The United States on Thursday ordered non-emergency embassy staff to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-to-close-us-embassy-consulates-maduro-192578">leave Venezuela</a> but stopped short of complying with a full expulsion demanded by Nicolas Maduro, who Washington says is no longer president.

The State Department in a notice said it had "ordered non-emergency US government employees to depart Venezuela."

"The US government has limited ability to provide emergency services to US citizens in Venezuela," it said.

Amid deadly political clashes in the crisis-torn country, the State Department said that US citizens "should strongly consider departing Venezuela."

Maduro on Wednesday gave US diplomats 72 hours to leave the country after President Donald Trump, backed by major Latin American nations, said the leftist firebrand was no longer Venezuela's legitimate president.

The United States said it was ignoring the order as it did not believe Maduro was still president and instead recognized as interim leader Juan Guaido, the opposition head of the National Assembly.

But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in an interview Thursday that Maduro -- to whom the military leadership is still loyal -- bore responsibility for the safety of US diplomats.

"There's no higher priority for the State Department than to keep all the people in our missions safe and secure. And we've made clear to the Maduro regime that it is our expectation that they will be safe and secure," he told conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham.

"What we want to make sure that former president Maduro knows is that he doesn't have the right to make the decision about whether or not we stay there," Pompeo said.

State Department officials have not answered questions on how many US personnel remain in Venezuela.

Maduro has also shuttered US missions in the United States.

The United States on Thursday ordered non-emergency embassy staff to leave Venezuela but stopped short of complying with a full expulsion demanded by Nicolas Maduro, who Washington says is no longer president.

The United States on Thursday ordered non-emergency embassy staff to leave Venezuela but stopped short of complying with a full expulsion demanded by Nicolas Maduro, who Washington says is no longer president. The State Department in a notice said it had "ordered non-emergency US government employees to depart Venezuela." "The US government has limited ability to provide emergency services to US citizens in Venezuela," it said. Amid deadly political clashes in the crisis-torn country, the State Department said that US citizens "should strongly consider departing Venezuela." Maduro on Wednesday gave US diplomats 72 hours to leave the country after President Donald Trump, backed by major Latin American nations, said the leftist firebrand was no longer Venezuela's legitimate president. The United States said it was ignoring the order as it did not believe Maduro was still president and instead recognized as interim leader Juan Guaido, the opposition head of the National Assembly. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in an interview Thursday that Maduro -- to whom the military leadership is still loyal -- bore responsibility for the safety of US diplomats. "There's no higher priority for the State Department than to keep all the people in our missions safe and secure. And we've made clear to the Maduro regime that it is our expectation that they will be safe and secure," he told conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham. "What we want to make sure that former president Maduro knows is that he doesn't have the right to make the decision about whether or not we stay there," Pompeo said. State Department officials have not answered questions on how many US personnel remain in Venezuela. Maduro has also shuttered US missions in the United States.

US orders non-emergency embassy staff to leave Venezuela

The US Senate on Thursday blocked dueling plans to reopen shuttered federal agencies, a fresh setback in efforts to end a month-long government shutdown, but President Donald Trump signalled he could back a new proposal if it includes border security.

The legislative deadlock left Congress and the president red-faced and adrift as thousands of federal workers, some reliant on food banks to make ends meet, are about to miss a second paycheck.

But shortly after the votes, a possible way out of the deepening crisis began to take shape, when Senate leaders huddled in private to discuss a proposal to fund lapsed federal agencies for three weeks, to allow for negotiations over border security.

Asked if he would support the plan, discussed in private by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer, Trump was noncommittal, saying he would still want funding for his wall.

"If they come to a reasonable agreement, I would support it," he said, but added: "We have to have a wall in this country."

Trump had backed a Senate measure which would have reopened the government, funded the wall and included some immigration policy changes. It earned 50 votes to 47 against, but it needed 60 to advance.

A competing proposal by Senate Democrats that would open government through February 8 without funding Trump's wall, and leave room for border security negotiations, also failed to move forward by a similar tally.

Trump was already smarting, after being forced into shelving his annual State of the Union address by top Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, until the government is fully operational.

Though politically bruised, Trump stood firm on his demand for billions of dollars in funding for a border wall as part of an overall budget package. 
"We will not Cave!" he tweeted at Pelosi before the Senate votes.

The shutdown is now in its 34th day, with some 800,000 federal workers left unpaid across the country and in US installations abroad -- and the knock-on effects affecting millions more. As acrimony in Washington grew, lawmakers across the political spectrum were left scrambling for an exit strategy for the longest-ever halt to federal operations.

"I don't know what's going to happen next. Nobody knows," warned Senate Republican Richard Shelby. But Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator who often has the president's year, said he discussed with Trump the new proposal gaining traction: a continuing resolution that funds government for three weeks.

"All of us believe that if we had three weeks with the government open, with all the discord coming from a shutdown, that we could find a way forward to produce a bill that he would sign," Graham said on the Senate floor. He added in a tweet that Democratic priorities for disaster relief were also included, "showing good faith from both sides".

The White House stressed the need for at least some money for Trump's border plan. "The three-week CR would only work if there is a large down payment on the wall," press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

Trump has repeatedly called for $5.7 billion in border wall funding, a demand consistently rejected by Democrats including Pelosi. Shortly before the Senate vote she urged Republicans to back the Democratic bid to temporarily open lapsed agencies, allowing for a border security negotiation to proceed. 
"Who can say no to that?" she said. But many did say no, it turns out.

Senator Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, was one of a handful of Republicans who voted for both bills, and he called on congressional leaders and the White House to thrash out their differences quickly. "We can't just have the lack of communication that prevents us from getting to a deal," Romney told reporters.

The air travel industry issued dire warnings, including one from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "In our risk-averse industry, we cannot even calculate the level of risk currently at play, nor predict the point at which the entire system will break," NATCA president Paul Rinaldi said in a statement. "It is unprecedented."

Most Democrats oppose direct funds for wall construction, but some have begun publicly advocating for negotiating a solution that includes boosted border funding, including for border structures.

And Pelosi herself said Thursday that "we will have some of our proposals for what comes next" in upcoming legislation offerings.

The US Senate on Thursday blocked dueling plans to reopen shuttered federal agencies, a fresh setback in efforts to end a month-long government shutdown, but President Donald Trump signalled he could back a new proposal if it includes border security.

The US Senate on Thursday blocked dueling plans to reopen shuttered federal agencies, a fresh setback in efforts to end a month-long government shutdown, but President Donald Trump signalled he could back a new proposal if it includes border security. The legislative deadlock left Congress and the president red-faced and adrift as thousands of federal workers, some reliant on food banks to make ends meet, are about to miss a second paycheck. But shortly after the votes, a possible way out of the deepening crisis began to take shape, when Senate leaders huddled in private to discuss a proposal to fund lapsed federal agencies for three weeks, to allow for negotiations over border security. Asked if he would support the plan, discussed in private by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer, Trump was noncommittal, saying he would still want funding for his wall. "If they come to a reasonable agreement, I would support it," he said, but added: "We have to have a wall in this country." Trump had backed a Senate measure which would have reopened the government, funded the wall and included some immigration policy changes. It earned 50 votes to 47 against, but it needed 60 to advance. A competing proposal by Senate Democrats that would open government through February 8 without funding Trump's wall, and leave room for border security negotiations, also failed to move forward by a similar tally. Trump was already smarting, after being forced into shelving his annual State of the Union address by top Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, until the government is fully operational. Though politically bruised, Trump stood firm on his demand for billions of dollars in funding for a border wall as part of an overall budget package. "We will not Cave!" he tweeted at Pelosi before the Senate votes. The shutdown is now in its 34th day, with some 800,000 federal workers left unpaid across the country and in US installations abroad -- and the knock-on effects affecting millions more. As acrimony in Washington grew, lawmakers across the political spectrum were left scrambling for an exit strategy for the longest-ever halt to federal operations. "I don't know what's going to happen next. Nobody knows," warned Senate Republican Richard Shelby. But Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator who often has the president's year, said he discussed with Trump the new proposal gaining traction: a continuing resolution that funds government for three weeks. "All of us believe that if we had three weeks with the government open, with all the discord coming from a shutdown, that we could find a way forward to produce a bill that he would sign," Graham said on the Senate floor. He added in a tweet that Democratic priorities for disaster relief were also included, "showing good faith from both sides". The White House stressed the need for at least some money for Trump's border plan. "The three-week CR would only work if there is a large down payment on the wall," press secretary Sarah Sanders said. Trump has repeatedly called for $5.7 billion in border wall funding, a demand consistently rejected by Democrats including Pelosi. Shortly before the Senate vote she urged Republicans to back the Democratic bid to temporarily open lapsed agencies, allowing for a border security negotiation to proceed. "Who can say no to that?" she said. But many did say no, it turns out. Senator Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, was one of a handful of Republicans who voted for both bills, and he called on congressional leaders and the White House to thrash out their differences quickly. "We can't just have the lack of communication that prevents us from getting to a deal," Romney told reporters. The air travel industry issued dire warnings, including one from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "In our risk-averse industry, we cannot even calculate the level of risk currently at play, nor predict the point at which the entire system will break," NATCA president Paul Rinaldi said in a statement. "It is unprecedented." Most Democrats oppose direct funds for wall construction, but some have begun publicly advocating for negotiating a solution that includes boosted border funding, including for border structures. And Pelosi herself said Thursday that "we will have some of our proposals for what comes next" in upcoming legislation offerings.

Dueling plans to end US shutdown fail in Senate, talks resume

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday she was ready to meet with <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-do-the-address-when-shutdown-is-over-trump-192426">President Donald Trump</a> any time to discuss an end to the partial government shutdown as lawmakers prepared to vote on various bills to end the standoff.

“He’s the president of the United States. We meet with him any time he wants to meet," Pelosi, the House's top Democrat told reporters at a weekly news conference.

Pelosi also said Democrats were not negotiating any counter-offers behind the scenes and that they were continuing to efforts to reopen the government after finding lapsed December 22.&nbsp;

She said, however, that there would be some border security provisions within legislation Democrats are preparing for funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Pelosi said she was optimistic that Republicans in the Senate will look favourably on a House of Representatives proposal to reopen the government until February 8.&nbsp;

The Senate was to vote on the plan later Thursday. Democrats took control of the House earlier this month following their November election gains.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday she was ready to meet with President Donald Trump any time to discuss an end to the partial government shutdown as lawmakers prepared to vote on various bills to end the standoff.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday she was ready to meet with President Donald Trump any time to discuss an end to the partial government shutdown as lawmakers prepared to vote on various bills to end the standoff. “He’s the president of the United States. We meet with him any time he wants to meet," Pelosi, the House's top Democrat told reporters at a weekly news conference. Pelosi also said Democrats were not negotiating any counter-offers behind the scenes and that they were continuing to efforts to reopen the government after finding lapsed December 22. She said, however, that there would be some border security provisions within legislation Democrats are preparing for funding the Department of Homeland Security. Pelosi said she was optimistic that Republicans in the Senate will look favourably on a House of Representatives proposal to reopen the government until February 8. The Senate was to vote on the plan later Thursday. Democrats took control of the House earlier this month following their November election gains.

Ready to meet Trump anytime over government shutdown: Nancy Pelosi

President Donald Trump's former personal <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/muellers-office-disputes-report-that-trump-told-cohen-to-lie-to-congress-191342">lawyer Michael Cohen</a> is postponing his February 7 testimony to the US Congress because of threats against his family from Trump, his adviser said on Wednesday.

Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to crimes including campaign finance violations during Trump's 2016 election campaign and is cooperating with investigators, had received "ongoing threats against his family from Trump" and Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the adviser, attorney Lanny Davis, said in a statement.

Trump called Cohen a "rat" in a tweet last month for cooperating with prosecutors. Cohen had been Trump's self-described longtime "fixer" and once said he would take a bullet for the New York real estate developer.

In a Fox News interview this month, and other forums, Trump also suggested he had damaging information on Cohen's father-in-law. "That's the one that people want to look at," Trump said in the interview. Giuliani also referred to possible issues with him.

Cohen's father-in-law, Fima Shusterman, could not immediately be reached for comment. He has been involved in the taxicab business like Cohen himself.

Cohen was expected to appear before the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee. A new date has not been scheduled and he will go to a federal prison in March.

During an event at the White House, Trump was asked about Cohen saying he had been threatened by him and Giuliani.

"I would say he's been threatened by the truth. He's only been threatened by the truth," Trump said.

Giuliani told Reuters that the "president's response covers it."

Representative Elijah Cummings, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, both Democrats, said in a statement they understood the concerns for the safety of Cohen and his family in light of the attacks by Trump and Giuliani.

But the lawmakers said they would not "let the President’s tactics prevent Congress" from getting to the truth.

"I promise you that we will hear from Mr Cohen. ... Whatever we have to do to get him here, we're going to do it," Cummings told reporters in a Capitol hallway. He declined to say if that meant a subpoena.

