is something that he started as he got into the position here and was looking at how we (can) be as efficient and as effective as we can be on the ground," Votel said in an interview during a trip to Oman. Miller's decision represents a reversal of sorts after years in which the US military sought to slow or halt troop drawdowns under Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, and previously lobbied for more troops under Trump. It was unclear how far along any troop reductions might already be. The Pentagon says US troop levels in Afghanistan are at around 14,000 but adds the number can fluctuate. Other sources offered lower estimates. Diplomatic sources believe the efficiency push, which has been raising eyebrows in Kabul, was already driving down US troop levels. "We're watching this very closely," said a senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is clear General Miller's desire to streamline is already having an impact on numbers." Asked whether Miller would likely cut more than 1,000 troops from Afghanistan under the efficiency drive, Votel said: "He probably will." Votel added that some troops could be moved "over the horizon," still remotely supporting the war effort from overseas. That, he said, would also reduce vulnerabilities in America's longest war. "This is his decision as commander here - how he most effectively uses the resources that he has and trying to be as efficient as he can be," Votel said, without offering a specific estimate of exactly how many troops Miller may withdraw. Miller's spokesman, Army Colonel Dave Butler, declined to speculate on future troop levels. But Butler said Miller would still have surge capabilities into Afghanistan when needed for specific missions. Costs have increasingly been a focus of discussions between Kabul and Washington. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently sent a letter to Trump offering to reduce US expenses in Afghanistan. "How to do this more cost effectively is something that we have been working towards for a long time," Roya Rahmani, Afghanistan's ambassador to Washington, told Reuters. Endless wars US officials have held several rounds of talks with the Taliban in Qatar since last year in what is widely seen as the most serious bid for peace in the 17-year war. Taliban negotiators will meet their US counterparts on February 18 in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad. US officials have told Reuters the military is planning for what a withdrawal of about half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan would look like. That has raised concerns about whether a smaller force would be able to support the Afghan military and whether other European armies that rely on American helicopters and other support would pull out. It also raises questions about how big of a US counter-terrorism force might be able to remain in the country. Votel declined to discuss any internal deliberations, noting he had not received orders for a withdrawal. Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan offered a similar reassurance this week, telling nervous NATO allies on Thursday that any potential U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will be done in a coordinated fashion. Asked about Trump's concerns about endless wars, Votel said: "We don't want to fight endless wars either. We want to accomplish the mission here." "I think the strategy that the president has allowed to get put in place here, the South Asia strategy, focused on reconciliation, has been a good one," he said. Beyond US troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon relies on thousands of private contractors. A recent report by the US Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted there were an additional 861 Defense Department civilians and 10,698 contractors who were U.S. citizens. Diplomats familiar with NATO operations told Reuters they believed the number of contractors was not expected to be reduced along with U.S. troop withdrawals, and could actually increase.

US may trim over 1,000 troops from Afghanistan in belt-tightening: Army general

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-makes-his-case-for-nobel-peace-prize-complains-hell-never-get-it-197683">President Donald Trump</a>'s declaration of an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-declares-us-mexico-border-emergency-democrats-protest-197678">emergency Friday to build a border wall</a> immediately drew legal challenges that could easily escalate into a landmark test of the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

Legal experts said it was "unprecedented" for a president to use his emergency powers to overcome Congress's refusal to fund his wishes, in this case, a barrier on the US-Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants.

They also questioned Trump's categorization of the immigration issue as a national emergency and his tapping military funds for a non-military project.

Hours after the announcement, the Trump administration faced an investigation by the House Judiciary committee and lawsuits from New York, California and the American Civil Liberties Union.

"President Trump is manufacturing a crisis and declaring a made-up 'national emergency' in order to seize power and subvert the constitution," said California Governor Gavin Newsome.

"California will see you in court."

Trump said he expected a legal fight and predicted he would prevail.

"We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued," Trump said Friday.

"Then we will end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will get a fair shake, and we'll win in the Supreme Court."

Dangerous precedent&nbsp;

Trump invoked the 1976 National Emergencies Act after Congress refused to allocate his requested $5.7 billion for a wall in a spending bill.&nbsp;

The White House says the emergency order empowers it to pull around $6.6 billion from other sources, mostly already-allocated funds in the Defense Department budget.

Democrats accused the president of an unconstitutional power grab.

"The president's actions clearly violate the Congress's exclusive power of the purse," Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leaders in Congress, said in a joint statement.

It is a precedent-setting move, said American University law professor Jennifer Daskal, adding that the National Emergencies Act had "never been used in that way, for good reason."&nbsp;

Critics warn that Trump opened the door for future presidents to call on the act whenever they fail to get their way with Congress. A frustrated Democratic president might someday invoke it to get funds to fight ongoing "emergencies" of climate change and gun proliferation.

The White House dismissed this argument, underscoring how a court showdown might proceed.

"This actually creates zero precedent. This is authority given to the president in law already," said acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

"It's not as if he just didn't get what he wanted, so he is waving a magic wand and taking a bunch of money."

A real 'emergency'?&nbsp;

Any legal battle will focus on the definition of "emergency."

The emergencies act "does not provide any explicit limitations on what does and does not constitute a national emergency," Daskal told AFP.

Previous governments have declared emergencies based on the act due to immediate threats such as the September 11, 2001 attacks and the 2009 outbreak of swine flu.

Trump said the emergency now is the flow of drugs and violent criminals across the border.

In the abstract, he appears within his rights.

However, said Bobby Chesney, the associate dean at the University of Texas School of Law, "litigation won't be in abstract."

"The pretext issue looms large here," he said in a comment on Twitter.&nbsp;

He was referring to the problem of Trump resorting to declaring the border issue an emergency after spending two years in a losing political battle for wall funding.

Trump himself appeared to undermine his argument as he announced the emergency on Friday.

"I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster," he said.

Land, military issues&nbsp;

Daskal expects border landowners also to sue to protect their property rights.

"A lot of the land that's at issue is not federal land, it's private land," she said.

Chesney points to a challenge over the use of military funds. Defense Department rules say that, even if diverted, construction funds must be for a project that "requires the use of the armed forces."

The wall, however, has been cast from the outset as a civilian project.

"That is the main point of litigation vulnerability," said Chesney.

President Donald Trump's declaration of an emergency Friday to build a border wall immediately drew legal challenges that could easily escalate into a landmark test of the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

President Donald Trump's declaration of an emergency Friday to build a border wall immediately drew legal challenges that could easily escalate into a landmark test of the balance of power between the White House and Congress. Legal experts said it was "unprecedented" for a president to use his emergency powers to overcome Congress's refusal to fund his wishes, in this case, a barrier on the US-Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants. They also questioned Trump's categorization of the immigration issue as a national emergency and his tapping military funds for a non-military project. Hours after the announcement, the Trump administration faced an investigation by the House Judiciary committee and lawsuits from New York, California and the American Civil Liberties Union. "President Trump is manufacturing a crisis and declaring a made-up 'national emergency' in order to seize power and subvert the constitution," said California Governor Gavin Newsome. "California will see you in court." Trump said he expected a legal fight and predicted he would prevail. "We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued," Trump said Friday. "Then we will end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will get a fair shake, and we'll win in the Supreme Court." Dangerous precedent Trump invoked the 1976 National Emergencies Act after Congress refused to allocate his requested $5.7 billion for a wall in a spending bill. The White House says the emergency order empowers it to pull around $6.6 billion from other sources, mostly already-allocated funds in the Defense Department budget. Democrats accused the president of an unconstitutional power grab. "The president's actions clearly violate the Congress's exclusive power of the purse," Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leaders in Congress, said in a joint statement. It is a precedent-setting move, said American University law professor Jennifer Daskal, adding that the National Emergencies Act had "never been used in that way, for good reason." Critics warn that Trump opened the door for future presidents to call on the act whenever they fail to get their way with Congress. A frustrated Democratic president might someday invoke it to get funds to fight ongoing "emergencies" of climate change and gun proliferation. The White House dismissed this argument, underscoring how a court showdown might proceed. "This actually creates zero precedent. This is authority given to the president in law already," said acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. "It's not as if he just didn't get what he wanted, so he is waving a magic wand and taking a bunch of money." A real 'emergency'? Any legal battle will focus on the definition of "emergency." The emergencies act "does not provide any explicit limitations on what does and does not constitute a national emergency," Daskal told AFP. Previous governments have declared emergencies based on the act due to immediate threats such as the September 11, 2001 attacks and the 2009 outbreak of swine flu. Trump said the emergency now is the flow of drugs and violent criminals across the border. In the abstract, he appears within his rights. However, said Bobby Chesney, the associate dean at the University of Texas School of Law, "litigation won't be in abstract." "The pretext issue looms large here," he said in a comment on Twitter. He was referring to the problem of Trump resorting to declaring the border issue an emergency after spending two years in a losing political battle for wall funding. Trump himself appeared to undermine his argument as he announced the emergency on Friday. "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster," he said. Land, military issues Daskal expects border landowners also to sue to protect their property rights. "A lot of the land that's at issue is not federal land, it's private land," she said. Chesney points to a challenge over the use of military funds. Defense Department rules say that, even if diverted, construction funds must be for a project that "requires the use of the armed forces." The wall, however, has been cast from the outset as a civilian project. "That is the main point of litigation vulnerability," said Chesney.

Trump's border wall 'emergency' faces tough legal hurdles

Prosecutors for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/mueller-probe-close-to-being-completed-acting-us-attorney-general-193552">Special Counsel Robert Mueller</a> urged a federal judge in Virginia on Friday to impose a strict prison sentence for President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, after a jury last year convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud.

In their sentencing memo filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, prosecutors said Manafort, who is 69, deserves between 19.6 and 24.4 years in prison and a fine of between $50,000 and $24 million.

Friday's court filing in Virginia came just days after a federal judge in Washington, DC, ruled that Manafort had breached his plea agreement in a parallel case by lying to investigators despite a pledge to cooperate.

That finding earlier this week by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in US District Court for the District of Columbia could have a direct impact on how Manafort is sentenced in the Virginia case.

Judge TS Ellis in Alexandria, Virginia, had planned to sentence Manafort on February 8, but he later postponed that until after Jackson's ruling, saying it "may have some effect on the sentencing decision in this case."

Manafort was one of the first people in Trump's orbit to face criminal charges as part of Mueller's investigation into whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to tilt the 2016 presidential election in his favour.

Trump has denied colluding and called the probe a witch hunt, while Russia has denied meddling in the election.

None of the charges Manafort faced related directly to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

In the Virginia case, prosecutors accused Manafort of hiding from US tax authorities $16 million he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, money he used to fund an opulent lifestyle.

Later, when his lobbying work started to dry up following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, prosecutors said Manafort began lying to banks to secure $20 million in loans to keep his lifestyle afloat.

After almost four days of deliberations, a 12-member jury found Manafort guilty on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one charge of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts.

Prosecutors for Special Counsel Robert Mueller urged a federal judge in Virginia on Friday to impose a strict prison sentence for President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, after a jury last year convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud.

Prosecutors for Special Counsel Robert Mueller urged a federal judge in Virginia on Friday to impose a strict prison sentence for President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, after a jury last year convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud. In their sentencing memo filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, prosecutors said Manafort, who is 69, deserves between 19.6 and 24.4 years in prison and a fine of between $50,000 and $24 million. Friday's court filing in Virginia came just days after a federal judge in Washington, DC, ruled that Manafort had breached his plea agreement in a parallel case by lying to investigators despite a pledge to cooperate. That finding earlier this week by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in US District Court for the District of Columbia could have a direct impact on how Manafort is sentenced in the Virginia case. Judge TS Ellis in Alexandria, Virginia, had planned to sentence Manafort on February 8, but he later postponed that until after Jackson's ruling, saying it "may have some effect on the sentencing decision in this case." Manafort was one of the first people in Trump's orbit to face criminal charges as part of Mueller's investigation into whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to tilt the 2016 presidential election in his favour. Trump has denied colluding and called the probe a witch hunt, while Russia has denied meddling in the election. None of the charges Manafort faced related directly to Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. In the Virginia case, prosecutors accused Manafort of hiding from US tax authorities $16 million he earned as a political consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, money he used to fund an opulent lifestyle. Later, when his lobbying work started to dry up following the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, prosecutors said Manafort began lying to banks to secure $20 million in loans to keep his lifestyle afloat. After almost four days of deliberations, a 12-member jury found Manafort guilty on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one charge of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts.

Special Counsel Mueller seeks tough sentence for ex-Trump campaign chairman Manafort

Donald Trump declares national emergency to signs border wall deal

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday labelled as "frightening" tough US trade rhetoric planning to declare European car imports a national security threat.

"If these cars... suddenly spell a threat to US national security, than that is frightening to us," she said.&nbsp;

Merkel pointed out that the biggest car plant of German luxury brand BMW was not in Bavaria but in South Carolina, from where it exports vehicles to China.

"All I can say is it would be good if we could resume proper talks with one another," she said at the Munich Security Conference.

"Then we will find a solution."

A US Commerce Department report has concluded that auto imports threaten national security, setting the stage for possible tariffs by the White House, two people familiar with the matter said Thursday.

The investigation, ordered by President Donald Trump in May, is "positive" with respect to the central question of whether the imports "impair" US national security, said a European auto industry source.

"It's going to say that auto imports are a threat to national security," said an official with another auto company.

The report, which is expected to be delivered to the White House by a Sunday deadline, has been seen as a major risk for foreign automakers.&nbsp;

Trump has threatened to slap 25 per cent duties on European autos, especially targeting Germany, which he says has harmed the American car industry.

After receiving the report, the US president will have 90 days to decide whether to move ahead with tariffs.

Trump in July reached a trade truce with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, with the two pledging no new tariffs while the negotiations continued.

Brussels has already drawn up a list of 20 billion euros ($22.6 billion) in US exports for retaliatory tariffs should Washington press ahead, the Commission's Director-General for Trade Jean-Luc Demarty told the European Parliament last month.

The White House has 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, drawing instant retaliation from the EU, Canada, Mexico and China.

Trading partners have sometimes reacted with outrage at the suggestion their exports posed a threat to US national security.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday labelled as "frightening" tough US trade rhetoric planning to declare European car imports a national security threat.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday labelled as "frightening" tough US trade rhetoric planning to declare European car imports a national security threat. "If these cars... suddenly spell a threat to US national security, than that is frightening to us," she said. Merkel pointed out that the biggest car plant of German luxury brand BMW was not in Bavaria but in South Carolina, from where it exports vehicles to China. "All I can say is it would be good if we could resume proper talks with one another," she said at the Munich Security Conference. "Then we will find a solution." A US Commerce Department report has concluded that auto imports threaten national security, setting the stage for possible tariffs by the White House, two people familiar with the matter said Thursday. The investigation, ordered by President Donald Trump in May, is "positive" with respect to the central question of whether the imports "impair" US national security, said a European auto industry source. "It's going to say that auto imports are a threat to national security," said an official with another auto company. The report, which is expected to be delivered to the White House by a Sunday deadline, has been seen as a major risk for foreign automakers. Trump has threatened to slap 25 per cent duties on European autos, especially targeting Germany, which he says has harmed the American car industry. After receiving the report, the US president will have 90 days to decide whether to move ahead with tariffs. Trump in July reached a trade truce with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, with the two pledging no new tariffs while the negotiations continued. Brussels has already drawn up a list of 20 billion euros ($22.6 billion) in US exports for retaliatory tariffs should Washington press ahead, the Commission's Director-General for Trade Jean-Luc Demarty told the European Parliament last month. The White House has 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, drawing instant retaliation from the EU, Canada, Mexico and China. Trading partners have sometimes reacted with outrage at the suggestion their exports posed a threat to US national security.

Merkel says US calling European cars a threat is 'frightening'

President Donald Trump said Friday that trade negotiations with <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/had-productive-trade-meetings-with-china-us-secretary-mnuchin-197584">China</a> were going "extremely well" and again offered the possibility of extending the March 1 deadline for a sharp rise in punitive tariffs.

Senior officials completed two days of high-stakes talks in Beijing on Friday as they try to avert the US threat to more than double tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods, which would be an unwelcome shock to the world's second-largest economy as it already has shown signs of slowing.&nbsp;

"It is going extremely well," Trump said of the talks.&nbsp;

"The tariffs are hurting China very badly. They don't want them and frankly if we can make the deal it would be my honour to remove them," he told reporters at the White House.

The president confirmed his comments earlier this week that he might be willing to hold off on increasing tariffs to 25 per cent from the current 10 per cent, if Washington and Beijing are close to finalizing an agreement to deal with US complaints about unfair trade and theft of American technology.

"There is a possibility that I will extend the date," he told reporters. "If I see we're close to a deal or the deal is going in the right direction, I would do that."

After progress in the talks in Beijing, the fourth round of negotiations is scheduled for next week in Washington.