Chicago attorney Andrew Boutros said he was not sure what to make of it all. "Mr Cohen's statement is long on conclusions and short on facts and details," said Boutros, a former federal prosecutor.

Cohen was sentenced in December to three years in prison for crimes including orchestrating hush payments to women in violation of campaign laws before the 2016 election. He said in the guilty plea that he was directed to make the payments by Trump. The president and his lawyers have argued the payments were a personal matter unrelated to the election.

Cohen had volunteered to testify before the congressional panel. Davis said Cohen looked forward to testifying at a later date.

President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen is postponing his February 7 testimony to the US Congress because of threats against his family from Trump, his adviser said on Wednesday.

President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen is postponing his February 7 testimony to the US Congress because of threats against his family from Trump, his adviser said on Wednesday. Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to crimes including campaign finance violations during Trump's 2016 election campaign and is cooperating with investigators, had received "ongoing threats against his family from Trump" and Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the adviser, attorney Lanny Davis, said in a statement. Trump called Cohen a "rat" in a tweet last month for cooperating with prosecutors. Cohen had been Trump's self-described longtime "fixer" and once said he would take a bullet for the New York real estate developer. In a Fox News interview this month, and other forums, Trump also suggested he had damaging information on Cohen's father-in-law. "That's the one that people want to look at," Trump said in the interview. Giuliani also referred to possible issues with him. Cohen's father-in-law, Fima Shusterman, could not immediately be reached for comment. He has been involved in the taxicab business like Cohen himself. Cohen was expected to appear before the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee. A new date has not been scheduled and he will go to a federal prison in March. During an event at the White House, Trump was asked about Cohen saying he had been threatened by him and Giuliani. "I would say he's been threatened by the truth. He's only been threatened by the truth," Trump said. Giuliani told Reuters that the "president's response covers it." Representative Elijah Cummings, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, both Democrats, said in a statement they understood the concerns for the safety of Cohen and his family in light of the attacks by Trump and Giuliani. But the lawmakers said they would not "let the President’s tactics prevent Congress" from getting to the truth. "I promise you that we will hear from Mr Cohen. ... Whatever we have to do to get him here, we're going to do it," Cummings told reporters in a Capitol hallway. He declined to say if that meant a subpoena. Chicago attorney Andrew Boutros said he was not sure what to make of it all. "Mr Cohen's statement is long on conclusions and short on facts and details," said Boutros, a former federal prosecutor. Cohen was sentenced in December to three years in prison for crimes including orchestrating hush payments to women in violation of campaign laws before the 2016 election. He said in the guilty plea that he was directed to make the payments by Trump. The president and his lawyers have argued the payments were a personal matter unrelated to the election. Cohen had volunteered to testify before the congressional panel. Davis said Cohen looked forward to testifying at a later date.

Ex-Trump lawyer Cohen postpones testimony to Congress, citing 'threats'

India on Friday reacted to the recent developments in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-to-close-us-embassy-consulates-maduro-192578">Venezuela</a> and stated that it is "closely following the emerging situation" in the country.

The official spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar, said, "We are of the view that it is for the people of Venezuela to find a political solution to resolve their differences through constructive dialogue and discussion without resorting to violence."

"We believe democracy, peace and security in Venezuela are of paramount importance for the progress and prosperity of the people of Venezuela," Kumar further added.&nbsp;

Venezuela is the 4th largest supplier of crude oil to India.

The MEA's reaction came after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-to-cut-off-money-for-venezuelas-maduro-to-aid-opposition-192613">United States</a>, earlier this week, officially recognised <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-regional-powers-recognise-maduro-opponent-as-venezuela-leader-192345">Juan Guaidó as the interim President</a> of Venezuela and called Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's regime "illegitimate."

In a tweet, US President Donald Trump said, "The citizens of Venezuela have suffered for too long at the hands of the illegitimate Maduro regime. Today, I have officially recognized the President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as the Interim President of Venezuela."

Russia slammed "Washington’s unceremonious actions". The Russia foreign ministry in a statement said, " (it is) another demonstration of its total disregard for the norms and principles of international law and an attempt to pose as the self-imposed master of another nation’s future. The United States is clearly trying to apply a tried and tested regime change scenario in Venezuela."

China also reacted with Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying saying Beijing "supports the efforts made by the Venezuelan government to uphold national sovereignty, independence and stability" and it "always upholds the principle of non-interference in other counties' internal affairs and opposes foreign interference in Venezuela's affairs."&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

India on Friday reacted to the recent developments in Venezuela and stated that it is "closely following the emerging situation" in the country. The official spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar, said, "We are of the view that it is for the people of Venezuela to find a political solution to resolve their differences through constructive dialogue and discussion without resorting to violence.

India on Friday reacted to the recent developments in Venezuela and stated that it is "closely following the emerging situation" in the country. The official spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar, said, "We are of the view that it is for the people of Venezuela to find a political solution to resolve their differences through constructive dialogue and discussion without resorting to violence." "We believe democracy, peace and security in Venezuela are of paramount importance for the progress and prosperity of the people of Venezuela," Kumar further added. Venezuela is the 4th largest supplier of crude oil to India. The MEA's reaction came after the United States, earlier this week, officially recognised Juan Guaidó as the interim President of Venezuela and called Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's regime "illegitimate." In a tweet, US President Donald Trump said, "The citizens of Venezuela have suffered for too long at the hands of the illegitimate Maduro regime. Today, I have officially recognized the President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as the Interim President of Venezuela." Russia slammed "Washington’s unceremonious actions". The Russia foreign ministry in a statement said, " (it is) another demonstration of its total disregard for the norms and principles of international law and an attempt to pose as the self-imposed master of another nation’s future. The United States is clearly trying to apply a tried and tested regime change scenario in Venezuela." China also reacted with Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying saying Beijing "supports the efforts made by the Venezuelan government to uphold national sovereignty, independence and stability" and it "always upholds the principle of non-interference in other counties' internal affairs and opposes foreign interference in Venezuela's affairs."

India reacts to US-Venezuela spat, says differences must be resolved without resorting to violence

The White House is preparing an emergency declaration that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/ready-to-meet-trump-anytime-over-government-shutdown-nancy-pelosi-192580">President Donald Trump</a> could issue as a way to circumvent Congress if lawmakers do not provide funding for a wall along the US southern border, CNN reported on Thursday, citing internal documents.

The draft proclamation was updated as early as last week, a US government official told CNN. CNN said <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-do-the-address-when-shutdown-is-over-trump-192426">Trump's advisers</a> remain divided on the issue.

The report comes as a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced an amendment in the Senate that would temporarily open the US government, which has been partially shut for a record 34 days over Trump's demand for wall funding.

One senator said, however, he did not think the measure contained any wall funding.

Trump has insisted on $5.7 billion for a wall, an idea that was central to his electoral bid and a core part of his hardline policies on illegal immigration.&nbsp;

Democrats have rejected his request, and have instead sought to provide funds for other border security measures.

The official told CNN that among options being considered to pay for a wall were pulling $681 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund, $3.6 billion from military construction funding, $3 billion in Pentagon civil works funds and $200 million in Department of Homeland Security funds.

"We’re looking at all our options" but nothing is imminent, a senior Trump administration official said when asked about the report. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a separate request from Reuters for comment.

If an emergency is declared, the US Army Corps of Engineers would construct the wall, CNN reported.

The documents say that environmental reviews could be skipped and that DHS could use waivers to bypass contracting laws, which could help speed construction.

The White House is preparing an emergency declaration that President Donald Trump could issue as a way to circumvent Congress if lawmakers do not provide funding for a wall along the US southern border, CNN reported on Thursday, citing internal documents.

The White House is preparing an emergency declaration that President Donald Trump could issue as a way to circumvent Congress if lawmakers do not provide funding for a wall along the US southern border, CNN reported on Thursday, citing internal documents. The draft proclamation was updated as early as last week, a US government official told CNN. CNN said Trump's advisers remain divided on the issue. The report comes as a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced an amendment in the Senate that would temporarily open the US government, which has been partially shut for a record 34 days over Trump's demand for wall funding. One senator said, however, he did not think the measure contained any wall funding. Trump has insisted on $5.7 billion for a wall, an idea that was central to his electoral bid and a core part of his hardline policies on illegal immigration. Democrats have rejected his request, and have instead sought to provide funds for other border security measures. The official told CNN that among options being considered to pay for a wall were pulling $681 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund, $3.6 billion from military construction funding, $3 billion in Pentagon civil works funds and $200 million in Department of Homeland Security funds. "We’re looking at all our options" but nothing is imminent, a senior Trump administration official said when asked about the report. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a separate request from Reuters for comment. If an emergency is declared, the US Army Corps of Engineers would construct the wall, CNN reported. The documents say that environmental reviews could be skipped and that DHS could use waivers to bypass contracting laws, which could help speed construction.

White House drafts emergency order that Trump could issue over wall funds: Report

The United States has assured Afghanistan's government that any US troop pullout would not affect the combat abilities of remaining forces, Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah said on Wednesday.

Abdullah said news last month that President Donald Trump was planning to withdraw 5,000 US troops had caused unease in the government, which is battling resurgent Taliban forces who control broad swathes of the country outside the main cities.

Since then, however, US officials had told the Afghan government that no final decision had been made, and that Washington remained committed to supporting Afghan defence and security institutions, he said.

"Of course initially it came with some concerns for all of us," Abdullah told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos.

"Later on, through engagement with their envoys and representatives we learned that even if the (US) withdraws, it would be partial, it would not have an impact on the combat abilities," he said.

He did not say how the United States, if left with fewer than 9,000 troops, would still be able to maintain multiple missions including training Afghan forces, advising them in the field and waging air strikes against the Taliban and other militants.

Trump has been impatient for progress in ending the 17-year war in Afghanistan, where more than 2,400 US forces have died.

The United States sent troops to Afghanistan after the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, and overthrew its Taliban rulers, who had hosted Osama bin Laden's organisation.

At its peak the US deployment involved more than 100,000 troops, but Washington withdrew most in 2014 and now has around 14,000 troops in the country as part of a NATO-led mission aiding Afghan security forces and hunting militants.

"The presence will not come to an end - only if there is peace in Afghanistan," Abdullah said. "So those details which came out later on kept us assured to some extent."

Abdullah, who is standing in Afghanistan's presidential election in July, defended his alliance with General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who has been accused of serious human rights abuses. He said Dostum's Junbish-i Milli party had strong support in northern Afghanistan.

"You cannot ignore part of the population because there are allegations against this person or that person," he said. "We can’t just wish people away."

Abdullah is challenging President Ashraf Ghani, who defeated him in a 2014 election which Abdullah said was marred by fraud. They later agreed to form a national unity government with Ghani as president and Abdullah as chief executive officer.

This year's vote "has to be clean," Abdullah said. "The flaws of the previous election have to be corrected. Am I absolutely confident that this will be transparent as we would expect? That’s difficult to judge at this stage."

The United States has assured Afghanistan's government that any US troop pullout would not affect the combat abilities of remaining forces, Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah said on Wednesday.

The United States has assured Afghanistan's government that any US troop pullout would not affect the combat abilities of remaining forces, Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah said on Wednesday. Abdullah said news last month that President Donald Trump was planning to withdraw 5,000 US troops had caused unease in the government, which is battling resurgent Taliban forces who control broad swathes of the country outside the main cities. Since then, however, US officials had told the Afghan government that no final decision had been made, and that Washington remained committed to supporting Afghan defence and security institutions, he said. "Of course initially it came with some concerns for all of us," Abdullah told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos. "Later on, through engagement with their envoys and representatives we learned that even if the (US) withdraws, it would be partial, it would not have an impact on the combat abilities," he said. He did not say how the United States, if left with fewer than 9,000 troops, would still be able to maintain multiple missions including training Afghan forces, advising them in the field and waging air strikes against the Taliban and other militants. Trump has been impatient for progress in ending the 17-year war in Afghanistan, where more than 2,400 US forces have died. The United States sent troops to Afghanistan after the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, and overthrew its Taliban rulers, who had hosted Osama bin Laden's organisation. At its peak the US deployment involved more than 100,000 troops, but Washington withdrew most in 2014 and now has around 14,000 troops in the country as part of a NATO-led mission aiding Afghan security forces and hunting militants. "The presence will not come to an end - only if there is peace in Afghanistan," Abdullah said. "So those details which came out later on kept us assured to some extent." Abdullah, who is standing in Afghanistan's presidential election in July, defended his alliance with General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who has been accused of serious human rights abuses. He said Dostum's Junbish-i Milli party had strong support in northern Afghanistan. "You cannot ignore part of the population because there are allegations against this person or that person," he said. "We can’t just wish people away." Abdullah is challenging President Ashraf Ghani, who defeated him in a 2014 election which Abdullah said was marred by fraud. They later agreed to form a national unity government with Ghani as president and Abdullah as chief executive officer. This year's vote "has to be clean," Abdullah said. "The flaws of the previous election have to be corrected. Am I absolutely confident that this will be transparent as we would expect? That’s difficult to judge at this stage."