Trump said he likes tariffs which are bringing "many billions of dollars pouring into our Treasury," but continues to state that China is paying the duties, when in fact they are paid by US companies and ultimately by American consumers in the form of higher prices.

"The tariffs are hurting China very badly. They don't want them and frankly, if we can make the deal it would be my honour to remove them."

'The vibe is good'

Chinese President Xi Jinping hailed the "important step-by-step progress," and said he hoped the two delegations would continue to "work hard" for a "win-win" agreement, according to China's state news agency Xinhua.

Wall Street was cheered by the talks' optimistic tone, with the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average up more than 350 points or 1.5 per cent around midday.

American officials accuse Beijing of seeking global industrial predominance through an array of unfair trade practices, including the "theft" of American intellectual property and massive state intervention in commodities markets.

Since a December detente, China has resumed purchases of some US soybeans and dangled massive buying of American commodities to get US trade negotiators closer to a deal.

The talks have included discussion of purchases to reduce the "large and persistent bilateral trade deficit," the White House said in a statement.&nbsp;

But many China experts say Beijing's Communist Party rulers are unlikely to make significant changes to industrial policies without a long and tough fight.

Still, expectations for an accord have been growing as China faces pressure from slowing economic growth.&nbsp;

"We all believe that China-US relations have broad common interests in safeguarding world peace and stability and promoting global economic prosperity and development," Xi told the US negotiators.

US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who led the American delegation, told Xi on Friday that while there was more work to do, they had made progress.

Lighthizer and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and met with China's top trade negotiator Liu He, Foreign Minister Wang Yi and central bank chief Yi Gang.&nbsp;

Bloomberg News reported that the White House was considering a 60-day deadline extension, but Trump did not offer any particulars.&nbsp;

Trump's economic advisor Larry Kudlow said of the talks, "the vibe is good" but there was no decision yet on extending the 90-day tariff truce.

The two sides last year exchanged tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade.

China's politically sensitive trade surplus with the US last year hit a record $323 billion as tariffs kept Chinese buyers away from American agricultural and energy exports.

Trump has said that any eventual trade deal would need to be sealed personally with Xi, though no date has been set for a meeting.

President Donald Trump said Friday that trade negotiations with China were going "extremely well" and again offered the possibility of extending the March 1 deadline for a sharp rise in punitive tariffs.

President Donald Trump said Friday that trade negotiations with China were going "extremely well" and again offered the possibility of extending the March 1 deadline for a sharp rise in punitive tariffs. Senior officials completed two days of high-stakes talks in Beijing on Friday as they try to avert the US threat to more than double tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods, which would be an unwelcome shock to the world's second-largest economy as it already has shown signs of slowing. "It is going extremely well," Trump said of the talks. "The tariffs are hurting China very badly. They don't want them and frankly if we can make the deal it would be my honour to remove them," he told reporters at the White House. The president confirmed his comments earlier this week that he might be willing to hold off on increasing tariffs to 25 per cent from the current 10 per cent, if Washington and Beijing are close to finalizing an agreement to deal with US complaints about unfair trade and theft of American technology. "There is a possibility that I will extend the date," he told reporters. "If I see we're close to a deal or the deal is going in the right direction, I would do that." After progress in the talks in Beijing, the fourth round of negotiations is scheduled for next week in Washington. Trump said he likes tariffs which are bringing "many billions of dollars pouring into our Treasury," but continues to state that China is paying the duties, when in fact they are paid by US companies and ultimately by American consumers in the form of higher prices. "The tariffs are hurting China very badly. They don't want them and frankly, if we can make the deal it would be my honour to remove them." 'The vibe is good' Chinese President Xi Jinping hailed the "important step-by-step progress," and said he hoped the two delegations would continue to "work hard" for a "win-win" agreement, according to China's state news agency Xinhua. Wall Street was cheered by the talks' optimistic tone, with the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average up more than 350 points or 1.5 per cent around midday. American officials accuse Beijing of seeking global industrial predominance through an array of unfair trade practices, including the "theft" of American intellectual property and massive state intervention in commodities markets. Since a December detente, China has resumed purchases of some US soybeans and dangled massive buying of American commodities to get US trade negotiators closer to a deal. The talks have included discussion of purchases to reduce the "large and persistent bilateral trade deficit," the White House said in a statement. But many China experts say Beijing's Communist Party rulers are unlikely to make significant changes to industrial policies without a long and tough fight. Still, expectations for an accord have been growing as China faces pressure from slowing economic growth. "We all believe that China-US relations have broad common interests in safeguarding world peace and stability and promoting global economic prosperity and development," Xi told the US negotiators. US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who led the American delegation, told Xi on Friday that while there was more work to do, they had made progress. Lighthizer and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and met with China's top trade negotiator Liu He, Foreign Minister Wang Yi and central bank chief Yi Gang. Bloomberg News reported that the White House was considering a 60-day deadline extension, but Trump did not offer any particulars. Trump's economic advisor Larry Kudlow said of the talks, "the vibe is good" but there was no decision yet on extending the 90-day tariff truce. The two sides last year exchanged tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade. China's politically sensitive trade surplus with the US last year hit a record $323 billion as tariffs kept Chinese buyers away from American agricultural and energy exports. Trump has said that any eventual trade deal would need to be sealed personally with Xi, though no date has been set for a meeting.

Trump says could extend March 1 China tariff deadline

President Donald Trump on Friday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-he-will-declare-an-emergency-on-us-mexico-border-197666">declared a national emergency</a> in a bid to fund his promised wall at the US-Mexico border without congressional approval, an action Democrats vowed to challenge as a violation of the US&nbsp;Constitution.

The Republican president's move circumventing Congress represented a new approach to a 2016 presidential campaign pledge to halt the flow of immigrants into the country, which Trump maintains spreads crime and drugs.

He was also expected later on Friday to sign a bipartisan government spending bill Congress approved on Thursday that would prevent another partial government shutdown by funding several agencies that otherwise would have closed on Saturday.

Trump made no direct mention in his Rose Garden comments of the funding bill, which represents a legislative defeat for him since it contains no money for his proposed wall - the focus of weeks of conflict between him and Democrats in Congress.

Trump's demand that Congress provide him with $5.7 billion in wall funding as part of legislation to fund the agencies triggered a historic, 35-day December-January government shutdown that damaged the US&nbsp;economy and his opinion poll numbers.

By reorienting his wall-funding quest toward a legally uncertain strategy based on declaring a national emergency, Trump now risks plunging into a lengthy battle with Democrats and dividing his fellow Republicans.

Fifteen Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate introduced legislation on Thursday to prevent the transfer of funds from accounts Trump likely would target to pay for the wall.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate's top Democrat, swiftly responded to Trump's declaration.

"The president's actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution," they said in a statement. "The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.”

New York state's attorney general, Letitia James, said her office would also challenge Trump in court.

"We won't stand for this abuse of power &amp; will fight back with every legal tool at our disposal," James wrote on Twitter.

The president acknowledged that his order would face a lengthy legal fight. "We'll win in the Supreme Court," Trump predicted.

Legal experts said the Trump administration may prevail.

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 gives the president broad leeway to declare an emergency. The law also includes a mechanism for Congress to oppose such a declaration.

If Congress fails to vote down Trump’s declaration of an emergency, said law professors Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University and William Banks of Syracuse University, courts will be reluctant to substitute their national security judgment for those of Congress and the president.

President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency in a bid to fund his promised wall at the US-Mexico border without congressional approval, an action Democrats vowed to challenge as a violation of the US Constitution.

President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency in a bid to fund his promised wall at the US-Mexico border without congressional approval, an action Democrats vowed to challenge as a violation of the US Constitution. The Republican president's move circumventing Congress represented a new approach to a 2016 presidential campaign pledge to halt the flow of immigrants into the country, which Trump maintains spreads crime and drugs. He was also expected later on Friday to sign a bipartisan government spending bill Congress approved on Thursday that would prevent another partial government shutdown by funding several agencies that otherwise would have closed on Saturday. Trump made no direct mention in his Rose Garden comments of the funding bill, which represents a legislative defeat for him since it contains no money for his proposed wall - the focus of weeks of conflict between him and Democrats in Congress. Trump's demand that Congress provide him with $5.7 billion in wall funding as part of legislation to fund the agencies triggered a historic, 35-day December-January government shutdown that damaged the US economy and his opinion poll numbers. By reorienting his wall-funding quest toward a legally uncertain strategy based on declaring a national emergency, Trump now risks plunging into a lengthy battle with Democrats and dividing his fellow Republicans. Fifteen Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate introduced legislation on Thursday to prevent the transfer of funds from accounts Trump likely would target to pay for the wall. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate's top Democrat, swiftly responded to Trump's declaration. "The president's actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution," they said in a statement. "The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.” New York state's attorney general, Letitia James, said her office would also challenge Trump in court. "We won't stand for this abuse of power & will fight back with every legal tool at our disposal," James wrote on Twitter. The president acknowledged that his order would face a lengthy legal fight. "We'll win in the Supreme Court," Trump predicted. Legal experts said the Trump administration may prevail. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 gives the president broad leeway to declare an emergency. The law also includes a mechanism for Congress to oppose such a declaration. If Congress fails to vote down Trump’s declaration of an emergency, said law professors Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University and William Banks of Syracuse University, courts will be reluctant to substitute their national security judgment for those of Congress and the president.

Trump declares US-Mexico border emergency; Democrats protest

President <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-will-sign-shutdown-bill-but-will-also-issue-emergency-declaration-senator-mcconnell-197500">Donald Trump</a> on Friday announced he would declare a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, a move Democrats vowed to challenge as an unconstitutional attempt to fund his promised border wall without approval from Congress.

"I'm going to be signing a national emergency," Trump said from the Rose Garden of the White House.

"We have an invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and it's unacceptable," he said.

The president said he would <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-not-happy-with-budget-deal-but-shutdown-unlikely-197021">sign the authorising paperwork</a> later in the day in the Oval Office.

Trump was also expected on Friday to sign a bipartisan government spending bill approved by Congress on Thursday that would prevent another partial federal government shutdown by funding several agencies that otherwise would have closed on Saturday morning.

The bill, which contains no money for his wall, is a defeat for Trump in Congress, where his demand for $5.7 billion in barrier funding yielded no results, other than a record-long, 35-day December-January partial government shutdown that damaged the US economy and his opinion poll numbers.

Reorienting his wall-funding quest toward a legally uncertain strategy based on declaring a national emergency could plunge Trump into a lengthy battle with Democrats - and divide his fellow Republicans.

Fifteen Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate introduced legislation on Thursday to prevent the transfer of funds from accounts Trump likely would target to pay for his wall.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate's top Democrat, swiftly responded to Trump's declaration.

"The president's actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution," they said in a statement. "The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.”

The president acknowledged that his order would face a lengthy legal challenge. "We'll win in the Supreme Court," Trump said.

Trump has argued the wall is needed to curb illegal immigrants and illicit drugs streaming across the southern border despite statistics that show illegal immigration there is at a 20-year low and that many drug shipments are likely smuggled through legal ports of entry.

At Friday's White House event, a half-dozen women holding poster-sized pictures of family members killed by illegal immigrants preceded Trump into the Rose Garden. He cited their presence in announcing the emergency declaration.

A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration had found nearly $7 billion to reallocate to the wall, including $600 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion from a Defense Department drug interdiction fund and $3.5 billion from a military construction budget.

Trump on Friday estimated the order could free up as much as $8 billion to construct the wall.

The funds would cover just part of the estimated $23 billion cost of the wall promised by Trump along the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-km) border with Mexico.

The Senate Democrats' bill also would stop Trump from using appropriated money to acquire lands to build the wall unless specifically authorized by Congress.

President Donald Trump on Friday announced he would declare a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, a move Democrats vowed to challenge as an unconstitutional attempt to fund his promised border wall without approval from Congress.

President Donald Trump on Friday announced he would declare a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, a move Democrats vowed to challenge as an unconstitutional attempt to fund his promised border wall without approval from Congress. "I'm going to be signing a national emergency," Trump said from the Rose Garden of the White House. "We have an invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and it's unacceptable," he said. The president said he would sign the authorising paperwork later in the day in the Oval Office. Trump was also expected on Friday to sign a bipartisan government spending bill approved by Congress on Thursday that would prevent another partial federal government shutdown by funding several agencies that otherwise would have closed on Saturday morning. The bill, which contains no money for his wall, is a defeat for Trump in Congress, where his demand for $5.7 billion in barrier funding yielded no results, other than a record-long, 35-day December-January partial government shutdown that damaged the US economy and his opinion poll numbers. Reorienting his wall-funding quest toward a legally uncertain strategy based on declaring a national emergency could plunge Trump into a lengthy battle with Democrats - and divide his fellow Republicans. Fifteen Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate introduced legislation on Thursday to prevent the transfer of funds from accounts Trump likely would target to pay for his wall. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Chuck Schumer, the Senate's top Democrat, swiftly responded to Trump's declaration. "The president's actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution," they said in a statement. "The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.” The president acknowledged that his order would face a lengthy legal challenge. "We'll win in the Supreme Court," Trump said. Trump has argued the wall is needed to curb illegal immigrants and illicit drugs streaming across the southern border despite statistics that show illegal immigration there is at a 20-year low and that many drug shipments are likely smuggled through legal ports of entry. At Friday's White House event, a half-dozen women holding poster-sized pictures of family members killed by illegal immigrants preceded Trump into the Rose Garden. He cited their presence in announcing the emergency declaration. A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration had found nearly $7 billion to reallocate to the wall, including $600 million from a Treasury Department forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion from a Defense Department drug interdiction fund and $3.5 billion from a military construction budget. Trump on Friday estimated the order could free up as much as $8 billion to construct the wall. The funds would cover just part of the estimated $23 billion cost of the wall promised by Trump along the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-km) border with Mexico. The Senate Democrats' bill also would stop Trump from using appropriated money to acquire lands to build the wall unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Going to be signing, today, and registering a national emergency: Donald Trump on border wall

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States would be announcing the end of the Islamic State group's once-sprawling "caliphate" within the next day.

"We have a lot of great announcements having to do with Syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate and that will be announced over the next 24 hours," Trump told reporters at the White House Friday.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces have been closing in on holdout jihadists since September last year and a few hundred surviving IS members are now boxed into an area of around one square kilometer (less than half a square mile).

The "caliphate" IS supremo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed in mid-2014 once spanned territory the size of the United Kingdom and administered millions of people.

But successive offensives in Iraq and Syria have shattered the proto-state, which lost its key cities one after the other and has since late 2017 been confined to its traditional power base in the Euphrates valley.

The expected announcement comes after Trump shocked allies and senior figures in his own administration by announcing in December the US was carrying out a full troop withdrawal from Syria.

The plan, which prompted the resignation of then defense secretary Jim Mattis, could be sped up following the declaration of victory.&nbsp;

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States would be announcing the end of the Islamic State group's once-sprawling "caliphate" within the next day. "We have a lot of great announcements having to do with Syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate and that will be announced over the next 24 hours," Trump told reporters at the White House Friday.

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States would be announcing the end of the Islamic State group's once-sprawling "caliphate" within the next day. "We have a lot of great announcements having to do with Syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate and that will be announced over the next 24 hours," Trump told reporters at the White House Friday. The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces have been closing in on holdout jihadists since September last year and a few hundred surviving IS members are now boxed into an area of around one square kilometer (less than half a square mile). The "caliphate" IS supremo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed in mid-2014 once spanned territory the size of the United Kingdom and administered millions of people. But successive offensives in Iraq and Syria have shattered the proto-state, which lost its key cities one after the other and has since late 2017 been confined to its traditional power base in the Euphrates valley. The expected announcement comes after Trump shocked allies and senior figures in his own administration by announcing in December the US was carrying out a full troop withdrawal from Syria. The plan, which prompted the resignation of then defense secretary Jim Mattis, could be sped up following the declaration of victory.

Trump promises announcement on IS 'caliphate' within '24 hours'

Twelve North Korean officials -- including Kim Jong Un's de-facto chief of staff -- were en-route to Vietnam Friday ahead of a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/what-to-expect-from-the-trump-kim-summit-ii-197109">second scheduled summit </a>between Kim and US President Donald Trump, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said.

The North Koreans had arrived in Beijing and were expected to board a plane bound for the Vietnamese capital Hanoi, Yonhap said, with the high-stakes meeting now less than two weeks away.

"A group of 12 North Koreans, including Kim Chang Son, were on the boarding list," Yonhap said, citing a source in the capital.

Kim Chang Son was part of the team overseeing protocol in the run-up to the first Trump-Kim summit and Yonhap said the delegation was expected to have discussions with US officials on the logistical preparations for the Hanoi meeting.

The identities of the 11 other officials were not reported.

Pyongyang has yet to provide any official confirmation of the Feb 27-28 summit, which will be the second time the two leaders come together following their June 12 Singapore meeting.

That produced a vaguely-worded document in which Kim pledged to work towards denuclearisation -- with no hard timeline agreed.

In preparation for Hanoi, US envoy for North Korea Stephen Biegun was last week in Pyongyang for three days of talks with officials.

Biegun said they had been productive, but more dialogue was needed.

"We have some hard work to do with the DPRK between now and then," Biegun said, adding that he was "confident that if both sides stay committed we can make real progress here".

The US State Department said talks during Biegun's trip explored Trump and Kim's "commitments of complete denuclearization, transforming US-DPRK relations and building a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula".

Specifically, discussions on declaring an end to the 1950-53 Korean War could have been on the table, with Biegun last month saying Trump was "ready to end this war".

The three-year conflict ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the two Koreas still technically at war, with the US keeping 28,500 troops in the South.

Earlier this week Vietnam's foreign minister Pham Binh Minh visited Pyongyang but no details on their discussions have been announced.

Experts say tangible progress on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons will be needed for the second summit if it is to avoid being dismissed as "reality TV".

The commander of US forces in South Korea said earlier this week that he had seen "little to no verifiable change" in North Korea's military capabilities.

General Robert Abrams, the new head of US Forces Korea, said although the Singapore summit had helped dial down tensions on the Korean peninsula, it had not led to substantive changes.

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.&nbsp;

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.

Trump has said that North Korea will become a "great Economic Powerhouse" under Kim.

Twelve North Korean officials -- including Kim Jong Un's de-facto chief of staff -- were en-route to Vietnam Friday ahead of a second scheduled summit between Kim and US President Donald Trump, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said.

Twelve North Korean officials -- including Kim Jong Un's de-facto chief of staff -- were en-route to Vietnam Friday ahead of a second scheduled summit between Kim and US President Donald Trump, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said. The North Koreans had arrived in Beijing and were expected to board a plane bound for the Vietnamese capital Hanoi, Yonhap said, with the high-stakes meeting now less than two weeks away. "A group of 12 North Koreans, including Kim Chang Son, were on the boarding list," Yonhap said, citing a source in the capital. Kim Chang Son was part of the team overseeing protocol in the run-up to the first Trump-Kim summit and Yonhap said the delegation was expected to have discussions with US officials on the logistical preparations for the Hanoi meeting. The identities of the 11 other officials were not reported. Pyongyang has yet to provide any official confirmation of the Feb 27-28 summit, which will be the second time the two leaders come together following their June 12 Singapore meeting. That produced a vaguely-worded document in which Kim pledged to work towards denuclearisation -- with no hard timeline agreed. In preparation for Hanoi, US envoy for North Korea Stephen Biegun was last week in Pyongyang for three days of talks with officials. Biegun said they had been productive, but more dialogue was needed. "We have some hard work to do with the DPRK between now and then," Biegun said, adding that he was "confident that if both sides stay committed we can make real progress here". The US State Department said talks during Biegun's trip explored Trump and Kim's "commitments of complete denuclearization, transforming US-DPRK relations and building a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula". Specifically, discussions on declaring an end to the 1950-53 Korean War could have been on the table, with Biegun last month saying Trump was "ready to end this war". The three-year conflict ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the two Koreas still technically at war, with the US keeping 28,500 troops in the South. Earlier this week Vietnam's foreign minister Pham Binh Minh visited Pyongyang but no details on their discussions have been announced. Experts say tangible progress on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons will be needed for the second summit if it is to avoid being dismissed as "reality TV". The commander of US forces in South Korea said earlier this week that he had seen "little to no verifiable change" in North Korea's military capabilities. General Robert Abrams, the new head of US Forces Korea, said although the Singapore summit had helped dial down tensions on the Korean peninsula, it had not led to substantive changes. 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. Trump has said that North Korea will become a "great Economic Powerhouse" under Kim.

North Korea officials en-route to Vietnam ahead of Trump-Kim summit

Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Friday trade talks with the United States will continue in Washington next week and that he hopes the two sides will be able to reach a mutually beneficial deal in the upcoming negotiations, state media reported.

Xi said during a meeting with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that talks in Beijing this week made progress and that China is willing to solve economic and trade disputes with the United States via cooperation, according to a report by Xinhua.

Lighthizer and Mnuchin said during the meeting that they maintain hope although there is still much work to be done and that they are willing to work with China to reach a deal that is in line with the interests of both countries, according to Xinhua.

The US delegation had a banquet with Chinese counterparts at a Beijing hotel on Thursday night, a person with knowledge of the meetings said. But neither country had offered details on how the two sides might de-escalate a tariff war that has roiled financial markets and disrupted manufacturing supply chains.

US duties on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if no deal is reached by March 1 to address US demands that China curb forced technology transfers and better enforce intellectual property rights.

Although US President Donald Trump said earlier in the week that an extension of the deadline was possible if a "real deal" was close, Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, said the White House had made no such decision.

Several sources informed about the meetings told Reuters there was little indication negotiators had made major progress on sticking points to pave the way for a potential meeting between Xi and Trump in coming weeks to hammer out a deal.

&nbsp;

Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Friday trade talks with the United States will continue in Washington next week and that he hopes the two sides will be able to reach a mutually beneficial deal in the upcoming negotiations, state media reported.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Friday trade talks with the United States will continue in Washington next week and that he hopes the two sides will be able to reach a mutually beneficial deal in the upcoming negotiations, state media reported. Xi said during a meeting with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that talks in Beijing this week made progress and that China is willing to solve economic and trade disputes with the United States via cooperation, according to a report by Xinhua. Lighthizer and Mnuchin said during the meeting that they maintain hope although there is still much work to be done and that they are willing to work with China to reach a deal that is in line with the interests of both countries, according to Xinhua. The US delegation had a banquet with Chinese counterparts at a Beijing hotel on Thursday night, a person with knowledge of the meetings said. But neither country had offered details on how the two sides might de-escalate a tariff war that has roiled financial markets and disrupted manufacturing supply chains. US duties on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if no deal is reached by March 1 to address US demands that China curb forced technology transfers and better enforce intellectual property rights. Although US President Donald Trump said earlier in the week that an extension of the deadline was possible if a "real deal" was close, Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, said the White House had made no such decision. Several sources informed about the meetings told Reuters there was little indication negotiators had made major progress on sticking points to pave the way for a potential meeting between Xi and Trump in coming weeks to hammer out a deal.

Trade talks with US to continue in Washington next week: Chinese President Xi Jinping

We stand united with India: World leaders extend solidarity over Pulwama terror attack

One of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/if-huawei-is-co-located-with-american-systems-it-would-be-difficult-for-us-to-partner-pompeo-to-hungary-196791">Huawei</a>'s three rotating chairmen accused the United States of creating a geopolitical campaign against the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-calls-us-concerns-over-huawei-groundless-196926">Chinese company</a> to persuade other countries not to use its products, the official daily China Daily reported Friday.

Xu Zhijun criticized the US at a press conference in Shenzhen, accusing Washington of carrying out a "coordinated, tactical geopolitical campaign" against Huawei.

He also said that the current discussions around 5G technology - of which Huawei is one of the main promoters - revolve around politics and questioned the US’ motives.

"Some say that because these countries are using Huawei equipment, it makes it harder for US agencies to obtain these countries' data," Xu added.

His statements come after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an Eastern European tour where he warned about the growing presence of Huawei in the region.

During his visit, Pompeo warned US allies about deploying the Chinese company's products, saying those that do so would make it difficult for the US to partner with.

Xu also said that Huawei will invest more than $2 billion over the next five years to improve the cybersecurity of its equipment, including rewriting code, as an additional step to increase the confidence of foreign firms.

At the end of last month, the US Department of Justice formally accused Huawei, two affiliated companies and its chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, of 13 counts of fraud and conspiracy to bypass sanctions on Iran.

Huawei has been the subject of constant scrutiny by the US government which has banned the company from installing its telecommunications equipment in important networks of the country over concerns that they can be used to spy on the US.

The governments of Australia and New Zealand have also banned the installation of Huawei’s 5G equipment, while Canada is reviewing its relationship with the firm and the UK has asked the company to fix problems that pose risks to the network.

Huawei, which is the world's largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and the second-largest smartphone maker, claimed that it posed no threat to US security and added that the company was operating independently of the government of China.

One of Huawei's three rotating chairmen accused the United States of creating a geopolitical campaign against the Chinese company to persuade other countries not to use its products, the official daily China Daily reported Friday.

One of Huawei's three rotating chairmen accused the United States of creating a geopolitical campaign against the Chinese company to persuade other countries not to use its products, the official daily China Daily reported Friday. Xu Zhijun criticized the US at a press conference in Shenzhen, accusing Washington of carrying out a "coordinated, tactical geopolitical campaign" against Huawei. He also said that the current discussions around 5G technology - of which Huawei is one of the main promoters - revolve around politics and questioned the US’ motives. "Some say that because these countries are using Huawei equipment, it makes it harder for US agencies to obtain these countries' data," Xu added. His statements come after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an Eastern European tour where he warned about the growing presence of Huawei in the region. During his visit, Pompeo warned US allies about deploying the Chinese company's products, saying those that do so would make it difficult for the US to partner with. Xu also said that Huawei will invest more than $2 billion over the next five years to improve the cybersecurity of its equipment, including rewriting code, as an additional step to increase the confidence of foreign firms. At the end of last month, the US Department of Justice formally accused Huawei, two affiliated companies and its chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, of 13 counts of fraud and conspiracy to bypass sanctions on Iran. Huawei has been the subject of constant scrutiny by the US government which has banned the company from installing its telecommunications equipment in important networks of the country over concerns that they can be used to spy on the US. The governments of Australia and New Zealand have also banned the installation of Huawei’s 5G equipment, while Canada is reviewing its relationship with the firm and the UK has asked the company to fix problems that pose risks to the network. Huawei, which is the world's largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and the second-largest smartphone maker, claimed that it posed no threat to US security and added that the company was operating independently of the government of China.

Huawei accuses US of orchestrating geopolitical campaign against it

By Pia Riggirozzi 
 
Long before the current crisis in Venezuela, democracy in Latin America was a damaged project. Military coups d’etat and other violent seizures of power in the 1960s and 1970s were followed by weak attempts at redemocratisation. Efforts to institutionalise social rights, particularly those based on state intervention in the economy, provoked a hostile reaction from domestic and foreign markets.

Democratic attempts often faced hurdles caused by profound socio-economic restructuring and severe cuts in public spending – with national budgets linked closely to the global economy. Democracy was also highly dependent on markets.

During the 1980s, oil prices fell dramatically. In Venezuela, debt then skyrocketed, giving way to a dramatic political and economic crisis that was exacerbated by blatant corruption.

Then in 1998, Hugo Chávez was elected president – but with no fixed strategy of what an “anti-capitalist project” might entail. Instead, he took power at the end of a decade that had seen a catastrophic deterioration in living standards and the monopoly of conservative political parties.

Chávez was elected on his pledge to refound the republic in line with the vision of Simon Bolivar, who had liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule in the early 19th century. And for Chávez, over more than a decade his experiments seemed to work.

According to the World Bank, his social, political and economic reforms led to a spectacular 50 per cent reduction of poverty, and a 65 per cent drop in “extreme poverty” between 1998 and 2012.

These gains were mirrored by Venezuela’s neighbours, with Latin America successfully reducing poverty and promoting shared prosperity. The proportion of the region’s 600m people living in extreme poverty (defined as a daily income of less than $2.50) was cut in half between 2003 and 2012 to around 12 per cent.

In Venezuela, post-neoliberalism as a project (committed to the creation of non-market societies, economies and cultures) remained highly dependent on the oil bonanza, accumulating reserves which supported the use (and abuse) of social welfare regimes. Yet as it became increasingly caught in the international oil industry downturn, so too did the post-neoliberal project.

A state that failed the people

The halving of the oil price in 2014 sharply reversed the advances made in reducing poverty and inequality. Fatal food and medicines shortages, disease outbreaks and widespread social deprivation spiralled into an unprecedented social and economic crisis.

Now, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), nearly 90 per cent of Venezuelans live in poverty – a dramatic increase from an already alarming 48 per cent in 2014.

It would be politically naive to think that the promise of democracy in Venezuela was vulnerable purely because of an over-reliance on volatile oil industry. That was undoubtedly a fatal flaw, but Venezuela also failed to reconcile a deeply polarised society.

Since his election as president in 2013, Nicolás Maduro has failed to address chronic problems of economic mismanagement, poor planning, increasing social discontent, and corruption. His country has since undergone cycles of protest and repression that reinforced the social divide.

Human rights violations became systematic. There have been well-documented restrictions on social protest and freedom of expression, with extrajudicial detentions and arbitrary arrests of opponents. On top of this, a devastating humanitarian crisis has seen an exodus to neighbouring countries - Brazil and Colombia – in a scale never seen before. The number of arrivals from Venezuela to neighbouring countries has steadily increased, reaching 5,000 per day in early 2018.

To some, Venezuela had become a failed state, without the basic norms of democratic governance. Then on January 23 2019, Juan Guaidó, leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, declared himself president of the republic.

Guaidó has long been an anti-government activist, but until recently was little known around the world – or even in Venezuela. Yet his move was quickly endorsed by several Latin American countries, as well as Canada and the United States. His self-claim to the presidency is quite problematic too: it draws legitimacy from “assertive politics” rather than from a direct democratic ballot. The end apparently justifies the means.

Power grab?

The argument seems to be that Maduro has ruined the Venezuelan economy, violated human rights of all sorts, repeatedly challenged the Venezuelan constitution himself, and was not freely or fairly re-elected in 2018.

Guaidó, therefore, alleges that Maduro “stole” power and the role of president has therefore been left vacant.

Meanwhile, the president of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, said the Venezuelan people have had “enough of the hunger and abuse suffered at the hands of Maduro”. And the Trump administration asserts that all countries must “pick a side” and back the “forces of freedom”.

But can an opposition leader – albeit with the support of foreign powers – simply state that the president of the country is not actually the president, and take power himself? If he can, how would Venezuelans be reassured that removing the “bad” president will not simply legitimise more politics of this “assertive” kind.

So for the moment, the country has been plunged into a situation whereby it has an internationally recognised government which has no democratic mandate from the people or control over state functions - yet it runs parallel to Maduro’s parliament, with a de facto presidential mandate yet a delusional and dangerous sense of authority.

This is not democracy. What Venezuela urgently needs is to reconstruct the foundations of political legitimacy beyond declarations. It requires electoral democracy and political consensus that can genuinely represent the people, deliver development, and reconstruct a sense of citizenship and belonging for its people.

 
(Pia Riggirozzi is Professor of Global Politics, University of Southampton)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/venezuela-is-putting-democracy-and-its-legitimacy-to-test-111466">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

&nbsp;

By Pia Riggirozzi Long before the current crisis in Venezuela, democracy in Latin America was a damaged project. Military coups d’etat and other violent seizures of power in the 1960s and 1970s were followed by weak attempts at redemocratisation.