Afghanistan's CEO says US has reassured on troop pullout

The United States and China are playing Eurasia’s 21st-century 'Great Game' from different but equally skewed maps. While the US map appears to be outdated, the Chinese map portrays a reality that is imagined.

If the skewed realities of both China and the United States have one thing in common, it is in strategist Parag Khanna’s mind the fact that neither realises that the Great Game’s prize, a new world order, has already been determined.

“We are living – for the first time ever -- in a truly multipolar and multicivilisational order in which North America, Europe and Asia each represents a major share of power,” Khanna says in his just-published book, The Future is Asian.

While the United States sees the great game as an open-ended battle for influence in Europe and Asia and looks at Russia as a European rather than a Eurasian power, China overestimates what its future position, aided by its $1 trillion infrastructure and energy-driven Belt and Road initiative, is likely to be.

The skewed perceptions of both the United States and China create spaces for multiple other powers like Russia and various Middle Eastern states to carve out positions of their own.

China, nonetheless, alongside Russia has one advantage. In contrast, to the United States, it adopts the notion put forward by former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macias that the number of the world’s continents is shrinking from seven to six. Increasingly, Europe and Asia no longer see their common landmass as two separate continents and are gravitating towards what Macias calls a “supercontinent.”&nbsp;

Khanna implicitly acknowledges Macias’ notion by concluding that contrary to perceived Chinese expectations “ultimately, China’s position will be not of an Asian or global hegemon but rather of the eastern anchor of the Asian – and Eurasian – mega-system.”

China’s perceived other advantage, its economic and financial muscle, in the juggling for position on the new supercontinent is also proving to be its Achilles Heel.

The belief that the driver of the Belt and Road is geopolitics rather than economics is bolstered by predictions that none of China’s Indian Ocean port projects has much hope of financial success.

A Financial Times study last year concluded that 78 countries targeted by China for project development are among the world’s most risky economies. On a scale of one to seven, the highest level of country risk, Belt and Road countries ranked 5.2, a significantly higher risk than the 3.5 average for emerging markets. They had a median rating by Moody’s, the credit rating agency, that was the equivalent of non-investment junk investment grade.

The risk was reflected on the balance sheets of major Chinese state-owned companies that build, operate and invest in many Belt and Road projects. The study reported that China’s top internationally active construction and engineering contractors were almost four times more highly leveraged than their non-Chinese competitors.

In a bid to avert a financial crisis, the government has ordered state-owned companies to reduce their debt burden, in part by attributing greater importance to the viability of overseas projects.

The risk to China is not purely economic. It is also geopolitical and reputational. Increasingly, China is forced to focus short term less on the Great Game itself and more on countering the negative effect of a growing perception that China’s projection of the Belt and Road as a mutually beneficial proposition is more fantasy than fact.

A growing number of countries, like Pakistan, Malaysia, Myanmar and Nepal, question the benefits of Belt and Road projects and are resisting China’s often onerous commercial and funding terms.

Ironically, China’s immediate rivals in efforts to maintain its status and ensure that it does not lose hard-won ground are not the United States, India or Japan but its newly assertive, geopolitically ambitious friends in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as Iran.

That is nowhere truer than in Pakistan, a Belt and Road crown jewel, where Saudi Arabia and the UAE have exploited to their advantage Chinese irritation with Pakistani demands to shift the emphasis of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from infrastructure and energy to agriculture, job creation and the enabling of third-party investment, primarily from countries in the Gulf.

Chinese chagrin has been evident in China’s hesitancy to respond to Pakistani requests for help in averting a financial crisis.

Filling the gap, massive Saudi and UAE aid and investment to the tune of $30 billion in balance of payment support, deferred oil import payments and investment in the troubled Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders Iran has helped the government of Imran Khan avoid asking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cap in hand to bail it out.

China fears that Pakistan’s mounting dependence on Saudi Arabia and the UAE coupled with a US campaign intended to curb Iran’s regional projection potentially complicates the security of its massive $45 billion-plus investment that to a large extent targets Balochistan.

The United States and Saudi Arabia see Balochistan as a possible launching pad for possible efforts to destabilise the Islamic republic by stirring unrest among its Baloch population and other ethnic minorities.

Increased Saudi and UAE influence in Balochistan could, moreover, suck China into the escalating maelstrom of the two countries’ rivalry with Iran.

Ironically, Saudi and UAE investment has at the same time shielded China from potentially embarrassing disclosure of the financial terms of CPEC-related projects that the IMF was demanding as part of any bailout. Media reports said that Pakistan had informally told the IMF that it would be paying China $40 billion over 20 years for $26.5 billion in Chinese funding of CPEC-related projects.

The impact of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, like much of the rest of the Middle East, goes far beyond Balochistan. It also puts its mark elsewhere on the Eurasian supercontinent. In the words of analyst Galip Dalay, the Middle East or West Asia will, for better or for worse, shape each other.

&nbsp;“The contemporary Middle East is no longer the geopolitically US-centric space that the Europeans once knew. Europe can respond in several ways: proceed with its largely ad-hoc, incoherent and crisis-driven policies of recent years; continue to be incorporated into someone else's game plan, as with the French-German involvement in the Russian-led Astana (peace) process for Syria; or craft a more coherent policy towards the region, with a strong emphasis on democratisation, reform, good governance, inclusion and reconciliation… If Europe doesn’t engage and invest in the transformation of the Middle East, regional developments will dramatically transform it, whether through radicalism, refugees, terrorism, xenophobia or populism. Interactions between Europe and the Middle East will be transformative, for better or for worse.,” Dalay said.

The Middle East is similarly crucial to the success of China’s Belt and Road with Iran and Turkey representing key nodes that further the rise of Eurasia through Chinese-funded rails that link the Atlantic coast of Europe to the People’s Republic.

The Middle East’s impact is one facet of a bigger game in which world and regional powers are competing for the position in Khanna’s multipolar and multicivilisational order.

Robert Malley, a former Obama National Security Council official and head of the International Crisis Group argues that autocratic and authoritarian leaders are testing the limits of the 'Great Game' as the power of Western nations erodes and embattled concepts of multilateralism no longer serve to constrain them.

“As the era of largely uncontested US primacy fades, the international order has been thrown into turmoil. More leaders are tempted more often to test limits, jostle for power, and seek to bolster their influence—or diminish that of their rivals—by meddling in foreign conflicts… Having annexed parts of Georgia and Crimea and stoked separatist violence in Ukraine’s Donbass region, Russia is now throwing its weight around in the Sea of Azov, poisoning dissidents in the United Kingdom, and subverting Western democracies with cyberwarfare. China obstructs freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens… Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Malley said.

By implication, Malley was suggesting that efforts to push the envelope were enabled by the US’ failure to recognise that Europe and Asia were becoming one supercontinent.

That failure was mirrored in the US National Security Strategy published in 2017 by the White House and a study by Rand Corporation in 2018 designed to conceptualise current geopolitics as an era of intensifying international competition.

Rather than recognising an increasingly evident divergence of interests between the United States and Europe, the study suggested that the US would continue to have the opportunity if it chooses, to lead a predominant coalition of value-sharing democracies and other largely status quo states to help preserve stability.”

The study appeared to downplay any divergence by reducing differences to “identity-fuelled nationalism” that aims to recapture (countries’) “rightful place” in world politics,” a reference to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as well as European nations grappling with the rise of nationalist, populist and far-right forces and a Middle East that is shaping Europe through highly emotive issues such as migration, political violence and religious identity.

The US focus on Russia as a European rather than a regional power with global ambitions also means that it underestimates Moscow’s play in the Middle East despite its military intervention in Syria.

Russia national security scholar Stephen Blank argues that President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in the region is rooted in the thinking of Yevgeny Primakov, a Middle East expert and linguist and former spymaster, foreign minister and deputy prime minister, who like Khanna envisioned the emergence of a multi-polar, multi-civilisational world with Eurasia at its centre.

Primakov saw the Middle East as a key arena for countering the United States that would enable Russia, weakened by the demise of the Soviet Union and a subsequent economic crisis, to regain its status as a global and regional power and ensure that it would be one pole in a multi-polar world.

By identifying the region as a preferred battleground, Russia benefitted in the words of historian Niall Ferguson from the fact that its significant oil reserves made it “the only power that has no vested interest in stability in the Middle East.”

Blank argued that “in order to reassert Russia’s greatness, Primakov and Putin aimed ultimately at strategic denial, denying Washington sole possession of a dominant role in the Middle East from where US influence could expand to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),” a regional grouping of post-Soviet nations.

They believed that if Russia succeeded it would force the United States to concede multi-polarity and grant Russia the recognition it deserves. That, in turn, would allow Putin to demonstrate to the Russian elite his ability to restore Russia to great power status.

Syria offered Russia the opportunity to display its military prowess without the United States challenging the move. At the same time, Russia leveraged its political and economic clout to forge an alliance with Turkey and partner with Iran. The approach constituted an effort to defang Turkish and Iranian influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Similarly, Russia after brutally repressing religiously inspired Chechen rebels in the 1990s, was proving to be far defter than either China or the United States at promoting politically pacifist or apolitical Islam in a complex game of playing all sides against the middle.

Russian engagement runs the gamut from engaging with militants to cooperating with Muslim autocrats to encouraging condemnation of the kind of Islam adopted by partners such as Saudi Arabia.

Said Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and a former Russian military officer: “Russia is not the Soviet Union. It does not see the Middle East as a region that it can dominate. Displacing the United States from the leading position in the Middle East is way above Russia’s capacity, and keeping the region in its sphere of influence is way above Russia’s resources. Russia has certainly benefited from waning US interest in the Middle East as, absent an active America, Russia can act with more confidence and ease.”

Describing Russia as “a lonely power,” Trenin went on to say that the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union was that the “Soviet Union was heavily engaged around the Middle East in spending money on an ideological and geopolitical project, the Russian Federation is active in the region trying to make money. The Soviet Union was about an idea. Russia’s idea is about Russia itself.”

In the Great Game’s jostling for position, Trump’s America First approach mirrors Trenin’s portrayal of Russian policy. That leaves China tied up in the contradictions of a policy that is packaged in assertions of lofty ideals but like the United States and Russia is in effect first and foremost about the pursuit of Chinese interests.

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The United States and China are playing Eurasia’s 21st-century 'Great Game' from different but equally skewed maps. While the US map appears to be outdated, the Chinese map portrays a reality that is imagined.