By Pia Riggirozzi Long before the current crisis in Venezuela, democracy in Latin America was a damaged project. Military coups d’etat and other violent seizures of power in the 1960s and 1970s were followed by weak attempts at redemocratisation. Efforts to institutionalise social rights, particularly those based on state intervention in the economy, provoked a hostile reaction from domestic and foreign markets. Democratic attempts often faced hurdles caused by profound socio-economic restructuring and severe cuts in public spending – with national budgets linked closely to the global economy. Democracy was also highly dependent on markets. During the 1980s, oil prices fell dramatically. In Venezuela, debt then skyrocketed, giving way to a dramatic political and economic crisis that was exacerbated by blatant corruption. Then in 1998, Hugo Chávez was elected president – but with no fixed strategy of what an “anti-capitalist project” might entail. Instead, he took power at the end of a decade that had seen a catastrophic deterioration in living standards and the monopoly of conservative political parties. Chávez was elected on his pledge to refound the republic in line with the vision of Simon Bolivar, who had liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule in the early 19th century. And for Chávez, over more than a decade his experiments seemed to work. According to the World Bank, his social, political and economic reforms led to a spectacular 50 per cent reduction of poverty, and a 65 per cent drop in “extreme poverty” between 1998 and 2012. These gains were mirrored by Venezuela’s neighbours, with Latin America successfully reducing poverty and promoting shared prosperity. The proportion of the region’s 600m people living in extreme poverty (defined as a daily income of less than $2.50) was cut in half between 2003 and 2012 to around 12 per cent. In Venezuela, post-neoliberalism as a project (committed to the creation of non-market societies, economies and cultures) remained highly dependent on the oil bonanza, accumulating reserves which supported the use (and abuse) of social welfare regimes. Yet as it became increasingly caught in the international oil industry downturn, so too did the post-neoliberal project. A state that failed the people The halving of the oil price in 2014 sharply reversed the advances made in reducing poverty and inequality. Fatal food and medicines shortages, disease outbreaks and widespread social deprivation spiralled into an unprecedented social and economic crisis. Now, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), nearly 90 per cent of Venezuelans live in poverty – a dramatic increase from an already alarming 48 per cent in 2014. It would be politically naive to think that the promise of democracy in Venezuela was vulnerable purely because of an over-reliance on volatile oil industry. That was undoubtedly a fatal flaw, but Venezuela also failed to reconcile a deeply polarised society. Since his election as president in 2013, Nicolás Maduro has failed to address chronic problems of economic mismanagement, poor planning, increasing social discontent, and corruption. His country has since undergone cycles of protest and repression that reinforced the social divide. Human rights violations became systematic. There have been well-documented restrictions on social protest and freedom of expression, with extrajudicial detentions and arbitrary arrests of opponents. On top of this, a devastating humanitarian crisis has seen an exodus to neighbouring countries - Brazil and Colombia – in a scale never seen before. The number of arrivals from Venezuela to neighbouring countries has steadily increased, reaching 5,000 per day in early 2018. To some, Venezuela had become a failed state, without the basic norms of democratic governance. Then on January 23 2019, Juan Guaidó, leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, declared himself president of the republic. Guaidó has long been an anti-government activist, but until recently was little known around the world – or even in Venezuela. Yet his move was quickly endorsed by several Latin American countries, as well as Canada and the United States. His self-claim to the presidency is quite problematic too: it draws legitimacy from “assertive politics” rather than from a direct democratic ballot. The end apparently justifies the means. Power grab? The argument seems to be that Maduro has ruined the Venezuelan economy, violated human rights of all sorts, repeatedly challenged the Venezuelan constitution himself, and was not freely or fairly re-elected in 2018. Guaidó, therefore, alleges that Maduro “stole” power and the role of president has therefore been left vacant. Meanwhile, the president of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, said the Venezuelan people have had “enough of the hunger and abuse suffered at the hands of Maduro”. And the Trump administration asserts that all countries must “pick a side” and back the “forces of freedom”. But can an opposition leader – albeit with the support of foreign powers – simply state that the president of the country is not actually the president, and take power himself? If he can, how would Venezuelans be reassured that removing the “bad” president will not simply legitimise more politics of this “assertive” kind. So for the moment, the country has been plunged into a situation whereby it has an internationally recognised government which has no democratic mandate from the people or control over state functions - yet it runs parallel to Maduro’s parliament, with a de facto presidential mandate yet a delusional and dangerous sense of authority. This is not democracy. What Venezuela urgently needs is to reconstruct the foundations of political legitimacy beyond declarations. It requires electoral democracy and political consensus that can genuinely represent the people, deliver development, and reconstruct a sense of citizenship and belonging for its people. (Pia Riggirozzi is Professor of Global Politics, University of Southampton) (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: Can Juan Guaido state that Nicolas Maduro is not the president, and seize power himself?

The Taliban was created by assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1993. A quarter-century later, the terrorist group threatens to disrupt the fragile balance of power in Afghanistan.

India has many irons in the Afghan fire. Its quiet developmental work has created enormous goodwill among Afghans. That could be compromised as events move rapidly in Afghanistan.

The US-Taliban “peace” talks leading to an interim deal could bring the Taliban back into mainstream Afghan politics. The biggest losers will be the Afghan people who experienced Taliban rule in 1996-2001.

When United States President Donald Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as Special Envoy to Afghanistan in September 2018, the hope was Khalilzad would be a tough negotiator able to contain the Taliban’s ambition to again run the Afghan government. He has done the exact opposite. After six-day-long talks with Taliban leaders in Qatar recently, the contours of a deal with the terrorist organisation have emerged.

There are several villains in this plot. The biggest, of course, is Pakistan. It not only created the Taliban 26 years ago, but has nurtured it, protected it and used it to terrorise the Afghan people.

The second villain is the United States. It has fought the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001, but has refused to attack it in its Pakistan-based safe havens. These are protected by the Pakistani Army.

American drones have attacked Taliban targets along the amorphous Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. But apart from assassinating al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad in 2011, it has left Pakistan well alone. Significantly, Washington has not classified the Taliban as a designated terrorist organisation.

Former President Barack Obama set today’s events into motion in 2012 by publicly announcing a withdrawal timetable for US troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban gleefully hunkered down, killing Afghan security forces and civilians at will in the knowledge that, once US troops left, it could, with the help of the rogue Pakistani Army, once again take over the Afghanistan government.&nbsp;

Trump emboldened the Taliban further by tweeting last month that he intends to pull out all remaining US troops from Afghanistan within a short period of time.

Where does this leave India? Taliban representation in a future coalition Afghan government is now increasingly likely. President Ashraf Ghani has put himself up for re-election in the July 2019 elections. The Taliban has ignored him, refusing to talk to him while it deals with Afghanistan’s opposition leaders. India too has been sidelined in the ongoing peace talks.

But the situation is hardly irretrievable. Afghanistan’s northern and central ethnic groups — Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras — have long fought the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.

Even Pashtun civilians, who have borne the brunt of terror attacks in Afghanistan, are not united behind the Taliban. Pakistan’s terror factory, which spews out terrorists from the LeT and JeM into Kashmir, is looking forward to unleashing the Taliban on the Valley once the terror group increases its hold over Afghanistan and US troops leave.

For Pakistan, the Taliban’s resurgence is a Godsend. But it could be playing with fire. The jihadi culture that washes over the Taliban also creates splinter terror groups that attack Pakistani targets.

In the past, the Tehreek-e-Taliban launched a series of attacks on targets in Pakistan before a massive operation by the Pakistani Army, helped by US drones, killed virtually its entire leadership.

The likelihood of other Taliban breakaway terror groups emerging cannot be ruled out. As former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours. Eventually, those snakes are going to turn on whoever has (kept) them in the backyard.”

India now has to play its cards carefully. The Russians and Iranians are closely watching the evolving situation in Afghanistan. Russia created the Afghan problem to begin with by invading the country in 1979, causing the US to hire Pakistan as a jihadi recruiter to counter the Soviets. After Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, out-of-work jihadis trained by America’s CIA and Pakistan’s ISI turned their attention to Kashmir.

History could repeat itself once US troops, like the Soviets before them, leave Afghanistan to the predations of Pakistan.

Iran has a porous 921-km border with Afghanistan. The worst outcome for Tehran is Taliban-linked groups fomenting trouble at the border.

China too has an interest in curtailing terrorism in Afghanistan. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), already under severe criticism over high-cost loans for inflated infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa, is vulnerable to attacks by splinter terror groups. It will not welcome a Taliban government in Afghanistan without protection guarantees for the BRI.

India’s best option is to double down on its developmental work while keeping a line of communication open with the Taliban. In a coalition government under an interim accord with the US, the Taliban will make a pretence of abandoning terrorism. That will give India a window to strengthen its position in Afghanistan where Pakistan is reviled and India admired.

It won’t be enough and it won’t last. But if peace does break out in Afghanistan, however fleetingly, the Afghan people will receive a well-deserved respite from the violence that has torn their country apart.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-india-s-new-afghan-challenge-2719719">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

 
&nbsp;

The Taliban was created by assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1993. A quarter-century later, the terrorist group threatens to disrupt the fragile balance of power in Afghanistan.

The Taliban was created by assassinated former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1993. A quarter-century later, the terrorist group threatens to disrupt the fragile balance of power in Afghanistan. India has many irons in the Afghan fire. Its quiet developmental work has created enormous goodwill among Afghans. That could be compromised as events move rapidly in Afghanistan. The US-Taliban “peace” talks leading to an interim deal could bring the Taliban back into mainstream Afghan politics. The biggest losers will be the Afghan people who experienced Taliban rule in 1996-2001. When United States President Donald Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as Special Envoy to Afghanistan in September 2018, the hope was Khalilzad would be a tough negotiator able to contain the Taliban’s ambition to again run the Afghan government. He has done the exact opposite. After six-day-long talks with Taliban leaders in Qatar recently, the contours of a deal with the terrorist organisation have emerged. There are several villains in this plot. The biggest, of course, is Pakistan. It not only created the Taliban 26 years ago, but has nurtured it, protected it and used it to terrorise the Afghan people. The second villain is the United States. It has fought the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001, but has refused to attack it in its Pakistan-based safe havens. These are protected by the Pakistani Army. American drones have attacked Taliban targets along the amorphous Durand Line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan. But apart from assassinating al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad in 2011, it has left Pakistan well alone. Significantly, Washington has not classified the Taliban as a designated terrorist organisation. Former President Barack Obama set today’s events into motion in 2012 by publicly announcing a withdrawal timetable for US troops from Afghanistan. The Taliban gleefully hunkered down, killing Afghan security forces and civilians at will in the knowledge that, once US troops left, it could, with the help of the rogue Pakistani Army, once again take over the Afghanistan government. Trump emboldened the Taliban further by tweeting last month that he intends to pull out all remaining US troops from Afghanistan within a short period of time. Where does this leave India? Taliban representation in a future coalition Afghan government is now increasingly likely. President Ashraf Ghani has put himself up for re-election in the July 2019 elections. The Taliban has ignored him, refusing to talk to him while it deals with Afghanistan’s opposition leaders. India too has been sidelined in the ongoing peace talks. But the situation is hardly irretrievable. Afghanistan’s northern and central ethnic groups — Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras — have long fought the Pashtun-dominated Taliban. Even Pashtun civilians, who have borne the brunt of terror attacks in Afghanistan, are not united behind the Taliban. Pakistan’s terror factory, which spews out terrorists from the LeT and JeM into Kashmir, is looking forward to unleashing the Taliban on the Valley once the terror group increases its hold over Afghanistan and US troops leave. For Pakistan, the Taliban’s resurgence is a Godsend. But it could be playing with fire. The jihadi culture that washes over the Taliban also creates splinter terror groups that attack Pakistani targets. In the past, the Tehreek-e-Taliban launched a series of attacks on targets in Pakistan before a massive operation by the Pakistani Army, helped by US drones, killed virtually its entire leadership. The likelihood of other Taliban breakaway terror groups emerging cannot be ruled out. As former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours. Eventually, those snakes are going to turn on whoever has (kept) them in the backyard.” India now has to play its cards carefully. The Russians and Iranians are closely watching the evolving situation in Afghanistan. Russia created the Afghan problem to begin with by invading the country in 1979, causing the US to hire Pakistan as a jihadi recruiter to counter the Soviets. After Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, out-of-work jihadis trained by America’s CIA and Pakistan’s ISI turned their attention to Kashmir. History could repeat itself once US troops, like the Soviets before them, leave Afghanistan to the predations of Pakistan. Iran has a porous 921-km border with Afghanistan. The worst outcome for Tehran is Taliban-linked groups fomenting trouble at the border. China too has an interest in curtailing terrorism in Afghanistan. Its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), already under severe criticism over high-cost loans for inflated infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa, is vulnerable to attacks by splinter terror groups. It will not welcome a Taliban government in Afghanistan without protection guarantees for the BRI. India’s best option is to double down on its developmental work while keeping a line of communication open with the Taliban. In a coalition government under an interim accord with the US, the Taliban will make a pretence of abandoning terrorism. That will give India a window to strengthen its position in Afghanistan where Pakistan is reviled and India admired. It won’t be enough and it won’t last. But if peace does break out in Afghanistan, however fleetingly, the Afghan people will receive a well-deserved respite from the violence that has torn their country apart. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

India’s new Afghan challenge

US President Donald Trump vowed to make schools safer on the first anniversary of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/florida-school-shooter-heard-voices-telling-him-to-kill-157532">Parkland school gun massacre</a> on Thursday.

President Trump said in a statement that he will "not rest" until US schools are made safe, adding&nbsp;"tremendous strides" have already been made.

"Today, as we hold in our hearts each of those lost a year ago in Parkland, let us declare together, as Americans, that we will not rest until our schools are secure and our communities are safe," Trump said.

Calling school safety "a top priority," Trump listed measures including a ban on bump stocks -- a modification allowing store-bought semi-automatic weapons to fire similarly to a full automatic weapon, delivering an uninterrupted torrent of bullets.

Trump said to care for mental health and school security was also much improved since last year.

However, efforts to curb the steady flood of US gun violence are tightly constrained by pressure from Trump's Republican Party and the gun ownership rights' lobby, which see even modest restrictions on access to firearms as violating the constitution.

The city of Parkland, Florida came to a standstill today to remember the victims of a school shooting that took the lives of 17 people on Valentine's Day one year ago, igniting a student crusade against gun violence.

Students and families observed a moment of silence and&nbsp;community service activities were scheduled for local schools, with the city&nbsp;hosting an evening vigil at a park.

Seventeen students were killed on February 14 last year after a former student&nbsp;with an assault rifle opened fire inside his&nbsp;school in Parkland, Florida.

(With inputs from&nbsp;agencies)

US President Donald Trump vowed to make schools safer on the first anniversary of the Parkland school gun massacre on Thursday. President Trump said in a statement that he will "not rest" until US schools are made safe, adding "tremendous strides" have already been made.

US President Donald Trump vowed to make schools safer on the first anniversary of the Parkland school gun massacre on Thursday. President Trump said in a statement that he will "not rest" until US schools are made safe, adding "tremendous strides" have already been made. "Today, as we hold in our hearts each of those lost a year ago in Parkland, let us declare together, as Americans, that we will not rest until our schools are secure and our communities are safe," Trump said. Calling school safety "a top priority," Trump listed measures including a ban on bump stocks -- a modification allowing store-bought semi-automatic weapons to fire similarly to a full automatic weapon, delivering an uninterrupted torrent of bullets. Trump said to care for mental health and school security was also much improved since last year. However, efforts to curb the steady flood of US gun violence are tightly constrained by pressure from Trump's Republican Party and the gun ownership rights' lobby, which see even modest restrictions on access to firearms as violating the constitution. The city of Parkland, Florida came to a standstill today to remember the victims of a school shooting that took the lives of 17 people on Valentine's Day one year ago, igniting a student crusade against gun violence. Students and families observed a moment of silence and community service activities were scheduled for local schools, with the city hosting an evening vigil at a park. Seventeen students were killed on February 14 last year after a former student with an assault rifle opened fire inside his school in Parkland, Florida. (With inputs from agencies)

Will 'not rest' until US schools safe from gun violence, Trump says on Florida school shooting anniversary

High level US trade negotiators in Beijing will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a top White House official confirmed Thursday.

President Donald Trump's economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters in Washington that he'd just talked to the delegation, which includes US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

"They're covering all the ground. They're hard at it. They are going to meet with President Xi, so that's a very good sign," he said.

Kudlow said "the vibe is good."

But he said there'd been "no decision" on extending a March 1 truce in tariff hikes between the world's two main economic powers.

Earlier, the South China Morning Post reported that the US officials would meet with Xi, bolstering hopes for a successful outcome in the talks.

Trump has said he is open to extending the March 1 deadline to give time for more negotiations and he says he will meet with Xi to finalise any deal.

The United States accuses China of a slew of unfair trading practices, including systemic theft of US intellectual property, and wants deep reforms to the system.

Beijing and Washington have already imposed duties on more than $360 billion in two-way trade, weighing on their manufacturing sectors and shaking global financial markets.

High level US trade negotiators in Beijing will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a top White House official confirmed Thursday. President Donald Trump's economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters in Washington that he'd just talked to the delegation, which includes US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

High level US trade negotiators in Beijing will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, a top White House official confirmed Thursday. President Donald Trump's economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters in Washington that he'd just talked to the delegation, which includes US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. "They're covering all the ground. They're hard at it. They are going to meet with President Xi, so that's a very good sign," he said. Kudlow said "the vibe is good." But he said there'd been "no decision" on extending a March 1 truce in tariff hikes between the world's two main economic powers. Earlier, the South China Morning Post reported that the US officials would meet with Xi, bolstering hopes for a successful outcome in the talks. Trump has said he is open to extending the March 1 deadline to give time for more negotiations and he says he will meet with Xi to finalise any deal. The United States accuses China of a slew of unfair trading practices, including systemic theft of US intellectual property, and wants deep reforms to the system. Beijing and Washington have already imposed duties on more than $360 billion in two-way trade, weighing on their manufacturing sectors and shaking global financial markets.

US trade negotiators to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping: White House

Some taxpayers are getting a bitter surprise this year as their usual annual tax refunds have shrunk — or turned into tax bills — even though President Donald Trump loudly promised the largest tax cut "in American history."

And with <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-democrats-question-irs-audits-of-trump-taxes-195908">tax season underway</a>, thousands of unhappy taxpayers have been venting their displeasure on Twitter, using hashtags like #GOPTaxscam, and some threatened not to vote for Trump again.

"Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50 yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!!" a woman going by "Speziale-Matheny" wrote from the crucial political swing state of Florida.

"Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too."

During the year, American wage earners see a portion of each paycheck withheld as income tax, and many then receive a refund the following year if they have overpaid the federal government. That cash boost is eagerly awaited each year — and used to help pay off debt or make large purchases.

But the 2017 tax overhaul — which Republicans promoted as a boon to the middle class — meant many workers paid less in taxes during the year reducing the amount withheld, a change which may have gone unnoticed.

And the reform also cut some popular deductions, sometimes resulting in thinner refunds or even unexpected tax bills.

Early data from the US Internal Revenue Service show that refunds so far this year are 8.4 per cent lower than 2018 payouts on average, falling to $1,865 from $2,035.

However, many millions of more taxpayers will be filing tax returns by the annual April 15 deadline, meaning this figure could change.

Mark Mazur, assistant treasury secretary for tax policy under former President Barack Obama, told AFP the negative reaction was "understandable."

"People focused on the amount of the refund but that's not the same as their tax liability, the amount of tax they pay for the year," he said.

Because of lower withholding during the year, some taxpayers have in effect already seen the benefit of the tax cut in their higher paychecks, said Mazur, who is vice president at the Urban Institute.

About five per cent of taxpayers — 7.5 million people — will, in fact, see a tax increase, while about 80 per cent should pay less, he said.

'Angry, disappointed and betrayed'&nbsp;

The IRS on Wednesday said taxpayers who suddenly found they owe taxes could pay their bill in installments and apply for a waiver of penalties normally imposed for failing to pay by the deadline.

"The IRS understands there were many changes that affected people last year, and the new penalty waiver will help taxpayers who inadvertently had too little tax withheld," IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said in a statement.

A key change of the 2017 tax reform is that it limited federal deductions for certain state and local taxes, such as real estate taxes.&nbsp;

As a result, many homeowners in states with higher property taxes will owe more to the federal government.

Neil Frankel, a New York accountant, told AFP people were feeling "angry, disappointed and betrayed."

"I sympathize with them. The new tax law's withholding tables were incorrect and misleading. A complete shenanigan," he added.

"Since my clients are mostly professionals, I don't really hear any screaming," he said. "However, I do hear long diatribes on hatred for the US government."

Last year, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin invited taxpayers to use an online calculator to estimate their tax payments and determine if they should modify their withholding amount.

This week the Treasury Department said media reports on the lower refunds were "misleading."

"Refunds are consistent with 2017 levels and down slightly from 2018 based on a small, initial sample from only a few days of data," the department said on Twitter.

But, Mazur said, perception is key. When the administration of former President George W Bush cut taxes in 2001, it mailed out checks directly.

"Taxpayers remembered that they got that check," he said.

Under Obama, however, a tax cut showed up as smaller withholdings and fatter checks during each pay cycle.

"Most Americans when they were surveyed didn't think they got a tax cut from Obama," he said.

Some taxpayers are getting a bitter surprise this year as their usual annual tax refunds have shrunk — or turned into tax bills — even though President Donald Trump loudly promised the largest tax cut "in American history.

Some taxpayers are getting a bitter surprise this year as their usual annual tax refunds have shrunk — or turned into tax bills — even though President Donald Trump loudly promised the largest tax cut "in American history." And with tax season underway, thousands of unhappy taxpayers have been venting their displeasure on Twitter, using hashtags like #GOPTaxscam, and some threatened not to vote for Trump again. "Lowest refund I have ever had and I am 50 yrs old. No wall and now this tax reform sucks too!!" a woman going by "Speziale-Matheny" wrote from the crucial political swing state of Florida. "Starting to doubt Trump. I voted for him and trusted him too." During the year, American wage earners see a portion of each paycheck withheld as income tax, and many then receive a refund the following year if they have overpaid the federal government. That cash boost is eagerly awaited each year — and used to help pay off debt or make large purchases. But the 2017 tax overhaul — which Republicans promoted as a boon to the middle class — meant many workers paid less in taxes during the year reducing the amount withheld, a change which may have gone unnoticed. And the reform also cut some popular deductions, sometimes resulting in thinner refunds or even unexpected tax bills. Early data from the US Internal Revenue Service show that refunds so far this year are 8.4 per cent lower than 2018 payouts on average, falling to $1,865 from $2,035. However, many millions of more taxpayers will be filing tax returns by the annual April 15 deadline, meaning this figure could change. Mark Mazur, assistant treasury secretary for tax policy under former President Barack Obama, told AFP the negative reaction was "understandable." "People focused on the amount of the refund but that's not the same as their tax liability, the amount of tax they pay for the year," he said. Because of lower withholding during the year, some taxpayers have in effect already seen the benefit of the tax cut in their higher paychecks, said Mazur, who is vice president at the Urban Institute. About five per cent of taxpayers — 7.5 million people — will, in fact, see a tax increase, while about 80 per cent should pay less, he said. 'Angry, disappointed and betrayed' The IRS on Wednesday said taxpayers who suddenly found they owe taxes could pay their bill in installments and apply for a waiver of penalties normally imposed for failing to pay by the deadline. "The IRS understands there were many changes that affected people last year, and the new penalty waiver will help taxpayers who inadvertently had too little tax withheld," IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said in a statement. A key change of the 2017 tax reform is that it limited federal deductions for certain state and local taxes, such as real estate taxes. As a result, many homeowners in states with higher property taxes will owe more to the federal government. Neil Frankel, a New York accountant, told AFP people were feeling "angry, disappointed and betrayed." "I sympathize with them. The new tax law's withholding tables were incorrect and misleading. A complete shenanigan," he added. "Since my clients are mostly professionals, I don't really hear any screaming," he said. "However, I do hear long diatribes on hatred for the US government." Last year, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin invited taxpayers to use an online calculator to estimate their tax payments and determine if they should modify their withholding amount. This week the Treasury Department said media reports on the lower refunds were "misleading." "Refunds are consistent with 2017 levels and down slightly from 2018 based on a small, initial sample from only a few days of data," the department said on Twitter. But, Mazur said, perception is key. When the administration of former President George W Bush cut taxes in 2001, it mailed out checks directly. "Taxpayers remembered that they got that check," he said. Under Obama, however, a tax cut showed up as smaller withholdings and fatter checks during each pay cycle. "Most Americans when they were surveyed didn't think they got a tax cut from Obama," he said.

US taxpayers face bitter surprise after Trump's tax cuts

Washington will not unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, the Pentagon chief said Thursday, as NATO said the Kabul government must be brought into US peace talks with the Taliban to end the country's 17-year war.

Acting defence secretary Patrick Shanahan said any decision to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan would be taken in coordination with NATO, which runs a training and support mission in the war-torn country.

The United States is leading a push for peace talks with the Taliban, seeking a breakthrough in the grinding conflict, with the Islamists announcing Wednesday a fresh round of meetings in Islamabad.

But NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned against any more delay in involving the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani in the process, saying that without it lasting peace would not be possible.

US President Donald Trump wants to end US involvement in Afghanistan, where 14,000 American troops are still deployed -- raising Afghan fears that Washington could exit before securing a durable peace deal.

But, after talks with fellow NATO defence ministers in Brussels, Shanahan said Washington would not act alone.

"There will be no unilateral troop reduction. That was one of the messages in the meeting today. It will be coordinated. We work together," he said after the meeting, which came after a tour of Kabul and Baghdad for Shanahan.

"I feel as though we're creating the diplomatic leverage Ambassador Khalizad needs. We really need to talk about the possibility for peace. This may be our moment."

German welcome

Zalmay Khalilzad is the US special envoy leading talks with the Taliban and he has expressed hope of finding a deal before Afghan presidential elections scheduled for July.

Washington held talks with Taliban officials in Qatar last month as part of efforts to convince the militants -- ousted from power in Afghanistan by a US-led invasion in 2001 -- to negotiate with Ghani's government.

Shanahan's commitment was welcome news to Germany, which has been a frequent target for US criticism since Trump came to power, particularly over its defence spending.

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said it was important that "there will be no unilateral decisions by the Americans, but that every step, every strategic step in Afghanistan will be discussed within the circle of NATO defence ministers."

Ghani himself has vented frustration at talks going on without him about the future of Afghanistan and warned against rushing into a deal.

"It is very important that the Afghan government as soon as possible becomes fully integrated in the peace process," Stoltenberg said.

"Without that, there will be no lasting peace and no strong institutions to make sure any peace agreement is fully enforced."

The militants last week held separate talks in Moscow with a senior delegation of Afghan politicians -- including some of Ghani's leading rivals.

Washington will not unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, the Pentagon chief said Thursday, as NATO said the Kabul government must be brought into US peace talks with the Taliban to end the country's 17-year war.

Washington will not unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan, the Pentagon chief said Thursday, as NATO said the Kabul government must be brought into US peace talks with the Taliban to end the country's 17-year war. Acting defence secretary Patrick Shanahan said any decision to reduce the number of US troops in Afghanistan would be taken in coordination with NATO, which runs a training and support mission in the war-torn country. The United States is leading a push for peace talks with the Taliban, seeking a breakthrough in the grinding conflict, with the Islamists announcing Wednesday a fresh round of meetings in Islamabad. But NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned against any more delay in involving the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani in the process, saying that without it lasting peace would not be possible. US President Donald Trump wants to end US involvement in Afghanistan, where 14,000 American troops are still deployed -- raising Afghan fears that Washington could exit before securing a durable peace deal. But, after talks with fellow NATO defence ministers in Brussels, Shanahan said Washington would not act alone. "There will be no unilateral troop reduction. That was one of the messages in the meeting today. It will be coordinated. We work together," he said after the meeting, which came after a tour of Kabul and Baghdad for Shanahan. "I feel as though we're creating the diplomatic leverage Ambassador Khalizad needs. We really need to talk about the possibility for peace. This may be our moment." German welcome Zalmay Khalilzad is the US special envoy leading talks with the Taliban and he has expressed hope of finding a deal before Afghan presidential elections scheduled for July. Washington held talks with Taliban officials in Qatar last month as part of efforts to convince the militants -- ousted from power in Afghanistan by a US-led invasion in 2001 -- to negotiate with Ghani's government. Shanahan's commitment was welcome news to Germany, which has been a frequent target for US criticism since Trump came to power, particularly over its defence spending. German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said it was important that "there will be no unilateral decisions by the Americans, but that every step, every strategic step in Afghanistan will be discussed within the circle of NATO defence ministers." Ghani himself has vented frustration at talks going on without him about the future of Afghanistan and warned against rushing into a deal. "It is very important that the Afghan government as soon as possible becomes fully integrated in the peace process," Stoltenberg said. "Without that, there will be no lasting peace and no strong institutions to make sure any peace agreement is fully enforced." The militants last week held separate talks in Moscow with a senior delegation of Afghan politicians -- including some of Ghani's leading rivals.

No unilateral US pullout from Afghanistan: Pentagon chief

The US businesses paid an additional $2.7 billion in tariffs in November 2018, according to data from a coalition of US business groups fighting <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/clash-over-trump-tariffs-heats-up-with-barrage-of-wto-litigation-172364">President Donald Trump's trade tariffs</a>.

The group, which brands itself "Tariffs Hurt the Heartland" and includes the Americans for Free Trade coalition and Farmers for Free Trade, crunches tariff payment data nationally and by state.

The data is part of a monthly series called the Tariff Tracker, which the group releases in a tie-up with The Trade Partnership, a Washington-based international trade and economic consulting firm. The monthly import data, it said, is calculated using numbers from the US Census Bureau, and the monthly export data is compiled using numbers from the Census Bureau and the US Department of Agriculture.

The November numbers are the latest government ones available due to the recent US government shutdown.

The group's spokesman, former Republican congressman Charles Boustany, said the data shows Americans, not foreign competitors, are the big losers in the trade war.

"US businesses are being hit by a double whammy of historic tax increases in the form of tariffs and declining exports as farmers and manufacturers lose opportunities in the overseas markets they rely on," Boustany said.

The group also said retaliatory tariffs have severely impacted US exports. In November, US exports of products subject to retaliatory tariffs declined by $4.1 billion, or 37 per cent, from the previous year, it said.

Hun Quach, vice president of international trade at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said raising tariffs on thousands of consumer products will cause massive disruption to retailers in an already uncertain environment.

US tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if the two sides cannot reach a deal by a March 1 deadline. On Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters in Beijing that talks between the two sides were going well.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News that Trump is weighing different possibilities on how to treat the March 1 deadline to reach a trade deal with China, adding that the final agreement depends on Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meeting in person.

The United States would escalate tariffs on Chinese goods if the deadline is missed, and likely prompt China to retaliate.

The US businesses paid an additional $2.7 billion in tariffs in November 2018, according to data from a coalition of US business groups fighting President Donald Trump's trade tariffs.

The US businesses paid an additional $2.7 billion in tariffs in November 2018, according to data from a coalition of US business groups fighting President Donald Trump's trade tariffs. The group, which brands itself "Tariffs Hurt the Heartland" and includes the Americans for Free Trade coalition and Farmers for Free Trade, crunches tariff payment data nationally and by state. The data is part of a monthly series called the Tariff Tracker, which the group releases in a tie-up with The Trade Partnership, a Washington-based international trade and economic consulting firm. The monthly import data, it said, is calculated using numbers from the US Census Bureau, and the monthly export data is compiled using numbers from the Census Bureau and the US Department of Agriculture. The November numbers are the latest government ones available due to the recent US government shutdown. The group's spokesman, former Republican congressman Charles Boustany, said the data shows Americans, not foreign competitors, are the big losers in the trade war. "US businesses are being hit by a double whammy of historic tax increases in the form of tariffs and declining exports as farmers and manufacturers lose opportunities in the overseas markets they rely on," Boustany said. The group also said retaliatory tariffs have severely impacted US exports. In November, US exports of products subject to retaliatory tariffs declined by $4.1 billion, or 37 per cent, from the previous year, it said. Hun Quach, vice president of international trade at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said raising tariffs on thousands of consumer products will cause massive disruption to retailers in an already uncertain environment. US tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if the two sides cannot reach a deal by a March 1 deadline. On Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters in Beijing that talks between the two sides were going well. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News that Trump is weighing different possibilities on how to treat the March 1 deadline to reach a trade deal with China, adding that the final agreement depends on Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meeting in person. The United States would escalate tariffs on Chinese goods if the deadline is missed, and likely prompt China to retaliate.

US group says Trump trade tariffs cost businesses $2.7 billion in November

This week’s suicide attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran’s south-eastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan, the second in two months, could not have come at a more awkward moment for Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The assault on a bus carrying the guards back from patrols on the province’s border with the troubled Pakistani region of Baluchistan killed 27 people and wounded 13 others. It occurred days before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was scheduled to visit Pakistan as part of a tour of Asian countries.

While Baluchistan is set to figure prominently in Prince Mohammed’s talks with Khan, the attack also coincided with a US-sponsored conference in Warsaw, widely seen as an effort by the Trump administration to further isolate Iran economically and diplomatically.

Inside the conference, dubbed The Ministerial to Promote a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle East, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that US policy was designed to force Iran to alter its regional and defence policies and not geared towards regime change in Tehran.

Yet, US President Donald J Trump appeared to be sending mixed messages to the Iranians as well as sceptical European governments with his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, addressing a rally outside the conference organised by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a controversial Iranian exile group believed to enjoy Saudi backing.

Giuliani told the protesters who waved Iranian flags and giant yellow balloons emblazoned with the words, “Regime Change” that “We want to see a regime change in Iran.”

Trump appeared to fuel suspicion that Giuliani represented his true sentiment by tweeting on the eve of the Warsaw conference in a reference to the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution: “40 years of corruption. 40 years of repression. 40 years of terror. The regime in Iran has produced only #40YearsofFailure. The long-suffering Iranian people deserve a much brighter future.”

In a statement, the Revolutionary Guards blamed the attack on "mercenaries of intelligence agencies of world arrogance and domination," a reference to Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel.

Jaish-al-Adl (the Army of Justice), a Pakistan-based splinter group that traces its roots to Saudi-backed anti-Shiite groups with a history of attacks on Iranian and Shiite targets, has claimed responsibility for the attack.

The group says it is not seeking Baluch secession from Iran. Instead, it wants to "Force the regime of the guardianship of jurisconsult (Iran) to respect the demands of the Muslim Baloch and Sunni society alongside the other compatriots of our country."

Militants targeted a Revolutionary Guards headquarters in December in a rare suicide bombing in Chabahar, home to Iran’s Indian-backed port on the Arabian Sea, a mere 70 kilometres from the Chinese supported the port of Gwadar, a crown jewel in the Pakistani leg of the People’s Republic’s Belt and Road initiative.

The attacks coupled with indications that Saudi Arabia and the United States may be contemplating covert action against Iran using Pakistani Balochistan as a launching pad, and heightened Saudi economic and commercial interest in the province, frame Prince Mohammed’s upcoming talks in Islamabad.