The United States and China are playing Eurasia’s 21st-century 'Great Game' from different but equally skewed maps. While the US map appears to be outdated, the Chinese map portrays a reality that is imagined. If the skewed realities of both China and the United States have one thing in common, it is in strategist Parag Khanna’s mind the fact that neither realises that the Great Game’s prize, a new world order, has already been determined. “We are living – for the first time ever -- in a truly multipolar and multicivilisational order in which North America, Europe and Asia each represents a major share of power,” Khanna says in his just-published book, The Future is Asian. While the United States sees the great game as an open-ended battle for influence in Europe and Asia and looks at Russia as a European rather than a Eurasian power, China overestimates what its future position, aided by its $1 trillion infrastructure and energy-driven Belt and Road initiative, is likely to be. The skewed perceptions of both the United States and China create spaces for multiple other powers like Russia and various Middle Eastern states to carve out positions of their own. China, nonetheless, alongside Russia has one advantage. In contrast, to the United States, it adopts the notion put forward by former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macias that the number of the world’s continents is shrinking from seven to six. Increasingly, Europe and Asia no longer see their common landmass as two separate continents and are gravitating towards what Macias calls a “supercontinent.” Khanna implicitly acknowledges Macias’ notion by concluding that contrary to perceived Chinese expectations “ultimately, China’s position will be not of an Asian or global hegemon but rather of the eastern anchor of the Asian – and Eurasian – mega-system.” China’s perceived other advantage, its economic and financial muscle, in the juggling for position on the new supercontinent is also proving to be its Achilles Heel. The belief that the driver of the Belt and Road is geopolitics rather than economics is bolstered by predictions that none of China’s Indian Ocean port projects has much hope of financial success. A Financial Times study last year concluded that 78 countries targeted by China for project development are among the world’s most risky economies. On a scale of one to seven, the highest level of country risk, Belt and Road countries ranked 5.2, a significantly higher risk than the 3.5 average for emerging markets. They had a median rating by Moody’s, the credit rating agency, that was the equivalent of non-investment junk investment grade. The risk was reflected on the balance sheets of major Chinese state-owned companies that build, operate and invest in many Belt and Road projects. The study reported that China’s top internationally active construction and engineering contractors were almost four times more highly leveraged than their non-Chinese competitors. In a bid to avert a financial crisis, the government has ordered state-owned companies to reduce their debt burden, in part by attributing greater importance to the viability of overseas projects. The risk to China is not purely economic. It is also geopolitical and reputational. Increasingly, China is forced to focus short term less on the Great Game itself and more on countering the negative effect of a growing perception that China’s projection of the Belt and Road as a mutually beneficial proposition is more fantasy than fact. A growing number of countries, like Pakistan, Malaysia, Myanmar and Nepal, question the benefits of Belt and Road projects and are resisting China’s often onerous commercial and funding terms. Ironically, China’s immediate rivals in efforts to maintain its status and ensure that it does not lose hard-won ground are not the United States, India or Japan but its newly assertive, geopolitically ambitious friends in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as Iran. That is nowhere truer than in Pakistan, a Belt and Road crown jewel, where Saudi Arabia and the UAE have exploited to their advantage Chinese irritation with Pakistani demands to shift the emphasis of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from infrastructure and energy to agriculture, job creation and the enabling of third-party investment, primarily from countries in the Gulf. Chinese chagrin has been evident in China’s hesitancy to respond to Pakistani requests for help in averting a financial crisis. Filling the gap, massive Saudi and UAE aid and investment to the tune of $30 billion in balance of payment support, deferred oil import payments and investment in the troubled Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders Iran has helped the government of Imran Khan avoid asking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cap in hand to bail it out. China fears that Pakistan’s mounting dependence on Saudi Arabia and the UAE coupled with a US campaign intended to curb Iran’s regional projection potentially complicates the security of its massive $45 billion-plus investment that to a large extent targets Balochistan. The United States and Saudi Arabia see Balochistan as a possible launching pad for possible efforts to destabilise the Islamic republic by stirring unrest among its Baloch population and other ethnic minorities. Increased Saudi and UAE influence in Balochistan could, moreover, suck China into the escalating maelstrom of the two countries’ rivalry with Iran. Ironically, Saudi and UAE investment has at the same time shielded China from potentially embarrassing disclosure of the financial terms of CPEC-related projects that the IMF was demanding as part of any bailout. Media reports said that Pakistan had informally told the IMF that it would be paying China $40 billion over 20 years for $26.5 billion in Chinese funding of CPEC-related projects. The impact of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, like much of the rest of the Middle East, goes far beyond Balochistan. It also puts its mark elsewhere on the Eurasian supercontinent. In the words of analyst Galip Dalay, the Middle East or West Asia will, for better or for worse, shape each other. “The contemporary Middle East is no longer the geopolitically US-centric space that the Europeans once knew. Europe can respond in several ways: proceed with its largely ad-hoc, incoherent and crisis-driven policies of recent years; continue to be incorporated into someone else's game plan, as with the French-German involvement in the Russian-led Astana (peace) process for Syria; or craft a more coherent policy towards the region, with a strong emphasis on democratisation, reform, good governance, inclusion and reconciliation… If Europe doesn’t engage and invest in the transformation of the Middle East, regional developments will dramatically transform it, whether through radicalism, refugees, terrorism, xenophobia or populism. Interactions between Europe and the Middle East will be transformative, for better or for worse.,” Dalay said. The Middle East is similarly crucial to the success of China’s Belt and Road with Iran and Turkey representing key nodes that further the rise of Eurasia through Chinese-funded rails that link the Atlantic coast of Europe to the People’s Republic. The Middle East’s impact is one facet of a bigger game in which world and regional powers are competing for the position in Khanna’s multipolar and multicivilisational order. Robert Malley, a former Obama National Security Council official and head of the International Crisis Group argues that autocratic and authoritarian leaders are testing the limits of the 'Great Game' as the power of Western nations erodes and embattled concepts of multilateralism no longer serve to constrain them. “As the era of largely uncontested US primacy fades, the international order has been thrown into turmoil. More leaders are tempted more often to test limits, jostle for power, and seek to bolster their influence—or diminish that of their rivals—by meddling in foreign conflicts… Having annexed parts of Georgia and Crimea and stoked separatist violence in Ukraine’s Donbass region, Russia is now throwing its weight around in the Sea of Azov, poisoning dissidents in the United Kingdom, and subverting Western democracies with cyberwarfare. China obstructs freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens… Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Malley said. By implication, Malley was suggesting that efforts to push the envelope were enabled by the US’ failure to recognise that Europe and Asia were becoming one supercontinent. That failure was mirrored in the US National Security Strategy published in 2017 by the White House and a study by Rand Corporation in 2018 designed to conceptualise current geopolitics as an era of intensifying international competition. Rather than recognising an increasingly evident divergence of interests between the United States and Europe, the study suggested that the US would continue to have the opportunity if it chooses, to lead a predominant coalition of value-sharing democracies and other largely status quo states to help preserve stability.” The study appeared to downplay any divergence by reducing differences to “identity-fuelled nationalism” that aims to recapture (countries’) “rightful place” in world politics,” a reference to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as well as European nations grappling with the rise of nationalist, populist and far-right forces and a Middle East that is shaping Europe through highly emotive issues such as migration, political violence and religious identity. The US focus on Russia as a European rather than a regional power with global ambitions also means that it underestimates Moscow’s play in the Middle East despite its military intervention in Syria. Russia national security scholar Stephen Blank argues that President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in the region is rooted in the thinking of Yevgeny Primakov, a Middle East expert and linguist and former spymaster, foreign minister and deputy prime minister, who like Khanna envisioned the emergence of a multi-polar, multi-civilisational world with Eurasia at its centre. Primakov saw the Middle East as a key arena for countering the United States that would enable Russia, weakened by the demise of the Soviet Union and a subsequent economic crisis, to regain its status as a global and regional power and ensure that it would be one pole in a multi-polar world. By identifying the region as a preferred battleground, Russia benefitted in the words of historian Niall Ferguson from the fact that its significant oil reserves made it “the only power that has no vested interest in stability in the Middle East.” Blank argued that “in order to reassert Russia’s greatness, Primakov and Putin aimed ultimately at strategic denial, denying Washington sole possession of a dominant role in the Middle East from where US influence could expand to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),” a regional grouping of post-Soviet nations. They believed that if Russia succeeded it would force the United States to concede multi-polarity and grant Russia the recognition it deserves. That, in turn, would allow Putin to demonstrate to the Russian elite his ability to restore Russia to great power status. Syria offered Russia the opportunity to display its military prowess without the United States challenging the move. At the same time, Russia leveraged its political and economic clout to forge an alliance with Turkey and partner with Iran. The approach constituted an effort to defang Turkish and Iranian influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Similarly, Russia after brutally repressing religiously inspired Chechen rebels in the 1990s, was proving to be far defter than either China or the United States at promoting politically pacifist or apolitical Islam in a complex game of playing all sides against the middle. Russian engagement runs the gamut from engaging with militants to cooperating with Muslim autocrats to encouraging condemnation of the kind of Islam adopted by partners such as Saudi Arabia. Said Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and a former Russian military officer: “Russia is not the Soviet Union. It does not see the Middle East as a region that it can dominate. Displacing the United States from the leading position in the Middle East is way above Russia’s capacity, and keeping the region in its sphere of influence is way above Russia’s resources. Russia has certainly benefited from waning US interest in the Middle East as, absent an active America, Russia can act with more confidence and ease.” Describing Russia as “a lonely power,” Trenin went on to say that the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union was that the “Soviet Union was heavily engaged around the Middle East in spending money on an ideological and geopolitical project, the Russian Federation is active in the region trying to make money. The Soviet Union was about an idea. Russia’s idea is about Russia itself.” In the Great Game’s jostling for position, Trump’s America First approach mirrors Trenin’s portrayal of Russian policy. That leaves China tied up in the contradictions of a policy that is packaged in assertions of lofty ideals but like the United States and Russia is in effect first and foremost about the pursuit of Chinese interests. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US and China's skewed maps complicate 21st century's 'Great Game' in Eurasia

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/democratic-us-senator-gillibrand-to-launch-2020-white-house-bid-190624&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi8ivW1yoXgAhXXfH0KHSSzBKQQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3GlFqFZpl4hCtajNWSiIc9">Democratic</a> leaders in the House of Representatives floated the idea on Wednesday of ending a partial <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/we-cant-pay-informants-fbi-on-us-government-shutdown-192096&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjerIHGyoXgAhXEiHAKHa15CZoQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1DGd83ynw1_zDN_TJqdubc">US government shutdown</a> by giving President Donald Trump most or all of the money he seeks for security along the Mexican border but for items other than the wall he wants.

As a shutdown that has left 800,000 federal workers without pay hit its 33rd day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi essentially disinvited Trump from delivering the annual State of the Union address in the House chamber until the government is fully opened.

Other leaders in the Democratic-controlled House said they were drafting a funding offer they will likely make to Trump in a letter.&nbsp;

Representative James Clyburn, the No&nbsp;3 House Democrat, said Democrats could fulfil Trump's request for $5.7 billion for border security with technological tools such as drones, X-rays and sensors, as well as more border patrol agents.

Representative Steny Hoyer, the No&nbsp;2 House Democrat, said Democrats also would discuss "substantial sums of additional money" for border security as part of a possible deal. He did not say if it would amount to the $5.7 billion sought by Trump.

The Republican president triggered the shutdown last month by demanding money for the wall, opposed by Democrats, as part of any legislation to fund about a quarter of the government.

Clyburn's offer would be a significant monetary increase over bills previously passed by Democrats, which included only about $1.3 billion for this year in additional border security, with none for a wall.

"Using the figure the president put on the table, if his $5.7 billion is about border security then we see ourselves fulfilling that request, only doing it with what I like to call using a smart wall," Clyburn told reporters.

Republican Representative Tom Cole, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters the Democratic proposal could help.

"Any movement, any discussion is helpful," Cole said. "We've got to get past this wall-or-no-wall debate."

The battle over border security and government funding spilt over into a parallel dispute over the president's State of the Union address. Trump sent a letter to Pelosi on Wednesday saying he looked forward to delivering it as scheduled next Tuesday in the House chamber.&nbsp;

Pelosi previously had asked Trump to consider postponing it because security could not be guaranteed during the shutdown.

But Pelosi told Trump on Wednesday the House would not consider a measure authorizing his address until the shutdown ends. "Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when the government has been opened," Pelosi said to Trump in a letter.

In a sign Trump may be bracing for a long shutdown, a senior administration official said agencies without funding had been asked to give the White House a list of programs that could be hurt "within the coming weeks" if the funding lapse continues.

SENATE PLANS VOTES

The US Senate, controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, planned votes for Thursday on competing proposals that face steep odds to end the shutdown.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans a vote on a Democratic proposal that would fund the government for three weeks but does not include the $5.7 billion in partial funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border.

Its prospects appeared grim. The House has passed several similar bills but Trump has rejected legislation that does not include the wall funding. McConnell previously said he would not consider a bill that Trump did not support.

McConnell also planned to hold a vote on legislation that would include wall funding and a temporary extension of protections for "Dreamers," people brought illegally to the United States as children, an offer Trump made on Saturday.&nbsp;

Trump's 2017 plan to rescind protections against deportation for hundreds of thousands of "Dreamers" has been blocked by the courts.

Democrats have dismissed the offer, saying they would not negotiate on border security before reopening the government, and that they would not trade a temporary extension of the immigrants' protections in return for a permanent border wall they have called ineffective, costly and immoral.

Barclays economists said on Wednesday they reduced their outlook on US economic growth in the first quarter to an annualised rate of 2.5 per cent from an earlier projection of 3 per cent as a result of the shutdown.

Furloughed federal workers are struggling to make ends meet during the longest government shutdown in US history. Many have turned to unemployment assistance, food banks, and other support, or have sought new jobs.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives floated the idea on Wednesday of ending a partial US government shutdown by giving President Donald Trump most or all of the money he seeks for security along the Mexican border but for items other than the wall he wants.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives floated the idea on Wednesday of ending a partial US government shutdown by giving President Donald Trump most or all of the money he seeks for security along the Mexican border but for items other than the wall he wants. As a shutdown that has left 800,000 federal workers without pay hit its 33rd day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi essentially disinvited Trump from delivering the annual State of the Union address in the House chamber until the government is fully opened. Other leaders in the Democratic-controlled House said they were drafting a funding offer they will likely make to Trump in a letter. Representative James Clyburn, the No 3 House Democrat, said Democrats could fulfil Trump's request for $5.7 billion for border security with technological tools such as drones, X-rays and sensors, as well as more border patrol agents. Representative Steny Hoyer, the No 2 House Democrat, said Democrats also would discuss "substantial sums of additional money" for border security as part of a possible deal. He did not say if it would amount to the $5.7 billion sought by Trump. The Republican president triggered the shutdown last month by demanding money for the wall, opposed by Democrats, as part of any legislation to fund about a quarter of the government. Clyburn's offer would be a significant monetary increase over bills previously passed by Democrats, which included only about $1.3 billion for this year in additional border security, with none for a wall. "Using the figure the president put on the table, if his $5.7 billion is about border security then we see ourselves fulfilling that request, only doing it with what I like to call using a smart wall," Clyburn told reporters. Republican Representative Tom Cole, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters the Democratic proposal could help. "Any movement, any discussion is helpful," Cole said. "We've got to get past this wall-or-no-wall debate." The battle over border security and government funding spilt over into a parallel dispute over the president's State of the Union address. Trump sent a letter to Pelosi on Wednesday saying he looked forward to delivering it as scheduled next Tuesday in the House chamber. Pelosi previously had asked Trump to consider postponing it because security could not be guaranteed during the shutdown. But Pelosi told Trump on Wednesday the House would not consider a measure authorizing his address until the shutdown ends. "Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when the government has been opened," Pelosi said to Trump in a letter. In a sign Trump may be bracing for a long shutdown, a senior administration official said agencies without funding had been asked to give the White House a list of programs that could be hurt "within the coming weeks" if the funding lapse continues. SENATE PLANS VOTES The US Senate, controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, planned votes for Thursday on competing proposals that face steep odds to end the shutdown. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans a vote on a Democratic proposal that would fund the government for three weeks but does not include the $5.7 billion in partial funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border. Its prospects appeared grim. The House has passed several similar bills but Trump has rejected legislation that does not include the wall funding. McConnell previously said he would not consider a bill that Trump did not support. McConnell also planned to hold a vote on legislation that would include wall funding and a temporary extension of protections for "Dreamers," people brought illegally to the United States as children, an offer Trump made on Saturday. Trump's 2017 plan to rescind protections against deportation for hundreds of thousands of "Dreamers" has been blocked by the courts. Democrats have dismissed the offer, saying they would not negotiate on border security before reopening the government, and that they would not trade a temporary extension of the immigrants' protections in return for a permanent border wall they have called ineffective, costly and immoral. Barclays economists said on Wednesday they reduced their outlook on US economic growth in the first quarter to an annualised rate of 2.5 per cent from an earlier projection of 3 per cent as a result of the shutdown. Furloughed federal workers are struggling to make ends meet during the longest government shutdown in US history. Many have turned to unemployment assistance, food banks, and other support, or have sought new jobs.