During his visit, Prince Mohammed is expected to sign a memorandum of understanding on a framework for $10 billion in Saudi investments. &nbsp;

The memorandum includes a plan by Saudi national oil company Aramco to build a refinery in Gwadar as well as Saudi investment in Baluchistan’s Reko Diq copper and gold mine.

The investments would further enhance Saudi influence in Pakistan as well as the kingdom’s foothold in Balochistan.

They would come on the back of significant Saudi aid to help Pakistan evade a financial crisis that included a $3 billion deposit in Pakistan’s central bank to support the country’s balance of payments and another $3 billion in deferred payments for oil imports.

Taken together, the refinery, a strategic oil reserve in Gwadar and the mine would also help Saudi Arabia in potential efforts to prevent Chabahar from emerging as a powerful Arabian Sea hub.

Saudi funds have been flowing for some time into the coffers of ultra-conservative anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian Sunni Muslim Madrassahs or religious seminars in Balochistan. It remains unclear whether they originate with the Saudi government or Saudi nationals of Baloch descent and members of the two million-strong Pakistani Diaspora in the kingdom.&nbsp;

The funds help put in place potential building blocks for possible covert action should the kingdom and/or the United States decide to act on proposals to support irredentist activity.

The flow started at about the time that the Riyadh-based International Institute for Iranian Studies, formerly known as the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies, an allegedly Saudi government-backed think tank, published &nbsp;a study that argued that Chabahar posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate countermeasures.”

If executed, covert action could jeopardise Indian hopes to use Chabahar to bypass Pakistan, significantly enhance its trade with Afghanistan and Central Asian nations and create an antidote to Gwadar.

Pakistani analysts expect an estimated $5 billion in Afghan trade to flow through Chabahar after India in December started handling the port’s operations.

Iranian concerns that the attacks represent the US and/or Saudi covert effort are grounded not only in more recent US and Saudi policies, including Trump’s withdrawal last year from the 2015 international agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program despite confirmation of its adherence to the accord and re-imposition of harsh economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

They are also rooted in US and Saudi backing of Iraq in the 1980s Gulf war, US overtures in the last year to Iranian Kurdish insurgents, the long-standing broad spectrum of support of former and serving US officials for the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and in recent years of Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence and ex-ambassador to the United States and Britain.

Said Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s Iran analyst: “The concern was never that the Trump admin would avert its eyes from Iran, but rather that is in inflicted by an unhealthy obsession with it. In hyping the threat emanating from Iran, Trump is more likely than not to mishandle it and thus further destabilise the Middle East.”

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

This week’s suicide attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran’s south-eastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan, the second in two months, could not have come at a more awkward moment for Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

This week’s suicide attack on Revolutionary Guards in Iran’s south-eastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan, the second in two months, could not have come at a more awkward moment for Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. The assault on a bus carrying the guards back from patrols on the province’s border with the troubled Pakistani region of Baluchistan killed 27 people and wounded 13 others. It occurred days before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was scheduled to visit Pakistan as part of a tour of Asian countries. While Baluchistan is set to figure prominently in Prince Mohammed’s talks with Khan, the attack also coincided with a US-sponsored conference in Warsaw, widely seen as an effort by the Trump administration to further isolate Iran economically and diplomatically. Inside the conference, dubbed The Ministerial to Promote a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle East, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that US policy was designed to force Iran to alter its regional and defence policies and not geared towards regime change in Tehran. Yet, US President Donald J Trump appeared to be sending mixed messages to the Iranians as well as sceptical European governments with his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, addressing a rally outside the conference organised by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a controversial Iranian exile group believed to enjoy Saudi backing. Giuliani told the protesters who waved Iranian flags and giant yellow balloons emblazoned with the words, “Regime Change” that “We want to see a regime change in Iran.” Trump appeared to fuel suspicion that Giuliani represented his true sentiment by tweeting on the eve of the Warsaw conference in a reference to the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution: “40 years of corruption. 40 years of repression. 40 years of terror. The regime in Iran has produced only #40YearsofFailure. The long-suffering Iranian people deserve a much brighter future.” In a statement, the Revolutionary Guards blamed the attack on "mercenaries of intelligence agencies of world arrogance and domination," a reference to Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel. Jaish-al-Adl (the Army of Justice), a Pakistan-based splinter group that traces its roots to Saudi-backed anti-Shiite groups with a history of attacks on Iranian and Shiite targets, has claimed responsibility for the attack. The group says it is not seeking Baluch secession from Iran. Instead, it wants to "Force the regime of the guardianship of jurisconsult (Iran) to respect the demands of the Muslim Baloch and Sunni society alongside the other compatriots of our country." Militants targeted a Revolutionary Guards headquarters in December in a rare suicide bombing in Chabahar, home to Iran’s Indian-backed port on the Arabian Sea, a mere 70 kilometres from the Chinese supported the port of Gwadar, a crown jewel in the Pakistani leg of the People’s Republic’s Belt and Road initiative. The attacks coupled with indications that Saudi Arabia and the United States may be contemplating covert action against Iran using Pakistani Balochistan as a launching pad, and heightened Saudi economic and commercial interest in the province, frame Prince Mohammed’s upcoming talks in Islamabad. During his visit, Prince Mohammed is expected to sign a memorandum of understanding on a framework for $10 billion in Saudi investments. The memorandum includes a plan by Saudi national oil company Aramco to build a refinery in Gwadar as well as Saudi investment in Baluchistan’s Reko Diq copper and gold mine. The investments would further enhance Saudi influence in Pakistan as well as the kingdom’s foothold in Balochistan. They would come on the back of significant Saudi aid to help Pakistan evade a financial crisis that included a $3 billion deposit in Pakistan’s central bank to support the country’s balance of payments and another $3 billion in deferred payments for oil imports. Taken together, the refinery, a strategic oil reserve in Gwadar and the mine would also help Saudi Arabia in potential efforts to prevent Chabahar from emerging as a powerful Arabian Sea hub. Saudi funds have been flowing for some time into the coffers of ultra-conservative anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian Sunni Muslim Madrassahs or religious seminars in Balochistan. It remains unclear whether they originate with the Saudi government or Saudi nationals of Baloch descent and members of the two million-strong Pakistani Diaspora in the kingdom. The funds help put in place potential building blocks for possible covert action should the kingdom and/or the United States decide to act on proposals to support irredentist activity. The flow started at about the time that the Riyadh-based International Institute for Iranian Studies, formerly known as the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies, an allegedly Saudi government-backed think tank, published a study that argued that Chabahar posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate countermeasures.” If executed, covert action could jeopardise Indian hopes to use Chabahar to bypass Pakistan, significantly enhance its trade with Afghanistan and Central Asian nations and create an antidote to Gwadar. Pakistani analysts expect an estimated $5 billion in Afghan trade to flow through Chabahar after India in December started handling the port’s operations. Iranian concerns that the attacks represent the US and/or Saudi covert effort are grounded not only in more recent US and Saudi policies, including Trump’s withdrawal last year from the 2015 international agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program despite confirmation of its adherence to the accord and re-imposition of harsh economic sanctions against the Islamic republic. They are also rooted in US and Saudi backing of Iraq in the 1980s Gulf war, US overtures in the last year to Iranian Kurdish insurgents, the long-standing broad spectrum of support of former and serving US officials for the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and in recent years of Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence and ex-ambassador to the United States and Britain. Said Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s Iran analyst: “The concern was never that the Trump admin would avert its eyes from Iran, but rather that is in inflicted by an unhealthy obsession with it. In hyping the threat emanating from Iran, Trump is more likely than not to mishandle it and thus further destabilise the Middle East.” (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

The significance of Saudi Crown Prince's visit to Pakistan

By Jeffrey Heller and Maayan Lubell

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's face beams down from election billboards depicting him as a statesman, shaking hands with US&nbsp;President Donald Trump.

Opponents portray him as a criminal. Even before he called an election for April 9, he was branded "CRIME MINISTER" in huge banners at protest rallies, a reference to three corruption investigations threatening his decade of political dominance.

Love him or loathe him, the election is all about Netanyahu.

Although the names of parties will be on ballot papers, the vote will amount to a referendum on Netanyahu in the shadow of his legal woes. If he wins, he will become Israel's longest-serving prime minister this summer.

"There's no central issue other than Netanyahu's reign and clean government - whether he remains prime minister and what the price is for corruption," said Tamar Hermann, a political science professor with the Israel Democracy Institute.

Opinion polls show Netanyahu's Likud party is likely to win about 30 seats in the 120-member parliament, enough for the right-wing leader, now 69 and in his fourth term, to form the type of nationalist-religious coalition government he already heads.

He faces a strong challenge from former armed forces chief Benny Gantz. But Gantz's centrist Resilience party, which is second in opinion polls, would need to pursue groundbreaking political alliances to outstrip a right-wing bloc.

In power since 2009, after the first stint as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, the man ardent supporters hail as "King Bibi" has struck a chord with an electorate that has moved to the right and watched with delight as, under Trump, Washington lined up with many of Netanyahu's policies.

That has included US withdrawal from the international deal curbing Iran's nuclear programme, Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and a cut-off of US aid to the Palestinian Authority over its refusal to resume peace talks that collapsed in 2014.

"He (Netanyahu) has brought us excellent achievements, he represents me with dignity. I feel like my country is flourishing because of him," said Ronit Levy, a 49-year-old insurance agent from the northern city of Afula who goes by the handle of "Ronit the Bibi'ite" on Twitter and Facebook.

The sign on the giant city-centre billboards featuring Netanyahu and Trump says: "Netanyahu. In a different league." 
 
Corruption Cases

But in three corruption cases, Netanyahu is suspected of wrongfully accepting gifts from wealthy businessmen and dispensing favours in alleged bids for favourable coverage in an Israeli newspaper and a website.

He has denied wrongdoing, saying he is a victim of a left-wing witchhunt to topple him and that he has no intention of resigning. But his opponents are attacking his record and underlining the need for clean governance.

In a speech that boosted his ratings on January 29, Gantz said Israel's present leadership encouraged incitement, subversion and hatred, and was so detached from the people that it had adopted "the mannerisms of a French royal house".

"There was already a king who said: 'The State is me,' Gantz said, referring to King Louis XIV of France. "But no. Not here. No Israeli leader is a king. The state is not me. The state is you. The state is actually us. The state is all of us."

Netanyahu's legal saga looks set to enter a new chapter soon. Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit could announce by the end of February whether he intends to file criminal charges, as police have recommended, in the three corruption investigations.

The indictment in court would await the outcome of pre-trial hearings in which Netanyahu would try to dissuade Mandelblit from filing formal charges.

Those hearings would be unlikely to be wrapped up before the election, meaning voters would go to the polls aware that the attorney-general believes there is sufficient evidence to convict Netanyahu of criminal activity.

"The mere notion that in Israel a prime minister can remain in office while under indictment is ridiculous," Gantz said. 
 
Palestinian Issue

Palestinian leaders have had little to say about the Israeli election, maintaining their traditional policy of watching quietly from the sidelines.

They have already broken off contacts with the Trump administration, accusing it of pro-Israel bias. Any new Netanyahu government would be likely to include veteran allies opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Comments last week by Gantz that Israel must find a way "not to have dominion over other people" -- a reference to its continued occupation of the West Bank -- won praise from a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"It's encouraging if he succeeds and he sticks to this opinion," the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said.

Trump intends to present a long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan only after the election and has been trying to enlist the support of US&nbsp;Arab allies in the region. But expectations of a breakthrough are low.

Another question looms for after the election: will coalition partners still stick with Netanyahu if Mandelblit, after a hearing, moves ahead with the indictment?

Knives are already out: former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an erstwhile political ally of Netanyahu, has predicted that right-wing parties now pledging their support would eventually turn on the Israeli leader.

Hermann, of the Israel Democracy Institute, said Netanyahu enjoys loyalty from his core supporters of lower-income Israelis who see him as their champion.

Netanyahu's backers, many of them Jews with roots in the Middle East and North Africa, hold grudges against left-wing parties that once dominated Israeli politics, accusing them of maltreating immigrants from those regions.

"It doesn't matter what he does, they don't expect him to conduct himself by the same moral standards that bind ordinary people," Hermann said. "You don't regard the king the same way you do a peasant."

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Jeffrey Heller and Maayan Lubell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's face beams down from election billboards depicting him as a statesman, shaking hands with US President Donald Trump.

By Jeffrey Heller and Maayan Lubell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's face beams down from election billboards depicting him as a statesman, shaking hands with US President Donald Trump. Opponents portray him as a criminal. Even before he called an election for April 9, he was branded "CRIME MINISTER" in huge banners at protest rallies, a reference to three corruption investigations threatening his decade of political dominance. Love him or loathe him, the election is all about Netanyahu. Although the names of parties will be on ballot papers, the vote will amount to a referendum on Netanyahu in the shadow of his legal woes. If he wins, he will become Israel's longest-serving prime minister this summer. "There's no central issue other than Netanyahu's reign and clean government - whether he remains prime minister and what the price is for corruption," said Tamar Hermann, a political science professor with the Israel Democracy Institute. Opinion polls show Netanyahu's Likud party is likely to win about 30 seats in the 120-member parliament, enough for the right-wing leader, now 69 and in his fourth term, to form the type of nationalist-religious coalition government he already heads. He faces a strong challenge from former armed forces chief Benny Gantz. But Gantz's centrist Resilience party, which is second in opinion polls, would need to pursue groundbreaking political alliances to outstrip a right-wing bloc. In power since 2009, after the first stint as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, the man ardent supporters hail as "King Bibi" has struck a chord with an electorate that has moved to the right and watched with delight as, under Trump, Washington lined up with many of Netanyahu's policies. That has included US withdrawal from the international deal curbing Iran's nuclear programme, Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and a cut-off of US aid to the Palestinian Authority over its refusal to resume peace talks that collapsed in 2014. "He (Netanyahu) has brought us excellent achievements, he represents me with dignity. I feel like my country is flourishing because of him," said Ronit Levy, a 49-year-old insurance agent from the northern city of Afula who goes by the handle of "Ronit the Bibi'ite" on Twitter and Facebook. The sign on the giant city-centre billboards featuring Netanyahu and Trump says: "Netanyahu. In a different league." Corruption Cases But in three corruption cases, Netanyahu is suspected of wrongfully accepting gifts from wealthy businessmen and dispensing favours in alleged bids for favourable coverage in an Israeli newspaper and a website. He has denied wrongdoing, saying he is a victim of a left-wing witchhunt to topple him and that he has no intention of resigning. But his opponents are attacking his record and underlining the need for clean governance. In a speech that boosted his ratings on January 29, Gantz said Israel's present leadership encouraged incitement, subversion and hatred, and was so detached from the people that it had adopted "the mannerisms of a French royal house". "There was already a king who said: 'The State is me,' Gantz said, referring to King Louis XIV of France. "But no. Not here. No Israeli leader is a king. The state is not me. The state is you. The state is actually us. The state is all of us." Netanyahu's legal saga looks set to enter a new chapter soon. Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit could announce by the end of February whether he intends to file criminal charges, as police have recommended, in the three corruption investigations. The indictment in court would await the outcome of pre-trial hearings in which Netanyahu would try to dissuade Mandelblit from filing formal charges. Those hearings would be unlikely to be wrapped up before the election, meaning voters would go to the polls aware that the attorney-general believes there is sufficient evidence to convict Netanyahu of criminal activity. "The mere notion that in Israel a prime minister can remain in office while under indictment is ridiculous," Gantz said. Palestinian Issue Palestinian leaders have had little to say about the Israeli election, maintaining their traditional policy of watching quietly from the sidelines. They have already broken off contacts with the Trump administration, accusing it of pro-Israel bias. Any new Netanyahu government would be likely to include veteran allies opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Comments last week by Gantz that Israel must find a way "not to have dominion over other people" -- a reference to its continued occupation of the West Bank -- won praise from a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "It's encouraging if he succeeds and he sticks to this opinion," the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said. Trump intends to present a long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan only after the election and has been trying to enlist the support of US Arab allies in the region. But expectations of a breakthrough are low. Another question looms for after the election: will coalition partners still stick with Netanyahu if Mandelblit, after a hearing, moves ahead with the indictment? Knives are already out: former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an erstwhile political ally of Netanyahu, has predicted that right-wing parties now pledging their support would eventually turn on the Israeli leader. Hermann, of the Israel Democracy Institute, said Netanyahu enjoys loyalty from his core supporters of lower-income Israelis who see him as their champion. Netanyahu's backers, many of them Jews with roots in the Middle East and North Africa, hold grudges against left-wing parties that once dominated Israeli politics, accusing them of maltreating immigrants from those regions. "It doesn't matter what he does, they don't expect him to conduct himself by the same moral standards that bind ordinary people," Hermann said. "You don't regard the king the same way you do a peasant." (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Love him or loathe him, Israeli election is all about Benjamin Netanyahu

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-colombian-president-meet-over-venezuela-crisis-197229">President Donald Trump </a>on Wednesday was mum on whether the United States would deploy 5,000 troops to Colombia to exert more pressure on Venezuela's leftist government but said he had many options for securing regime change.