Democrats push technology as alternative to Trump wall in shutdown impasse

US President Donald Trump intensified his <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-blocks-pelosi-trip-as-tensions-mount-over-government-shutdown-191083">war of words with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi</a> Wednesday after she effectively blocked him from delivering his annual address in Congress during the government shutdown, now in its 33rd day.

The growing acrimony came on the eve of a pair of US Senate votes that appear unlikely to end the longest-ever shutdown -- and as furloughed federal workers vented their fury on Capitol Hill.

The president and his Republicans still have the better part of a week to resolve differences with Democrats and get federal operations going again, allowing his State of the Union speech to proceed.&nbsp;

But the prospects were dim, with the Senate votes -- one on Trump's plan that includes money for his border wall, the other by Democrats seeking to reopen government before negotiating border security -- bound to fail on Thursday.

Traditionally the president's annual speech, scheduled for next Tuesday, is delivered before a joint session of Congress in the ornate chamber of the House of Representatives.

In an effort to force the hand of Pelosi, who had already urged Trump to reschedule due to shutdown-related security shortcomings, the president wrote to her saying it would be "so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!"

Pelosi, who has become the face of Democratic opposition to Trump in Congress, pushed back, informing the president that the House would not authorize the speech in the chamber.

"Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened," said Pelosi.&nbsp;

The rejection sent Washington's establishment into uncharted territory, and all but forced Trump to retreat over his address.

"The State of the Union speech has been cancelled by Nancy Pelosi because she doesn't want to hear the truth" about border security, Trump told reporters, adding that he is considering an "alternative" for the speech.

"We'll be announcing what we'll do," he said.

'Will work for pay' 
The shutdown, which has seen some 800,000 federal employees left without pay for a month, was triggered by Trump's refusal to sign funding bills in December.&nbsp;

This was in retaliation for the Democrats' refusal to approve funds for extending walls along the US-Mexico border.

With the closure of about one quarter of federal agencies affecting millions of Americans, hundreds of government workers who have not been paid in weeks used the power of protest to publicize their plight, peacefully occupying a congressional office building for several hours.

Some held posters or paper plates with messages including "Will work for pay" and "Do your job -- so Americans can do theirs."

And with no solution in sight, they were bracing for Friday, when they expect to miss their second paycheck in a row.

Trump says he will not reopen government before his wall funding comes through. But he also pointed the finger and Pelosi and her caucus.

"It's really a shame, what's happening with the Democrats," he said. "They've become radicalized."

The votes in the Republican-controlled Senate have the potential to break the impasse, but since both need to clear a 60-vote threshold to advance in the 100-member chamber, their passage is unlikely.&nbsp;

Government shutdowns are a disruptive political ritual that have occurred in various administrations and are almost unique to the American system.&nbsp;

This one is the longest on record, and has left a broad swath of federal workers unpaid -- among them airport security officers, FBI agents, museum workers, US Coast Guard personnel, and Environmental Protection Agency personnel charged with monitoring toxic chemicals or other pollutants.

US President Donald Trump intensified his war of words with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday after she effectively blocked him from delivering his annual address in Congress during the government shutdown, now in its 33rd day.

US President Donald Trump intensified his war of words with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday after she effectively blocked him from delivering his annual address in Congress during the government shutdown, now in its 33rd day. The growing acrimony came on the eve of a pair of US Senate votes that appear unlikely to end the longest-ever shutdown -- and as furloughed federal workers vented their fury on Capitol Hill. The president and his Republicans still have the better part of a week to resolve differences with Democrats and get federal operations going again, allowing his State of the Union speech to proceed. But the prospects were dim, with the Senate votes -- one on Trump's plan that includes money for his border wall, the other by Democrats seeking to reopen government before negotiating border security -- bound to fail on Thursday. Traditionally the president's annual speech, scheduled for next Tuesday, is delivered before a joint session of Congress in the ornate chamber of the House of Representatives. In an effort to force the hand of Pelosi, who had already urged Trump to reschedule due to shutdown-related security shortcomings, the president wrote to her saying it would be "so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!" Pelosi, who has become the face of Democratic opposition to Trump in Congress, pushed back, informing the president that the House would not authorize the speech in the chamber. "Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened," said Pelosi. The rejection sent Washington's establishment into uncharted territory, and all but forced Trump to retreat over his address. "The State of the Union speech has been cancelled by Nancy Pelosi because she doesn't want to hear the truth" about border security, Trump told reporters, adding that he is considering an "alternative" for the speech. "We'll be announcing what we'll do," he said. 'Will work for pay' The shutdown, which has seen some 800,000 federal employees left without pay for a month, was triggered by Trump's refusal to sign funding bills in December. This was in retaliation for the Democrats' refusal to approve funds for extending walls along the US-Mexico border. With the closure of about one quarter of federal agencies affecting millions of Americans, hundreds of government workers who have not been paid in weeks used the power of protest to publicize their plight, peacefully occupying a congressional office building for several hours. Some held posters or paper plates with messages including "Will work for pay" and "Do your job -- so Americans can do theirs." And with no solution in sight, they were bracing for Friday, when they expect to miss their second paycheck in a row. Trump says he will not reopen government before his wall funding comes through. But he also pointed the finger and Pelosi and her caucus. "It's really a shame, what's happening with the Democrats," he said. "They've become radicalized." The votes in the Republican-controlled Senate have the potential to break the impasse, but since both need to clear a 60-vote threshold to advance in the 100-member chamber, their passage is unlikely. Government shutdowns are a disruptive political ritual that have occurred in various administrations and are almost unique to the American system. This one is the longest on record, and has left a broad swath of federal workers unpaid -- among them airport security officers, FBI agents, museum workers, US Coast Guard personnel, and Environmental Protection Agency personnel charged with monitoring toxic chemicals or other pollutants.

Trump forced to 'cancel' State of Union speech

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/trump-will-not-soften-hard-line-on-china-to-make-deal-advisers-192107">President Donald Trump</a> said Tuesday he has told his chief spokeswoman Sarah Sanders "not to bother" with formal media briefings in the White House, because journalists don't cover her fairly.

"The reason Sarah Sanders does not go to the 'podium' much anymore is that the press covers her so rudely &amp; inaccurately, in particular certain members of the press," Trump tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The reason Sarah Sanders does not go to the “podium” much anymore is that the press covers her so rudely &amp; inaccurately, in particular certain members of the press. I told her not to bother, the word gets out anyway! Most will never cover us fairly &amp; hence, the term, Fake News!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1087733867614781446?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"I told her not to bother, the word gets out anyway! Most will never cover us fairly &amp; hence, the term, Fake News!"

The White House briefing room, a keystone of modern presidential messaging, has been largely abandoned under Trump.

The last briefing where Sanders took questions from reporters was on December 18. On January 3, Trump himself made a surprise appearance -- his first at the briefing room podium -- to deliver a statement on border security, but took no questions.

The White House Correspondents Association, which represents journalists covering the president, attacked Trump's statement.

"This retreat from transparency and accountability sets a terrible precedent," said association president Olivier Knox.

Knox called the briefings a way to "highlight that no one in a healthy republic is above being questioned."

Trump complains frequently about what he says is unfair coverage of his presidency. The dispute gets personal, with Trump and his aides occasionally insulting or reprimanding their most disliked journalists in public.

After Trump clashed angrily with CNN reporter Jim Acosta at a press conference in November, the White House briefly withdrew his credentials, before a court ordered them reinstated.

While the regular, formal briefings that were once a presidential staple have petered out, Sanders often meets with reporters in more impromptu settings.

Trump also takes questions frequently, making him unusually accessible.

However, the occasions in the Oval Office or before boarding the Marine One helicopter tend to be hurried and less open to follow-up questions than a real press conference.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he has told his chief spokeswoman Sarah Sanders "not to bother" with formal media briefings in the White House, because journalists don't cover her fairly.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he has told his chief spokeswoman Sarah Sanders "not to bother" with formal media briefings in the White House, because journalists don't cover her fairly. "The reason Sarah Sanders does not go to the 'podium' much anymore is that the press covers her so rudely & inaccurately, in particular certain members of the press," Trump tweeted. The reason Sarah Sanders does not go to the “podium” much anymore is that the press covers her so rudely & inaccurately, in particular certain members of the press. I told her not to bother, the word gets out anyway! Most will never cover us fairly & hence, the term, Fake News! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2019 × "I told her not to bother, the word gets out anyway! Most will never cover us fairly & hence, the term, Fake News!" The White House briefing room, a keystone of modern presidential messaging, has been largely abandoned under Trump. The last briefing where Sanders took questions from reporters was on December 18. On January 3, Trump himself made a surprise appearance -- his first at the briefing room podium -- to deliver a statement on border security, but took no questions. The White House Correspondents Association, which represents journalists covering the president, attacked Trump's statement. "This retreat from transparency and accountability sets a terrible precedent," said association president Olivier Knox. Knox called the briefings a way to "highlight that no one in a healthy republic is above being questioned." Trump complains frequently about what he says is unfair coverage of his presidency. The dispute gets personal, with Trump and his aides occasionally insulting or reprimanding their most disliked journalists in public. After Trump clashed angrily with CNN reporter Jim Acosta at a press conference in November, the White House briefly withdrew his credentials, before a court ordered them reinstated. While the regular, formal briefings that were once a presidential staple have petered out, Sanders often meets with reporters in more impromptu settings. Trump also takes questions frequently, making him unusually accessible. However, the occasions in the Oval Office or before boarding the Marine One helicopter tend to be hurried and less open to follow-up questions than a real press conference.

Trump tells spokeswoman Sarah Sanders 'not to bother' with press briefings

US Supreme Court backs Donald Trump's transgender military ban

FBI agents complained Monday that the month-old <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/without-a-wall-our-country-can-never-have-national-security-says-trump-as-government-shutdown-enters-second-month-192081">US government shutdown</a> is preventing them from paying informants, buying drugs undercover in narcotics busts, and even renewing their own security clearances.

Investigations and prosecutions are suffering from the lack of money to travel to interview witnesses or funds to pay translators, agents are saying, according to Tom O'Connor, president of the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA).

"Every day that the shutdown continues, the operational impediments created by the shutdown get worse and damage our counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations around the globe," said O'Connor, raising the pressure on the White House and Congress to end the shutdown.

The shutdown began on December 22 after President Donald Trump rejected a proposed government funding bill that did not meet his demand for billions of dollars to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.

Since then Trump and Democrats have stuck to their positions, leaving no end in sight for 800,000 federal workers and millions of contract workers furloughed without pay.

Most of the 13,000 FBI special agents still have to work, and O'Connor said a new FBIAA report shows training, investigations and recruitment are all suffering.

Several agents said the dwindling operations resources make it impossible to keep paying tipsters and informants.

"Not being able to pay Confidential Human Sources risks losing them and the information they provide FOREVER. It is not a switch that we can turn on and off," said an unidentified agent from the central part of the US.

One said they cannot get timely subpoenas because many Justice Department lawyers have been furloughed. Another said he doesn't have funds to refill a "cold" phone he uses to talk to sources in a terror investigation.

One bureau reports running out of DNA testing kits, replacement tires for office vehicles and copy paper. And agents deployed abroad say they cannot get repaid for thousands of dollars in expenses, because the back-office staff processing reimbursements is not working.