"Our militaries are very focused and working together. And let's see how it all turns out," Trump told reporters during a meeting with Colombian counterpart Ivan Duque at the White House's Oval Office.

"We're going to make things turn out well. That's what we do. We make things work."

One of the reporters asked Trump about the controversial phrase "5,000 troops to Colombia" that could be read on a legal pad that National Security Adviser John Bolton carried into a press briefing on new Venezuela sanctions late last month.

"You'll see," Trump merely said, having earlier stated that he never talks about troop deployments. "There are a number of different solutions, a number of different options. And we look at all options."

Asked if he has a plan B if Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro does not hand over power to the speaker of the opposition-controlled National Assembly, Juan Guaido, who in January proclaimed himself to be the country's legitimate head of state, Trump said he always has "plan B - and C, and D, and E, and F."

"I have great flexibility. I probably have more flexibility than any man that's ever been in this office."

The United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and France are among the countries that say Maduro's May 2018 re-election victory was a sham and have recognized Guaido as the interim president of oil-rich Venezuela.

"A lot of things are happening in Venezuela that people don't know about. And there's a lot of support for what we're doing ... tremendous support," Trump said.

"I have great respect for the man that most people, many people, think is the real president," Trump said about Guaido, though without mentioning him by name.

"He's very brave ... I've seen what's happened in the streets and I've seen what's happened with executions, so I really give him a lot of credit. And I think it's going to work out very well."

Referring to a plan to deliver US humanitarian aid via Colombia to Venezuela, which has been racked by longstanding shortages of basic goods and hyperinflation, Trump said Maduro was "making a terrible mistake" in using his military to attempt to stop those supplies from entering.

Maduro says the US - which stepped up its pressure on Venezuela by imposing severe sanctions it's oil industry late last month - is to blame for the country's economic woes and says the offer of humanitarian assistance is a pretext for a military invasion.

"They have to be able to let the food in. And in many cases, it's getting in. They blocked one of the bridges, but they haven't been able to block the others. They'd like to try," Trump said.

Asked whether the US would be prepared to offer Maduro amnesty if he relinquishes power, Trump said that option had not been considered.

Duque, for his part, said Maduro's refusal to allow the entry of humanitarian aid constituted a "crime against humanity."

"I am very happy that the diplomatic blockade is working like no time before it, and I think the days for this dictatorship are about to end. We have to continue working in those lines," the Colombian president said.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday was mum on whether the United States would deploy 5,000 troops to Colombia to exert more pressure on Venezuela's leftist government but said he had many options for securing regime change.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday was mum on whether the United States would deploy 5,000 troops to Colombia to exert more pressure on Venezuela's leftist government but said he had many options for securing regime change. "Our militaries are very focused and working together. And let's see how it all turns out," Trump told reporters during a meeting with Colombian counterpart Ivan Duque at the White House's Oval Office. "We're going to make things turn out well. That's what we do. We make things work." One of the reporters asked Trump about the controversial phrase "5,000 troops to Colombia" that could be read on a legal pad that National Security Adviser John Bolton carried into a press briefing on new Venezuela sanctions late last month. "You'll see," Trump merely said, having earlier stated that he never talks about troop deployments. "There are a number of different solutions, a number of different options. And we look at all options." Asked if he has a plan B if Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro does not hand over power to the speaker of the opposition-controlled National Assembly, Juan Guaido, who in January proclaimed himself to be the country's legitimate head of state, Trump said he always has "plan B - and C, and D, and E, and F." "I have great flexibility. I probably have more flexibility than any man that's ever been in this office." The United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and France are among the countries that say Maduro's May 2018 re-election victory was a sham and have recognized Guaido as the interim president of oil-rich Venezuela. "A lot of things are happening in Venezuela that people don't know about. And there's a lot of support for what we're doing ... tremendous support," Trump said. "I have great respect for the man that most people, many people, think is the real president," Trump said about Guaido, though without mentioning him by name. "He's very brave ... I've seen what's happened in the streets and I've seen what's happened with executions, so I really give him a lot of credit. And I think it's going to work out very well." Referring to a plan to deliver US humanitarian aid via Colombia to Venezuela, which has been racked by longstanding shortages of basic goods and hyperinflation, Trump said Maduro was "making a terrible mistake" in using his military to attempt to stop those supplies from entering. Maduro says the US - which stepped up its pressure on Venezuela by imposing severe sanctions it's oil industry late last month - is to blame for the country's economic woes and says the offer of humanitarian assistance is a pretext for a military invasion. "They have to be able to let the food in. And in many cases, it's getting in. They blocked one of the bridges, but they haven't been able to block the others. They'd like to try," Trump said. Asked whether the US would be prepared to offer Maduro amnesty if he relinquishes power, Trump said that option had not been considered. Duque, for his part, said Maduro's refusal to allow the entry of humanitarian aid constituted a "crime against humanity." "I am very happy that the diplomatic blockade is working like no time before it, and I think the days for this dictatorship are about to end. We have to continue working in those lines," the Colombian president said.

I have plan B, plan C and plan D on Venezuela, says Trump

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said talks with China went well on Wednesday, as the world's two largest economies try to iron out an agreement to resolve their trade dispute.

"So far, so good," he said when asked by reporters on how the meetings in Beijing went. He did not say who he met.

Mnuchin said earlier he hoped for "productive" trade meetings as the two countries seek to end a festering dispute that has seen both sides level tariffs at one other.

US tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if the two sides cannot reach a deal by a March 1 deadline, increasing pain and costs in sectors from consumer electronics to agriculture.

Mnuchin, asked by reporters as he left his Beijing hotel what his hopes were for the visit, said "productive meetings". He did not elaborate.

Mnuchin, along with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, arrived in the Chinese capital on Tuesday.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he could let the deadline for a trade agreement "slide for a little while," but that he would prefer not to and expects to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping to close the deal at some point.

Trump's advisers have previously described March 1 as a "hard deadline," but Trump told reporters that a delay was now possible.

He said in December that the 90-day truce could be extended, but that he could revert to tariffs if differences could not be resolved.

A growing number of US businesses and lawmakers have expressed hopes for a delay in the tariff increase while the two sides tackle the difficult US demands for major structural policy changes by China aimed at ending the forced transfer of American trade secrets, curbing Beijing's industrial subsidies and enforcing intellectual property rights.

Trump said last week he did not plan to meet with Xi before the March 1 deadline.

Mnuchin and Lighthizer are scheduled to hold talks on Thursday and Friday with Vice Premier Liu He, the top economic adviser to Xi.

The latest round of talks in Beijing kicked off on Monday with discussions among deputy-level officials to try to work out technical details, including a mechanism for enforcing any trade agreement.

China's Foreign Ministry referred questions on the talks to the Ministry of Commerce, which did not respond to a request for comment.

A round of talks at the end of January ended with some progress reported, but no deal, and US declarations that much more work was needed.

Dodge a bullet

James Green, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University, said he believed China was looking to secure a Xi-Trump meeting in the hope that it would make a near-term deal on tariffs far more likely.

"From their point of view, they would have dodged a bullet," Green, who was USTR's top official at the US embassy in Beijing until mid-2018, told Reuters by telephone.

But there is growing bipartisan concern in the United States about increasing state control of China's economy, military activity in the South China Sea, and security issues around its technology companies.

Even if the two sides could come to terms on tariffs, that might not mean an end to trade friction, Green added.

"I think that whatever we might get for an agreement, it will be a pause, because the US government is still going to move forward in the telecoms sector, on law enforcement and legal action, and on sanctions-related issues."

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cautioned allies on Monday against deploying equipment from Chinese telecoms giant Huawei Technologies on their soil, saying it would make it more difficult for Washington to "partner alongside them".

The United States and its Western allies believe Huawei's apparatus could be used for espionage, and see its expansion into central Europe as a way to gain a foothold in the European Union market.

Both the Chinese government and Huawei have dismissed these concerns.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said talks with China went well on Wednesday, as the world's two largest economies try to iron out an agreement to resolve their trade dispute.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said talks with China went well on Wednesday, as the world's two largest economies try to iron out an agreement to resolve their trade dispute. "So far, so good," he said when asked by reporters on how the meetings in Beijing went. He did not say who he met. Mnuchin said earlier he hoped for "productive" trade meetings as the two countries seek to end a festering dispute that has seen both sides level tariffs at one other. US tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if the two sides cannot reach a deal by a March 1 deadline, increasing pain and costs in sectors from consumer electronics to agriculture. Mnuchin, asked by reporters as he left his Beijing hotel what his hopes were for the visit, said "productive meetings". He did not elaborate. Mnuchin, along with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, arrived in the Chinese capital on Tuesday. US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he could let the deadline for a trade agreement "slide for a little while," but that he would prefer not to and expects to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping to close the deal at some point. Trump's advisers have previously described March 1 as a "hard deadline," but Trump told reporters that a delay was now possible. He said in December that the 90-day truce could be extended, but that he could revert to tariffs if differences could not be resolved. A growing number of US businesses and lawmakers have expressed hopes for a delay in the tariff increase while the two sides tackle the difficult US demands for major structural policy changes by China aimed at ending the forced transfer of American trade secrets, curbing Beijing's industrial subsidies and enforcing intellectual property rights. Trump said last week he did not plan to meet with Xi before the March 1 deadline. Mnuchin and Lighthizer are scheduled to hold talks on Thursday and Friday with Vice Premier Liu He, the top economic adviser to Xi. The latest round of talks in Beijing kicked off on Monday with discussions among deputy-level officials to try to work out technical details, including a mechanism for enforcing any trade agreement. China's Foreign Ministry referred questions on the talks to the Ministry of Commerce, which did not respond to a request for comment. A round of talks at the end of January ended with some progress reported, but no deal, and US declarations that much more work was needed. Dodge a bullet James Green, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University, said he believed China was looking to secure a Xi-Trump meeting in the hope that it would make a near-term deal on tariffs far more likely. "From their point of view, they would have dodged a bullet," Green, who was USTR's top official at the US embassy in Beijing until mid-2018, told Reuters by telephone. But there is growing bipartisan concern in the United States about increasing state control of China's economy, military activity in the South China Sea, and security issues around its technology companies. Even if the two sides could come to terms on tariffs, that might not mean an end to trade friction, Green added. "I think that whatever we might get for an agreement, it will be a pause, because the US government is still going to move forward in the telecoms sector, on law enforcement and legal action, and on sanctions-related issues." US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cautioned allies on Monday against deploying equipment from Chinese telecoms giant Huawei Technologies on their soil, saying it would make it more difficult for Washington to "partner alongside them". The United States and its Western allies believe Huawei's apparatus could be used for espionage, and see its expansion into central Europe as a way to gain a foothold in the European Union market. Both the Chinese government and Huawei have dismissed these concerns.

'So far, so good,' Steven Mnuchin says of trade talks in China

President Donald Trump hosts his Colombian counterpart Ivan Duque at the White House on Wednesday to discuss their campaign to pressure Venezuela's far left president, Nicolas Maduro, from power.

The Trump-Duque talks in the Oval Office, followed by lunch, will give the allies a chance to compare notes just as the standoff between Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido heats up over the arrival of mostly US aid shipments.

Washington has thrown its full weight behind Guaido, recognizing him as interim president, demanding that Maduro step aside, imposing sanctions, and even threatening the "option" of military intervention.

Colombia plays a crucial role because it has taken in the lion's share of the more than two million Venezuelans fleeing chaos, poverty and political violence under Maduro.

Now, Colombia is the staging post for US and other foreign humanitarian aid that Maduro is refusing to allow in, saying it would be a precursor to US military action.

At a huge opposition rally on Tuesday, Guaido vowed "it's sure that the humanitarian aid will enter" on February 23. "We have almost 300,000 Venezuelans who will die if the aid doesn't enter."

Trump's hawkish national security advisor John Bolton on Wednesday tweeted that "Maduro would rather stand for tyranny than ... accept aid for the Venezuelan people."

Guaido has been recognized as interim president by 50 countries.

But Maduro, whose government has the financial and political backing of China and Russia, has so far resisted the intensifying US pressure, portraying himself in the mold of historic Latin American anti-imperialist leaders.

Moscow weighed in on Tuesday, with Foreign Minster Sergei Lavrov warning "against all interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs, including the use of force threatened by Washington."

Country in collapse

Venezuela has the world's biggest oil reserves but its once-thriving economy has fallen into ruin under the long-running leftist government.

Venezuelans face shortages of even basic necessities such as food and medicine and some 2.3 million people have fled since 2015, their salaries and savings rendered worthless by hyperinflation.

Maduro, who gets crucial backing from the country's powerful armed forces, denies there is a humanitarian emergency and has branded the crisis a "political show" and pretext for a US-led invasion.

Now, the focus of the struggle between Maduro and Guaido has turned to the aid shipments. Tons of aid are piling up in Colombian collection centers at the border.

On Tuesday, Guaido insisted that the border be opened.

"Here is a direct order to the armed forces: allow in the humanitarian aid once and for all (and) end the repression," he said.

Guaido's team has also met with Brazilian officials to set up a second aid storage center. The new right-wing government of President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, which took over in January after more than a decade of leftist rule there, has joined the coalition against Maduro.

President Donald Trump hosts his Colombian counterpart Ivan Duque at the White House on Wednesday to discuss their campaign to pressure Venezuela's far left president, Nicolas Maduro, from power.

President Donald Trump hosts his Colombian counterpart Ivan Duque at the White House on Wednesday to discuss their campaign to pressure Venezuela's far left president, Nicolas Maduro, from power. The Trump-Duque talks in the Oval Office, followed by lunch, will give the allies a chance to compare notes just as the standoff between Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaido heats up over the arrival of mostly US aid shipments. Washington has thrown its full weight behind Guaido, recognizing him as interim president, demanding that Maduro step aside, imposing sanctions, and even threatening the "option" of military intervention. Colombia plays a crucial role because it has taken in the lion's share of the more than two million Venezuelans fleeing chaos, poverty and political violence under Maduro. Now, Colombia is the staging post for US and other foreign humanitarian aid that Maduro is refusing to allow in, saying it would be a precursor to US military action. At a huge opposition rally on Tuesday, Guaido vowed "it's sure that the humanitarian aid will enter" on February 23. "We have almost 300,000 Venezuelans who will die if the aid doesn't enter." Trump's hawkish national security advisor John Bolton on Wednesday tweeted that "Maduro would rather stand for tyranny than ... accept aid for the Venezuelan people." Guaido has been recognized as interim president by 50 countries. But Maduro, whose government has the financial and political backing of China and Russia, has so far resisted the intensifying US pressure, portraying himself in the mold of historic Latin American anti-imperialist leaders. Moscow weighed in on Tuesday, with Foreign Minster Sergei Lavrov warning "against all interference in Venezuela's domestic affairs, including the use of force threatened by Washington." Country in collapse Venezuela has the world's biggest oil reserves but its once-thriving economy has fallen into ruin under the long-running leftist government. Venezuelans face shortages of even basic necessities such as food and medicine and some 2.3 million people have fled since 2015, their salaries and savings rendered worthless by hyperinflation. Maduro, who gets crucial backing from the country's powerful armed forces, denies there is a humanitarian emergency and has branded the crisis a "political show" and pretext for a US-led invasion. Now, the focus of the struggle between Maduro and Guaido has turned to the aid shipments. Tons of aid are piling up in Colombian collection centers at the border. On Tuesday, Guaido insisted that the border be opened. "Here is a direct order to the armed forces: allow in the humanitarian aid once and for all (and) end the repression," he said. Guaido's team has also met with Brazilian officials to set up a second aid storage center. The new right-wing government of President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, which took over in January after more than a decade of leftist rule there, has joined the coalition against Maduro.

Trump, Colombian president meet over Venezuela crisis

The White House said on Wednesday it was not clear whether President Donald Trump would sign a government funding deal <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-not-happy-with-budget-deal-but-shutdown-unlikely-197021">to avoid a partial shutdown</a> of federal agencies, even as a source familiar with the situation said he likely would.

"We want to see what the final piece of legislation looks like," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters. "It's hard to say definitively whether or not the president is going to sign it until we know everything that's in it."

Congress, which faces a tight deadline to pass legislation to avert another US&nbsp;government shutdown, is considering a compromise measure that does not deliver all the funds Trump had demanded to build a wall along the US&nbsp;border with Mexico.

On Tuesday, the Republican president said he was not happy with the deal and he did not rule out a possible veto of the legislation.

The Democratic-controlled US&nbsp;House of Representatives could vote as soon as Wednesday evening, a senior aide said, despite not yet having produced a written copy of the agreement reached by congressional negotiators on Monday night.