According to O'Connor, many agents are reporting personal financial strains -- which normally the FBI considers renders them security risks.

"This Friday, nearly 13,000 special agents of the FBI and thousands of professional support employees, will for the second time not receive a paycheck," said O'Connor.

"The FBIAA report makes it absolutely clear that our leaders in Washington must fund the FBI immediately," he said.&nbsp;

FBI agents complained Monday that the month-old US government shutdown is preventing them from paying informants, buying drugs undercover in narcotics busts, and even renewing their own security clearances.

FBI agents complained Monday that the month-old US government shutdown is preventing them from paying informants, buying drugs undercover in narcotics busts, and even renewing their own security clearances. Investigations and prosecutions are suffering from the lack of money to travel to interview witnesses or funds to pay translators, agents are saying, according to Tom O'Connor, president of the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA). "Every day that the shutdown continues, the operational impediments created by the shutdown get worse and damage our counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations around the globe," said O'Connor, raising the pressure on the White House and Congress to end the shutdown. The shutdown began on December 22 after President Donald Trump rejected a proposed government funding bill that did not meet his demand for billions of dollars to build a wall on the US-Mexico border. Since then Trump and Democrats have stuck to their positions, leaving no end in sight for 800,000 federal workers and millions of contract workers furloughed without pay. Most of the 13,000 FBI special agents still have to work, and O'Connor said a new FBIAA report shows training, investigations and recruitment are all suffering. Several agents said the dwindling operations resources make it impossible to keep paying tipsters and informants. "Not being able to pay Confidential Human Sources risks losing them and the information they provide FOREVER. It is not a switch that we can turn on and off," said an unidentified agent from the central part of the US. One said they cannot get timely subpoenas because many Justice Department lawyers have been furloughed. Another said he doesn't have funds to refill a "cold" phone he uses to talk to sources in a terror investigation. One bureau reports running out of DNA testing kits, replacement tires for office vehicles and copy paper. And agents deployed abroad say they cannot get repaid for thousands of dollars in expenses, because the back-office staff processing reimbursements is not working. According to O'Connor, many agents are reporting personal financial strains -- which normally the FBI considers renders them security risks. "This Friday, nearly 13,000 special agents of the FBI and thousands of professional support employees, will for the second time not receive a paycheck," said O'Connor. "The FBIAA report makes it absolutely clear that our leaders in Washington must fund the FBI immediately," he said.

'We can't pay informants': FBI on US government shutdown

As the United States endures the longest shutdown in its history, Americans are getting a taste of life without government.

The absence of some services is clearly visible, such as a buildup of trash at national parks or longer lines at airport security checkpoints.&nbsp;

Others, like those felt primarily by businesses, are less noticeable but arguably more important, such as an inability to get a small business loan or limited service from the IRS, Securities and Exchange Commission and other key agencies.

Collectively they show that government matters. But once the shutdown ends and the memories of the pain and discomfort it caused to begin to fade, the visceral reminder Americans got of this message may fade with it.

As scholars of business and policy, we believe it’s essential that Americans not forget. In fact, the shutdown provides a good opportunity to reflect on the government’s vital role in the free market and find a better balance between regulation and business.

How the shutdown is affecting business

The partial shutdown, in its fifth week, has left about 800,000 government employees either furloughed or working without pay, affecting more than 10 agencies.

This has resulted in the slowing or halting of a great deal of activity, including food safety inspections, initial public offerings on the stock market and the approval of new craft beers.

And these costs are felt by citizens as the risks grow to their food, the environment and other things. Economists warn that long-term impacts could also undermine confidence as businesses, consumers and investors lose faith in political leaders’ ability to make constructive policies.

The White House’s own economists estimate that every week of shutdown reduces growth by 0.13 percentage point, meaning the economy has already taken a hit of half a per cent. If it goes for another week, total costs could exceed $6 billion, which is more than what the president is demanding for his border wall.

And yet Americans won’t even know the actual impact because many of the government workers whose job it is to collect and measure economic activity have been sent home.

Hamilton and public goods

While the shutdown crystallises what the absence of government feels like, the debate over its proper role in business is as old as the American Republic.

For example, Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first Treasury secretary, wrote eloquently about the need for the government to get involved in markets, specifically through the establishment of a national bank. He called it a key public institution that “facilitates and extends the operations of commerce among individuals. The industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state.”

Beyond a central bank, “public goods” often require the protection of a set of laws. Examples include the environment, national defence, national parks, consumer protection and advanced research that helps seed inventions and create the industries of our future.

Author Michael Lewis, in his book “The Fifth Risk,” details many of the important yet little-noticed functions that government agencies handle better than private industry, such as the protection of food safety or the oversight of spent nuclear resources. Further, he shows how a functioning economy depends on civil servants using the best data and science available to provide vital services to all Americans.

To offer just one example of the federal government’s positive role in fostering innovation, its creation of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 1957 gave us the internet, GPS, stealth aircraft and countless other technologies used in non-defence sectors today.

On the flip side, the absence of proper regulation can lead to serious economic and personal damage, as we saw during the global financial crisis a decade ago. And only government – through regulatory agencies and smartly designed laws – is in a position to prevent another crisis. Indeed, fears are growing that another one may be on the horizon as a result of Wall Street excesses or financial bubbles in housing or debt.

The point is that in all these cases, the question is not about “no government” but about how much, what kind and which level (state or federal).

Americans’ evolving views

It’s good news in our opinion that Americans seem to be increasingly abandoning the view that government should stay out of business and the market. And more are embracing an expanded role.

In 2011, half of Americans polled by Gallup said there’s “too much” regulation. The latest survey, taken in late 2018, found that just 39 per cent felt that way – the lowest in a decade – with a growing share saying that the balance is “just right.”

This comes at a time when the Trump administration is boasting about the number of regulations it has eliminated. Yet these surveys suggest Americans don’t simply want fewer regulations, they want better ones.

Even more encouraging in our view is a Cato survey from 2017 that found that large majorities of Americans “believe regulations, at least in the past, have produced positive benefits” and that “regulations can help make businesses more responsive to people’s needs.”

One area where people see a value in government regulation is the financial sector, which is seen as rapacious and in need of more monitoring.

And 1 in 4 Americans surveyed by Gallup said there’s “too little” regulation, a figure that hasn’t changed much in recent years. This suggests that a notable number of Americans don’t trust the private sector and think that government is necessary to curb market excess and other problems.

Toward a better balance

But instead of a debate over the right balance for the government, American politicians and others have denigrated government as “the problem” or, more recently, “the swamp.” The terms are meant to say that government is alternatively inept, obstructive or corrupt.

They do this to take advantage of the still too widespread view that government has no role in markets and that regulation represents an unwarranted intrusion on business. This is a misperception that dismays both of us, motivating the very article you are reading.

While there certainly are problems with special interest influence in government and bureaucratic inefficiency, the enterprise as a whole remains central to the operation of capitalism and the markets. After all, capitalism is a set of institutions designed by the government in concert with business and civil society.

As National Affairs editor Yuval Levin points out, even Adam Smith, the Scottish economist who wrote the foundational texts on capitalism, argued that “the rules of the market are not self-legislating or naturally obvious.” Rather, Smith said, the market is a public institution that requires rules imposed on it.

So we believe it is time to return to the basics and launch a new effort at reinventing government to improve how the various branches and levels interact with each other and the market.

At the same time, it’s important to provide more public education on what the government does, and why, and solicit feedback from citizens on how to do it better – including at the ballot box.

(Andrew J Hoffman is Holcim (US) Professor, University of Michigan; Ellen Hughes-Cromwick is Senior Economist and Associate Director of Social Science and Policy, University of Michigan Energy Institute)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/shutdowns-economic-impact-is-a-forceful-reminder-of-why-government-matters-105940">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

As the United States endures the longest shutdown in its history, Americans are getting a taste of life without government. The absence of some services is clearly visible, such as a buildup of trash at national parks or longer lines at airport security checkpoints.

As the United States endures the longest shutdown in its history, Americans are getting a taste of life without government. The absence of some services is clearly visible, such as a buildup of trash at national parks or longer lines at airport security checkpoints. Others, like those felt primarily by businesses, are less noticeable but arguably more important, such as an inability to get a small business loan or limited service from the IRS, Securities and Exchange Commission and other key agencies. Collectively they show that government matters. But once the shutdown ends and the memories of the pain and discomfort it caused to begin to fade, the visceral reminder Americans got of this message may fade with it. As scholars of business and policy, we believe it’s essential that Americans not forget. In fact, the shutdown provides a good opportunity to reflect on the government’s vital role in the free market and find a better balance between regulation and business. How the shutdown is affecting business The partial shutdown, in its fifth week, has left about 800,000 government employees either furloughed or working without pay, affecting more than 10 agencies. This has resulted in the slowing or halting of a great deal of activity, including food safety inspections, initial public offerings on the stock market and the approval of new craft beers. And these costs are felt by citizens as the risks grow to their food, the environment and other things. Economists warn that long-term impacts could also undermine confidence as businesses, consumers and investors lose faith in political leaders’ ability to make constructive policies. The White House’s own economists estimate that every week of shutdown reduces growth by 0.13 percentage point, meaning the economy has already taken a hit of half a per cent. If it goes for another week, total costs could exceed $6 billion, which is more than what the president is demanding for his border wall. And yet Americans won’t even know the actual impact because many of the government workers whose job it is to collect and measure economic activity have been sent home. Hamilton and public goods While the shutdown crystallises what the absence of government feels like, the debate over its proper role in business is as old as the American Republic. For example, Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first Treasury secretary, wrote eloquently about the need for the government to get involved in markets, specifically through the establishment of a national bank. He called it a key public institution that “facilitates and extends the operations of commerce among individuals. The industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state.” Beyond a central bank, “public goods” often require the protection of a set of laws. Examples include the environment, national defence, national parks, consumer protection and advanced research that helps seed inventions and create the industries of our future. Author Michael Lewis, in his book “The Fifth Risk,” details many of the important yet little-noticed functions that government agencies handle better than private industry, such as the protection of food safety or the oversight of spent nuclear resources. Further, he shows how a functioning economy depends on civil servants using the best data and science available to provide vital services to all Americans. To offer just one example of the federal government’s positive role in fostering innovation, its creation of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in 1957 gave us the internet, GPS, stealth aircraft and countless other technologies used in non-defence sectors today. On the flip side, the absence of proper regulation can lead to serious economic and personal damage, as we saw during the global financial crisis a decade ago. And only government – through regulatory agencies and smartly designed laws – is in a position to prevent another crisis. Indeed, fears are growing that another one may be on the horizon as a result of Wall Street excesses or financial bubbles in housing or debt. The point is that in all these cases, the question is not about “no government” but about how much, what kind and which level (state or federal). Americans’ evolving views It’s good news in our opinion that Americans seem to be increasingly abandoning the view that government should stay out of business and the market. And more are embracing an expanded role. In 2011, half of Americans polled by Gallup said there’s “too much” regulation. The latest survey, taken in late 2018, found that just 39 per cent felt that way – the lowest in a decade – with a growing share saying that the balance is “just right.” This comes at a time when the Trump administration is boasting about the number of regulations it has eliminated. Yet these surveys suggest Americans don’t simply want fewer regulations, they want better ones. Even more encouraging in our view is a Cato survey from 2017 that found that large majorities of Americans “believe regulations, at least in the past, have produced positive benefits” and that “regulations can help make businesses more responsive to people’s needs.” One area where people see a value in government regulation is the financial sector, which is seen as rapacious and in need of more monitoring. And 1 in 4 Americans surveyed by Gallup said there’s “too little” regulation, a figure that hasn’t changed much in recent years. This suggests that a notable number of Americans don’t trust the private sector and think that government is necessary to curb market excess and other problems. Toward a better balance But instead of a debate over the right balance for the government, American politicians and others have denigrated government as “the problem” or, more recently, “the swamp.” The terms are meant to say that government is alternatively inept, obstructive or corrupt. They do this to take advantage of the still too widespread view that government has no role in markets and that regulation represents an unwarranted intrusion on business. This is a misperception that dismays both of us, motivating the very article you are reading. While there certainly are problems with special interest influence in government and bureaucratic inefficiency, the enterprise as a whole remains central to the operation of capitalism and the markets. After all, capitalism is a set of institutions designed by the government in concert with business and civil society. As National Affairs editor Yuval Levin points out, even Adam Smith, the Scottish economist who wrote the foundational texts on capitalism, argued that “the rules of the market are not self-legislating or naturally obvious.” Rather, Smith said, the market is a public institution that requires rules imposed on it. So we believe it is time to return to the basics and launch a new effort at reinventing government to improve how the various branches and levels interact with each other and the market. At the same time, it’s important to provide more public education on what the government does, and why, and solicit feedback from citizens on how to do it better – including at the ballot box. (Andrew J Hoffman is Holcim (US) Professor, University of Michigan; Ellen Hughes-Cromwick is Senior Economist and Associate Director of Social Science and Policy, University of Michigan Energy Institute) (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)

Shutdown’s economic impact is a forceful reminder of why government matter

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump enforce his policy barring certain transgender people from joining or staying in the military as the justices put on hold lower court rulings blocking the plan on constitutional grounds.

The conservative-majority granted the Trump administration's request to lift injunctions issued by federal judges against the policy while a legal challenge continues in lower courts.

Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have kept the injunctions in place blocking the policy. The justices refused the administration's request for them to decide the merits of the legal fight even before a California-based federal appeals court already considering the matter is given a chance to rule.

The lawsuits challenging the policy were filed in 2017 by civil liberties and gay and transgender rights groups on behalf of current transgender military service members, including some deployed overseas with decades of experience in the armed forces, and transgender people aspiring to join the military.

Trump in 2017 announced a plan to ban transgender people from the military, moving to reverse a policy announced a year earlier under Democratic former President Barack Obama allowing them for the first time to serve openly and receive medical care to transition genders.

Trump, whose administration also has taken other steps to limit the rights of transgender Americans, cited the "tremendous medical costs and disruption" of having transgender military personnel.

Trump in March 2018 announced he would endorse a plan by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that replaced the ban on all transgender people.

The revised policy would ban the service of transgender people who seek or have undergone gender transition steps. It also would ban under certain circumstances transgender people who experience gender dysphoria, a condition the American Psychiatric Association defines as clinically significant distress due to "a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender" and the individual's gender identity.

Federal courts blocked the administration's policy, finding that it likely violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Various injunctions allowed transgender troops to join the armed forces as of Jan. 1, 2018.

Though another injunction issued by a judge in Maryland was not on appeal, the administration said in court papers the high court's action would apply to that one, too.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump enforce his policy barring certain transgender people from joining or staying in the military as the justices put on hold lower court rulings blocking the plan on constitutional grounds.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump enforce his policy barring certain transgender people from joining or staying in the military as the justices put on hold lower court rulings blocking the plan on constitutional grounds. The conservative-majority granted the Trump administration's request to lift injunctions issued by federal judges against the policy while a legal challenge continues in lower courts. Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have kept the injunctions in place blocking the policy. The justices refused the administration's request for them to decide the merits of the legal fight even before a California-based federal appeals court already considering the matter is given a chance to rule. The lawsuits challenging the policy were filed in 2017 by civil liberties and gay and transgender rights groups on behalf of current transgender military service members, including some deployed overseas with decades of experience in the armed forces, and transgender people aspiring to join the military. Trump in 2017 announced a plan to ban transgender people from the military, moving to reverse a policy announced a year earlier under Democratic former President Barack Obama allowing them for the first time to serve openly and receive medical care to transition genders. Trump, whose administration also has taken other steps to limit the rights of transgender Americans, cited the "tremendous medical costs and disruption" of having transgender military personnel. Trump in March 2018 announced he would endorse a plan by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that replaced the ban on all transgender people. The revised policy would ban the service of transgender people who seek or have undergone gender transition steps. It also would ban under certain circumstances transgender people who experience gender dysphoria, a condition the American Psychiatric Association defines as clinically significant distress due to "a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender" and the individual's gender identity. Federal courts blocked the administration's policy, finding that it likely violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Various injunctions allowed transgender troops to join the armed forces as of Jan. 1, 2018. Though another injunction issued by a judge in Maryland was not on appeal, the administration said in court papers the high court's action would apply to that one, too.

US Supreme Court allows Trump military transgender ban to go into effect

A model from Belarus who claimed to have evidence of Russian interference in US&nbsp;President<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-made-over-8000-false-or-misleading-claims-since-taking-office-report-191961"> Donald Trump</a>'s election was freed from Russian police custody on Tuesday but remains a suspect in an unrelated criminal case, Reuters reported quoting TASS news agency.

Anastasia Vashukevich and three others were detained upon arrival at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on Thursday after being deported from Thailand.

Russian authorities have said they suspect her of forcing women into prostitution, a charge that carries a jail sentence of up to three years.

Vashukevich,&nbsp;who is also known as Nastya Rybka, became subject of world attention&nbsp;last February when she claimed that she had hours of audio recordings that could shed light on links between Russian officials and Trump's election in 2016.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russian-model-claims-putins-henchmen-tried-to-kill-her-166790">Russian model claims 'Putin's henchmen' tried to kill her</a>

She offered to release the recordings in exchange for asylum in the United States but never produced evidence to substantiate her claim and later said she had no plans to release anything.

Vashukevich has&nbsp;said that she has the recordings&nbsp;through an association with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska's representatives have accused her of fabrication and said she was never his mistress.

Deripaska is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and is a onetime associate of Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

US intelligence agencies have concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to boost Trump's chances of winning. Russia has denied meddling and Trump has said no collusion took place.

(With inputs from agencies)

A model from Belarus who claimed to have evidence of Russian interference in US President Donald Trump's election was freed from Russian police custody on Tuesday but remains a suspect in an unrelated criminal case, Reuters reported quoting TASS news agency.

A model from Belarus who claimed to have evidence of Russian interference in US President Donald Trump's election was freed from Russian police custody on Tuesday but remains a suspect in an unrelated criminal case, Reuters reported quoting TASS news agency. Anastasia Vashukevich and three others were detained upon arrival at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on Thursday after being deported from Thailand. Russian authorities have said they suspect her of forcing women into prostitution, a charge that carries a jail sentence of up to three years. Vashukevich, who is also known as Nastya Rybka, became subject of world attention last February when she claimed that she had hours of audio recordings that could shed light on links between Russian officials and Trump's election in 2016. Also read: Russian model claims 'Putin's henchmen' tried to kill her She offered to release the recordings in exchange for asylum in the United States but never produced evidence to substantiate her claim and later said she had no plans to release anything. Vashukevich has said that she has the recordings through an association with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska's representatives have accused her of fabrication and said she was never his mistress. Deripaska is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and is a onetime associate of Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort. US intelligence agencies have concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to boost Trump's chances of winning. Russia has denied meddling and Trump has said no collusion took place. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia frees model who claimed to have evidence of Trump-Putin secrets: Report

Democrats in the US House of Representatives have quietly tweaked a rule on taking secret depositions that is likely to give a boost to their investigations of President Donald Trump, his personal finances and his administration.

The little-noticed change, made since the Democrats took over majority control of the House earlier this month, will let staffers of House investigative committees take testimony from subpoenaed witnesses without a lawmaker being present.

By eliminating complications with lawmakers' schedules, the change will let staffers work faster and range more widely said former staffers and sources inside the committees that are launching several inquiries into Trump and his presidency.

The importance of this was underscored, legal experts said when attorney general nominee William Barr indicated last week that he was unlikely to release the final report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lawmakers in its original format.

Mueller has been probing for many months Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, any collusion between Moscow and Trump's campaign, and obstruction of justice. If Barr is confirmed and holds back on Mueller's report, the rule change may help House investigators rapidly replicate Mueller's work.

"Dropping the member requirement will give much more power to staff investigators in different committees, which will lead to increasingly dispersed and now unsupervised authority for investigations," said Kristina Moore, a managing director at FTI Consulting and a former investigator for the House Oversight Committee when it was chaired by Republican Darrell Issa.

"This change to the House rules represents a further expansion of the majority's oversight and investigations targets, for which everyone in the private sector needs to prepare," Moore said.

The government shutdown caused by a standoff between Trump and Democrats over his proposed US-Mexico border wall has been centre-stage in Washington for weeks, but Democrats have been moving ahead on plans to probe Trump and his administration.

On February 7, former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify to the House Oversight Committee, now chaired by Democrat Elijah Cummings. On the next day, acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is slated to testify to the House Judiciary Committee.

Change from Republican rule

When the Republicans controlled the House, up until early January, a lawmaker from the committee that issued the subpoena had to be present for a witness deposition. That sometimes presented challenges, said current and former aides.

For example, when witnesses in New York were being interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee over the past two years, lawmakers had to travel with staff to conduct the questioning, one aide said.

Getting lawmakers to sit through long interviews of low-profile witnesses, even ones with valuable information could also be difficult, the aide said.

The rule change was requested by the House Oversight Committee, said several congressional aides said. But it will also affect the work of other investigative panels, such as the Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

Andy Wright, former associate counsel to President Barack Obama, said the heads of the House investigative committees will be able to subpoena all the witnesses who gave grand jury testimony for Mueller.

"So now a subpoena for deposition can be conducted by staff," he said. "More depositions in a shorter time and fewer steps between request and contempt."

Democrats in the US House of Representatives have quietly tweaked a rule on taking secret depositions that is likely to give a boost to their investigations of President Donald Trump, his personal finances and his administration.

Democrats in the US House of Representatives have quietly tweaked a rule on taking secret depositions that is likely to give a boost to their investigations of President Donald Trump, his personal finances and his administration. The little-noticed change, made since the Democrats took over majority control of the House earlier this month, will let staffers of House investigative committees take testimony from subpoenaed witnesses without a lawmaker being present. By eliminating complications with lawmakers' schedules, the change will let staffers work faster and range more widely said former staffers and sources inside the committees that are launching several inquiries into Trump and his presidency. The importance of this was underscored, legal experts said when attorney general nominee William Barr indicated last week that he was unlikely to release the final report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lawmakers in its original format. Mueller has been probing for many months Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, any collusion between Moscow and Trump's campaign, and obstruction of justice. If Barr is confirmed and holds back on Mueller's report, the rule change may help House investigators rapidly replicate Mueller's work. "Dropping the member requirement will give much more power to staff investigators in different committees, which will lead to increasingly dispersed and now unsupervised authority for investigations," said Kristina Moore, a managing director at FTI Consulting and a former investigator for the House Oversight Committee when it was chaired by Republican Darrell Issa. "This change to the House rules represents a further expansion of the majority's oversight and investigations targets, for which everyone in the private sector needs to prepare," Moore said. The government shutdown caused by a standoff between Trump and Democrats over his proposed US-Mexico border wall has been centre-stage in Washington for weeks, but Democrats have been moving ahead on plans to probe Trump and his administration. On February 7, former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify to the House Oversight Committee, now chaired by Democrat Elijah Cummings. On the next day, acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is slated to testify to the House Judiciary Committee. Change from Republican rule When the Republicans controlled the House, up until early January, a lawmaker from the committee that issued the subpoena had to be present for a witness deposition. That sometimes presented challenges, said current and former aides. For example, when witnesses in New York were being interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee over the past two years, lawmakers had to travel with staff to conduct the questioning, one aide said. Getting lawmakers to sit through long interviews of low-profile witnesses, even ones with valuable information could also be difficult, the aide said. The rule change was requested by the House Oversight Committee, said several congressional aides said. But it will also affect the work of other investigative panels, such as the Intelligence and Judiciary committees. Andy Wright, former associate counsel to President Barack Obama, said the heads of the House investigative committees will be able to subpoena all the witnesses who gave grand jury testimony for Mueller. "So now a subpoena for deposition can be conducted by staff," he said. "More depositions in a shorter time and fewer steps between request and contempt."

US House Democrats tweaks rule of taking secret depositions to boost Trump probes

Over hundreds of academics, former diplomats and activists have written an open letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping calling for the release of two Canadians arrested on national security grounds, news agency AFP reported on Tuesday.

The tension between<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-says-detained-canadian-lacks-diplomatic-immunity-190233"> China and Canada</a> intensified recently after the authorities arrested Huawei Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver airport for allegedly violating Iran sanctions imposed by the US.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/canadian-government-banning-huawei-5g-network-will-have-repercussions-china-191217">Canadian government banning Huawei 5G network will have repercussions, says China</a>

Following the CFO's arrest, China detained former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor on December 10.&nbsp;

They were arrested for endangering "China's national security".&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/strongly-urge-us-to-immediately-drop-extradition-request-for-huaweis-meng-wanzhou-china-192033">Strongly urge </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/strongly-urge-us-to-immediately-drop-extradition-request-for-huaweis-meng-wanzhou-china-192033">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/strongly-urge-us-to-immediately-drop-extradition-request-for-huaweis-meng-wanzhou-china-192033"> to immediately drop extradition request for Huawei's Meng Wanzhou, says China</a>

Contradicting with China's claims, the letter written in English and Chinese, said that both Kovrig and Spavor worked to improve understanding between China and Canada and promoted better relations with the world.&nbsp;

"Kovrig and Savor's detentions send a message that this kind of constructive work is unwelcome and even risky in China," read the page-long letter, which had 143 signatories from 19 countries. 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
According to the report, China, however, has reacted angrily to the letter.&nbsp;

AFP quoted foreign ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying calling the letter "great disrespectful" to the country. &nbsp;&nbsp;She also said that it interferes with China's sovereignty and judicial process.

The missive was signed by six former Canadian ambassadors to China: Fred Bild, Joseph Caron, Earl Drake, David Mulroney, Guy Saint-Jacques and Robert Wright; former US ambassadors Gary Locke and Winston Lord; and Hong Kong's last British governor Chris Patten.