The accord must also be passed by the Republican-controlled Senate and signed by Trump by the midnight Friday expiration of a stopgap measure that ended the longest federal shutdown in US&nbsp;history.

The measure's fate in the House was far from certain given the risk that conservatives and liberals will oppose the compromise for different reasons.

Congressional sources said the deal includes $1.37 billion for new border fencing, about the same as last year — along 55 miles (90 km) of the border — but not the $5.7 billion Trump has demanded to help build his promised border wall.

Senior congressional Republicans, showing little appetite for another shutdown after being heavily criticized for the previous one, urged Trump to support the agreement.

"I think the president will sign it. I think he will do so reluctantly, and then obviously, have to use executive actions to secure our borders," US&nbsp;Representative Mark Meadows, head of the Republicans' conservative caucus in the House, told reporters on Tuesday.

The Washington Post, citing a White House official, said Trump was likely to explore using his executive power to reallocate other federal funds for barrier projects along the southern border. CNN, citing the White House, also said Trump was weighing the use of an executive order, among other options

"There are some positives in this bill, but it's certainly not enough," Sanders said in an interview with Fox News Channel. "The president and his team have been looking at every option possible to get the full funding they need in order to complete the wall."

Trump surprised lawmakers when he withdrew support for a previous deal in December and demanded $5.7 billion in wall funding, which was opposed by Democrats in Congress. That triggered a 35-day shutdown of about a fourth of the federal government that left 800,000 federal workers furloughed or working without pay.

The president previously threatened to declare a "national emergency" if Congress did not provide money specifically for the wall -- a move that would almost certainly draw opposition in Congress and in the courts.

Trump made the wall a central 2016 campaign promise, calling it necessary to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking. He said Mexico would pay for it, but Mexican officials rejected that. Democrats have called a wall expensive, ineffective and immoral.

The White House said on Wednesday it was not clear whether President Donald Trump would sign a government funding deal to avoid a partial shutdown of federal agencies, even as a source familiar with the situation said he likely would.

The White House said on Wednesday it was not clear whether President Donald Trump would sign a government funding deal to avoid a partial shutdown of federal agencies, even as a source familiar with the situation said he likely would. "We want to see what the final piece of legislation looks like," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters. "It's hard to say definitively whether or not the president is going to sign it until we know everything that's in it." Congress, which faces a tight deadline to pass legislation to avert another US government shutdown, is considering a compromise measure that does not deliver all the funds Trump had demanded to build a wall along the US border with Mexico. On Tuesday, the Republican president said he was not happy with the deal and he did not rule out a possible veto of the legislation. The Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives could vote as soon as Wednesday evening, a senior aide said, despite not yet having produced a written copy of the agreement reached by congressional negotiators on Monday night. The accord must also be passed by the Republican-controlled Senate and signed by Trump by the midnight Friday expiration of a stopgap measure that ended the longest federal shutdown in US history. The measure's fate in the House was far from certain given the risk that conservatives and liberals will oppose the compromise for different reasons. Congressional sources said the deal includes $1.37 billion for new border fencing, about the same as last year — along 55 miles (90 km) of the border — but not the $5.7 billion Trump has demanded to help build his promised border wall. Senior congressional Republicans, showing little appetite for another shutdown after being heavily criticized for the previous one, urged Trump to support the agreement. "I think the president will sign it. I think he will do so reluctantly, and then obviously, have to use executive actions to secure our borders," US Representative Mark Meadows, head of the Republicans' conservative caucus in the House, told reporters on Tuesday. The Washington Post, citing a White House official, said Trump was likely to explore using his executive power to reallocate other federal funds for barrier projects along the southern border. CNN, citing the White House, also said Trump was weighing the use of an executive order, among other options "There are some positives in this bill, but it's certainly not enough," Sanders said in an interview with Fox News Channel. "The president and his team have been looking at every option possible to get the full funding they need in order to complete the wall." Trump surprised lawmakers when he withdrew support for a previous deal in December and demanded $5.7 billion in wall funding, which was opposed by Democrats in Congress. That triggered a 35-day shutdown of about a fourth of the federal government that left 800,000 federal workers furloughed or working without pay. The president previously threatened to declare a "national emergency" if Congress did not provide money specifically for the wall -- a move that would almost certainly draw opposition in Congress and in the courts. Trump made the wall a central 2016 campaign promise, calling it necessary to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking. He said Mexico would pay for it, but Mexican officials rejected that. Democrats have called a wall expensive, ineffective and immoral.

Not clear if Trump will sign border wall funding deal: White House

President <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-not-happy-with-budget-deal-but-shutdown-unlikely-197021">Donald Trump</a> is ready to sign a border security funding deal, despite failing to get anywhere close to the money he sought for a US-Mexico border wall, US media reported Wednesday.

CNN and NBC television quoted sources close to the president saying that Trump has resigned himself to the deal crafted by his Republican Party and the Democrats in Congress.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders would not confirm or deny the reports but said Wednesday that "there are positive pieces" in the deal.

"We want to see the final piece of legislation," she told reporters.

Trump had demanded $5.7 billion for a dramatic extension of fences and walls along the Mexican border, claiming that the United States faces an "invasion" of criminals and illegal immigrants.

Democrats refused, accusing him of exaggerating the situation for political gain.

Trump retaliated in December by cutting funding to swaths of government in a five-week shutdown. He had threatened to trigger a new shutdown this Friday if his demands were not met.

The deal worked out in Congress this week will provide less than $1.4 billion for wall construction.

On Tuesday, Trump said he was not happy with the deal but "I don't think you're going to see a shutdown."

Trump says he can still add to that from other sources not requiring congressional approval, although he has been vague about how this would work.

President Donald Trump is ready to sign a border security funding deal, despite failing to get anywhere close to the money he sought for a US-Mexico border wall, US media reported Wednesday.

President Donald Trump is ready to sign a border security funding deal, despite failing to get anywhere close to the money he sought for a US-Mexico border wall, US media reported Wednesday. CNN and NBC television quoted sources close to the president saying that Trump has resigned himself to the deal crafted by his Republican Party and the Democrats in Congress. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders would not confirm or deny the reports but said Wednesday that "there are positive pieces" in the deal. "We want to see the final piece of legislation," she told reporters. Trump had demanded $5.7 billion for a dramatic extension of fences and walls along the Mexican border, claiming that the United States faces an "invasion" of criminals and illegal immigrants. Democrats refused, accusing him of exaggerating the situation for political gain. Trump retaliated in December by cutting funding to swaths of government in a five-week shutdown. He had threatened to trigger a new shutdown this Friday if his demands were not met. The deal worked out in Congress this week will provide less than $1.4 billion for wall construction. On Tuesday, Trump said he was not happy with the deal but "I don't think you're going to see a shutdown." Trump says he can still add to that from other sources not requiring congressional approval, although he has been vague about how this would work.

Trump ready to sign border deal, averting shutdown: Reports

While South Korea has every reason to be cheerful about the upcoming summit of US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Vietnam, hoping for a peaceful nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, but with North Korean not doing enough to move towards denuclearisation, the hope appears to be impractical.&nbsp;

Despite doing all the hard work for getting them together at Singapore for the first summit, South Korea would have realised, by now, that nothing worthwhile progressed beyond optics of a successful breakthrough.&nbsp;

President Trump in a speech, earlier this month, had announced the summit with the hope that North Korea would comply with the Singapore understanding by North Korea.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had earlier reiterated that sanctions will remain until Pyongyang carries out the complete verifiable denuclearisation commitments made in Singapore.&nbsp;

The US is unlikely to settle down unless the threat to its mainland is eliminated. President Trump is also carrying the baggage of promise to do something, which his predecessors could not do with North Korea; hence with full awareness of reality, he may not pitch high hopes but will have face-saving negotiations with North Korea.

North Korea, on the other hand, had been pursuing a "byungjin" policy of simultaneously developing its nuclear capabilities alongside the economy. With seemingly impractical promises made by North Korea in Singapore to get immediate relief from tough US sanctions, it stands disappointed as it’s smart move did not work. In November 2018, it warned the US that it will seriously consider returning to its erstwhile state policy of building nuclear weapons if the US does not withdraw economic sanctions against it.&nbsp;

North Korea is unlikely to give away its only strategic leverage after witnessing the fate of Iraq, Libya and recently Iraq. Kim's acts can be seen as 'nuclear blackmailing', but it is a feather in the cap of Kim which makes him taller in domestic as well as the global arena. UN reports also indicate that no worthwhile denuclearisation has happened in North Korea. &nbsp;

Expectations of other key players&nbsp;

South Korea will be genuinely looking for peace. Besides the nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, it suits South Korea to have an economically prosperous North Korea.

South Korea's gesture to recommence rail and road transportation between North and South Korea reflects its desire for better relations. China may not necessarily be too happy with Korean bonhomie and if the US obliges (although chances are remote) a US aligned peaceful Korean Peninsula.&nbsp;

China will never like the buffer between its mainland and US Forces in South Korea to go away and Kim to be stripped off all nukes.

China, however, made a smart move by unilaterally commencing logistics support and trade with North Korea. 
 
Japan will continue to be sceptical of North Korea with the threat it poses to it. The Russian concerns will be no different than Chinese regarding the development of THAAD. For any lasting solution China, Japan and Russia will have to be taken on board as the issue has crossed the limit of being a bilateral issue. &nbsp;

Will the summit succeed?&nbsp;

In diplomatic circles, no summit ever fails because minimum it can achieve is to develop better understanding and plan for further negotiations.&nbsp;

Having lost majority in Senate, President Trump will have to address the foreign policy issues to convince his voters for next Presidential elections that he tried his best.

US Defense Intelligence Agency report suggests that Iran and North Korea pose an increasing challenge to the US in space as both countries have developed jamming capabilities, which can also add to the agenda of the upcoming summit.&nbsp;

As a strategic analyst, I do not expect anything concrete coming out of the summit which can amuse the affected parties or the global community, except diplomatic niceties to lower temperatures, but both parties will claim it to be a success.&nbsp;

The fact that President Trump is meeting Kim Jong-un again means that 'nuclear blackmailing' works.

Expectations notwithstanding, it will be a summit which shows the priority of Trump administration, and perhaps the US also wants to give some signal to China by holding the summit in Chinese backyard with one of its closest allies.

The summit is being held at a time when the duration of truce in the trade war between the US and China is shrinking.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

&nbsp;&nbsp;

While South Korea has every reason to be cheerful about the upcoming summit of US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Vietnam, hoping for a peaceful nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, but with North Korean not doing enough to move towards denuclearisation, the hope appears to be impractical.

While South Korea has every reason to be cheerful about the upcoming summit of US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Vietnam, hoping for a peaceful nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, but with North Korean not doing enough to move towards denuclearisation, the hope appears to be impractical. Despite doing all the hard work for getting them together at Singapore for the first summit, South Korea would have realised, by now, that nothing worthwhile progressed beyond optics of a successful breakthrough. President Trump in a speech, earlier this month, had announced the summit with the hope that North Korea would comply with the Singapore understanding by North Korea. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had earlier reiterated that sanctions will remain until Pyongyang carries out the complete verifiable denuclearisation commitments made in Singapore. The US is unlikely to settle down unless the threat to its mainland is eliminated. President Trump is also carrying the baggage of promise to do something, which his predecessors could not do with North Korea; hence with full awareness of reality, he may not pitch high hopes but will have face-saving negotiations with North Korea. North Korea, on the other hand, had been pursuing a "byungjin" policy of simultaneously developing its nuclear capabilities alongside the economy. With seemingly impractical promises made by North Korea in Singapore to get immediate relief from tough US sanctions, it stands disappointed as it’s smart move did not work. In November 2018, it warned the US that it will seriously consider returning to its erstwhile state policy of building nuclear weapons if the US does not withdraw economic sanctions against it. North Korea is unlikely to give away its only strategic leverage after witnessing the fate of Iraq, Libya and recently Iraq. Kim's acts can be seen as 'nuclear blackmailing', but it is a feather in the cap of Kim which makes him taller in domestic as well as the global arena. UN reports also indicate that no worthwhile denuclearisation has happened in North Korea. Expectations of other key players South Korea will be genuinely looking for peace. Besides the nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, it suits South Korea to have an economically prosperous North Korea. South Korea's gesture to recommence rail and road transportation between North and South Korea reflects its desire for better relations. China may not necessarily be too happy with Korean bonhomie and if the US obliges (although chances are remote) a US aligned peaceful Korean Peninsula. China will never like the buffer between its mainland and US Forces in South Korea to go away and Kim to be stripped off all nukes. China, however, made a smart move by unilaterally commencing logistics support and trade with North Korea. Japan will continue to be sceptical of North Korea with the threat it poses to it. The Russian concerns will be no different than Chinese regarding the development of THAAD. For any lasting solution China, Japan and Russia will have to be taken on board as the issue has crossed the limit of being a bilateral issue. Will the summit succeed? In diplomatic circles, no summit ever fails because minimum it can achieve is to develop better understanding and plan for further negotiations. Having lost majority in Senate, President Trump will have to address the foreign policy issues to convince his voters for next Presidential elections that he tried his best. US Defense Intelligence Agency report suggests that Iran and North Korea pose an increasing challenge to the US in space as both countries have developed jamming capabilities, which can also add to the agenda of the upcoming summit. As a strategic analyst, I do not expect anything concrete coming out of the summit which can amuse the affected parties or the global community, except diplomatic niceties to lower temperatures, but both parties will claim it to be a success. The fact that President Trump is meeting Kim Jong-un again means that 'nuclear blackmailing' works. Expectations notwithstanding, it will be a summit which shows the priority of Trump administration, and perhaps the US also wants to give some signal to China by holding the summit in Chinese backyard with one of its closest allies. The summit is being held at a time when the duration of truce in the trade war between the US and China is shrinking. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

What to expect from the Trump-Kim summit II

US President Donald Trump said Tuesday he wasn't "happy" with a preliminary deal by US lawmakers to provide funding for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-holds-firm-on-border-wall-offers-steel-option-as-compromise-188851">a border wall with Mexico</a> but added another government shutdown was not likely.&nbsp;

"I can't say I'm happy, I can't say I'm thrilled," he told a cabinet meeting in the White House.

But he indicated he could supplement the offer from Congress from other sources and lay the dispute to rest.

"Wall's getting built anyway," he said, suggesting he would find additional funding from "far less important areas."

US lawmakers reached a preliminary deal to provide some funding for Trump's wall but were waiting to see if he would accept the compromise and cancel the shutdown.

At nearly $1.4 billion for wall construction, the budget agreed by Republican and Democratic lawmakers was far less than the $5.7 billion that Trump wanted.

Trump has not given a definite answer, telling a crowd of supporters at a rally in the Texas frontier city of El Paso late Monday only that there was "probably some good news, but who knows?"

The money, along with other border security measures, was presented as a workable deal to satisfy both sides and allow Trump to shelve his threat to shut down swaths of government on Friday.

In December, Trump tried to pressure Congress into approving the $5.7 billion by refusing to sign off on funding large parts of the government that have nothing to do with the wall, putting 800,000 jobs, from FBI agents to airport security, on hold for five weeks.

The Democrats refused to budge and Trump was forced into an embarrassing climbdown, allowing new negotiations to open with a new deadline of this Friday.

US President Donald Trump said Tuesday he wasn't "happy" with a preliminary deal by US lawmakers to provide funding for a border wall with Mexico but added another government shutdown was not likely.

US President Donald Trump said Tuesday he wasn't "happy" with a preliminary deal by US lawmakers to provide funding for a border wall with Mexico but added another government shutdown was not likely. "I can't say I'm happy, I can't say I'm thrilled," he told a cabinet meeting in the White House. But he indicated he could supplement the offer from Congress from other sources and lay the dispute to rest. "Wall's getting built anyway," he said, suggesting he would find additional funding from "far less important areas." US lawmakers reached a preliminary deal to provide some funding for Trump's wall but were waiting to see if he would accept the compromise and cancel the shutdown. At nearly $1.4 billion for wall construction, the budget agreed by Republican and Democratic lawmakers was far less than the $5.7 billion that Trump wanted. Trump has not given a definite answer, telling a crowd of supporters at a rally in the Texas frontier city of El Paso late Monday only that there was "probably some good news, but who knows?" The money, along with other border security measures, was presented as a workable deal to satisfy both sides and allow Trump to shelve his threat to shut down swaths of government on Friday. In December, Trump tried to pressure Congress into approving the $5.7 billion by refusing to sign off on funding large parts of the government that have nothing to do with the wall, putting 800,000 jobs, from FBI agents to airport security, on hold for five weeks. The Democrats refused to budge and Trump was forced into an embarrassing climbdown, allowing new negotiations to open with a new deadline of this Friday.

Trump says not 'happy' with budget deal but another shutdown unlikely

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