Former ambassadors to China from Germany, Mexico, Britain and Sweden also lent their names, along with many of the world's leading China academics, AFP reported.

The tension between Beijing and Ottawa also escalated quickly after a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/hostage-politics-death-sentence-heightens-china-canada-tensions-190522"> Chinese court sentenced a Canadian person to death </a>on drugs trafficking charges.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-formally-seek-extradition-of-huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-globe-and-mail-191936">David MacNaughton,</a> in an interview with the Canadian newspaper published on Monday, said the US has told Canada it will request Meng's extradition, but he did not say when the request will be made. The deadline for filing is January 30, or 60 days after Meng was arrested on December 1 in Vancouver.

Meng, the daughter of Huawei Technologies Co Ltd founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested at the request of the United States over alleged violations of US sanctions on Iran. She was released on bail last month and is due in court in Vancouver on February 6.

(With inputs from agencies)

Over hundreds of academics, former diplomats and activists have written an open letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping calling for the release of two Canadians arrested on national security grounds, news agency AFP reported on Tuesday.

Over hundreds of academics, former diplomats and activists have written an open letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping calling for the release of two Canadians arrested on national security grounds, news agency AFP reported on Tuesday. The tension between China and Canada intensified recently after the authorities arrested Huawei Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou at Vancouver airport for allegedly violating Iran sanctions imposed by the US. Also read: Canadian government banning Huawei 5G network will have repercussions, says China Following the CFO's arrest, China detained former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor on December 10. They were arrested for endangering "China's national security". Also read: Strongly urge US to immediately drop extradition request for Huawei's Meng Wanzhou, says China Contradicting with China's claims, the letter written in English and Chinese, said that both Kovrig and Spavor worked to improve understanding between China and Canada and promoted better relations with the world. "Kovrig and Savor's detentions send a message that this kind of constructive work is unwelcome and even risky in China," read the page-long letter, which had 143 signatories from 19 countries. According to the report, China, however, has reacted angrily to the letter. AFP quoted foreign ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying calling the letter "great disrespectful" to the country. She also said that it interferes with China's sovereignty and judicial process. The missive was signed by six former Canadian ambassadors to China: Fred Bild, Joseph Caron, Earl Drake, David Mulroney, Guy Saint-Jacques and Robert Wright; former US ambassadors Gary Locke and Winston Lord; and Hong Kong's last British governor Chris Patten. Former ambassadors to China from Germany, Mexico, Britain and Sweden also lent their names, along with many of the world's leading China academics, AFP reported. The tension between Beijing and Ottawa also escalated quickly after a Chinese court sentenced a Canadian person to death on drugs trafficking charges. Meanwhile, David MacNaughton, in an interview with the Canadian newspaper published on Monday, said the US has told Canada it will request Meng's extradition, but he did not say when the request will be made. The deadline for filing is January 30, or 60 days after Meng was arrested on December 1 in Vancouver. Meng, the daughter of Huawei Technologies Co Ltd founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested at the request of the United States over alleged violations of US sanctions on Iran. She was released on bail last month and is due in court in Vancouver on February 6. (With inputs from agencies)

Ex-Diplomats, scholars write open letter to President Xi Jinping urging release of detained Canadians in China

One of 20 undeclared ballistic missile operating bases in&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-asks-north-korea-to-stop-missile-tests-tells-us-and-south-to-seek-talks-13161?amp">North Korea</a> serves as a missile headquarters, according to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published on Monday.

"The Sino-ri missile operating base and the Nodong missiles deployed at this location fit into North Korea's presumed nuclear military strategy by providing an operational-level nuclear or conventional first strike capability," the report said.

The discovery of an undeclared missile headquarters comes three days after US President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he "looks forward" to another summit to discuss denuclearization with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in late February.

CSIS, which last reported on the 20 undeclared bases in November, said the Sino-ri base has never been declared by North Korea and as a result "does not appear to be the subject of denuclearization negotiations."

The report noted that missile operating bases would presumably be subject to declaration, verification, and dismantlement in any denuclearization deal.

"The North Koreans are not going to negotiate over things they don't disclose," said Victor Cha, one of the authors of the report. "It looks like they're playing a game. They're still going to have all this operational capability," even if they destroy their disclosed nuclear facilities.

Located 132 miles (212 kilometers) north of the demilitarized zone, the Sino-ri complex is a seven-square-mile (18-square-km) base that plays a key role in developing ballistic missiles capable of reaching South Korea, Japan, and even the US territory of Guam in the Western Pacific, the report said.

It houses a regiment-sized unit equipped with Nodong-1 medium-range ballistic missiles, the report added.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Satellite images of the base from December 27, 2018 show an entrance to an underground bunker, reinforced shelters and a headquarters, the report said.

One of 20 undeclared ballistic missile operating bases in North Korea serves as a missile headquarters, according to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published on Monday.

One of 20 undeclared ballistic missile operating bases in North Korea serves as a missile headquarters, according to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published on Monday. "The Sino-ri missile operating base and the Nodong missiles deployed at this location fit into North Korea's presumed nuclear military strategy by providing an operational-level nuclear or conventional first strike capability," the report said. The discovery of an undeclared missile headquarters comes three days after US President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he "looks forward" to another summit to discuss denuclearization with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in late February. CSIS, which last reported on the 20 undeclared bases in November, said the Sino-ri base has never been declared by North Korea and as a result "does not appear to be the subject of denuclearization negotiations." The report noted that missile operating bases would presumably be subject to declaration, verification, and dismantlement in any denuclearization deal. "The North Koreans are not going to negotiate over things they don't disclose," said Victor Cha, one of the authors of the report. "It looks like they're playing a game. They're still going to have all this operational capability," even if they destroy their disclosed nuclear facilities. Located 132 miles (212 kilometers) north of the demilitarized zone, the Sino-ri complex is a seven-square-mile (18-square-km) base that plays a key role in developing ballistic missiles capable of reaching South Korea, Japan, and even the US territory of Guam in the Western Pacific, the report said. It houses a regiment-sized unit equipped with Nodong-1 medium-range ballistic missiles, the report added. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Satellite images of the base from December 27, 2018 show an entrance to an underground bunker, reinforced shelters and a headquarters, the report said.

Report reveals undeclared North Korean missile base headquarters

By John Feffer

Donald Trump wants to pull US troops out of Syria as quickly as possible. Well, that’s what the president wants now. Tomorrow, who knows, maybe he’ll insist that Syria pay for the pullout. Maybe Trump will decide to hold a summit with Bashar al-Assad after deciding that the Syrian leader’s not such a bad guy after all, since he also doesn’t like the Islamic State and owes his position to Russian support. Maybe Trump will team up with Turkey to build a wall around Syria because “if we stop them over there, we won’t fight them over here.”

With Trump, all options seem to be in play, and it all depends on what Fox News covers, what the last autocrat or three-star general whispered in his ear, and whether the president’s spleen is acting up or not. The opinions of his own advisors or the foreign policy commissariat seem to matter little. If anything, Trump delights in confounding the experts. After all, he believes himself to be the expert-in-chief.

Foreign policymaking in the Trump era is a lot like curling. Trump lets loose the stone and then the other members of the team start sweeping at the ice in an attempt to alter the trajectory. Sometimes Trump throws in the general direction of the target. Sometimes his aim is so errant that there’s nothing the sweepers can do.

So, after Trump tweeted his new Syria policy, National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went into action to alter its trajectory. In an attempt to placate allies aghast at Trump’s decision, Bolton put so many conditions on the pull-out as to seem to render the announcement null and void. Pompeo similarly tried to assure Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf States that US policy remains steady: defeat the Islamic State, shut out Iran.

This cavalcade of caveats accomplished little more than to confuse allies and mystify observers. Bolton angered Recep Tayyip Erdoğan so much with his remarks about continued US support for Syrian Kurds that the Turkish president refused to meet with the national security adviser when he visited Ankara this month. A prominent pro-government newspaper decried Bolton’s “soft coup against Trump.”

Trump has subsequently changed his mind about Syria, somewhat, but it wasn’t at the behest of Bolton or Pompeo. The president was persuaded to go slow on the withdrawal when he received a briefing in Iraq from a lieutenant general who explained that the military needed more time to wrap up operations in Syria. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had probably said the same thing to Trump. He resigned when the president ignored his advice. Mattis had disagreed one too many times with the president and thus undermined his authority. With Trump, proximity breeds contempt. 
 
Trump originally demanded that troops withdraw in 30 days. Now, the Pentagon has four months to redeploy the couple thousand troops. The rush to the exit will be more like a covert crawl. And they won’t likely be going very far. The latest reports suggest that the redeployed soldiers are heading for Iraq, to bases in Kirkuk and Anbar.

A history of ambivalence

Trump has been roundly criticised for the incoherence of his policy toward Syria. But let’s face it, Washington has never figured out how to deal with the country — its ruthless leader, its fragmented opposition, its breakaway Kurds, its covetous neighbours — since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011. At the very outset, the Obama administration hesitated to throw its support behind pro-democracy demonstrators and was even more ambivalent about intervening militarily when the demonstrators chose to take up arms. 
 
This was not surprising. Obama had been slow to withdraw support from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt earlier that year when crowds gathered in Tahrir Square. When civil strife broke out in Libya, Obama was equally reluctant to get involved, finally opting to “lead from behind” in the international effort to oust Muammar Gaddafi. The situation in Syria promised to be even more complicated and volatile.

Eventually, the Obama administration dipped its toe in the water with two principal programs, one run by the Pentagon, the other covertly by the CIA. The Pentagon’s program was a spectacular failure, with graduates either exiting the program to fight for radical groups the United States disdained or going on to ignominious defeat on the battlefield. This initiative ended in 2015. The CIA program, Timber Sycamore, funnelled billions of dollars of arms and equipment to fighters on the ground in Syria, thanks to Saudi financing and Turkish logistics. This program, too, encountered many difficulties. For instance, arms ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda sympathisers. The United States was also reluctant to go all in for fear of provoking Russia. In 2017, Trump cancelled the program.

Trump or no Trump, the United States faces myriad problems in Syria. Assad has consolidated his position, with the help of Russia and Iran. The Islamic State has been reduced to a beleaguered fiefdom, but religious extremism hasn’t disappeared and a pretty unsavoury group remains in control of Idlib province. The Kurds in the north have established an autonomous region, with US assistance, but the Turkish government considers them a mere extension of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) that it is fighting within its own borders.

The United States can’t expect to influence this state of play in Syria, and certainly not with only 2,000 troops. So, it makes a lot of sense to pull them out. Let the Israelis and Saudis get angry, and let the Russians, Iranians and Turks rejoice. US involvement in Syria — hesitant, misguided, quixotic — has been benighted from the beginning.

Trump recently tweeted in support of his action that the United States must “stop the endless wars.” That makes eminent sense. But don’t be fooled into thinking that Trump actually believes what he tweets. Even as he was making his withdrawal announcement, the president was directing the Pentagon to increase its air strikes on targets in Syria. 
 
More war, not less

It’s ludicrous to paint Donald Trump as a peace president. The man is only selectively anti-war. He just doesn’t like the wars that other presidents started. Trump threatened to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. He considered military options in Venezuela and discussed the potential of a coup with dissident army officers.

But it’s Iran that’s served as the focus of Trump’s most hawkish ambitions. The president hasn’t been content just to unravel the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration, alongside representatives of several other countries, negotiated with Iran. Nor does Trump want to stop at simply applying another round of economic sanctions against the country. In September, John Bolton asked the Pentagon for military options to strike Iran. “It definitely rattled people,” a former senior White House official said. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

But Trump’s confrontational approach to Iran preceded the brashness of Bolton, who has openly advocated regime change in Iran. Shortly after entering the White House, Trump began pushing for the Pentagon to blow up Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. Mattis, who’d been fired from the Obama administration for his anti-Iranian obsession, thought the plan was ludicrous and never provided the plans Trump wanted.

Countering Iran has been an organising principle of the administration’s foreign policy, from helping the Saudis in Yemen to pressuring countries worldwide not to trade with Tehran. In his recent speech in Cairo, Secretary Pompeo made clear that even with the Syria pullout the administration remains focused on countering Iran, which “has spread its cancerous influence to Yemen, to Iraq, to Syria, and further into Lebanon.”

With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public from his disastrous record as president and the multiple investigations into his affairs and policies. He won’t care about the consequences. The forever war in the Middle East is far from over.

 
(John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.)

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/trump-us-withdrawal-syria-kurds-isis-middle-east-security-news-51621/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By John Feffer Donald Trump wants to pull US troops out of Syria as quickly as possible. Well, that’s what the president wants now. Tomorrow, who knows, maybe he’ll insist that Syria pay for the pullout.

By John Feffer Donald Trump wants to pull US troops out of Syria as quickly as possible. Well, that’s what the president wants now. Tomorrow, who knows, maybe he’ll insist that Syria pay for the pullout. Maybe Trump will decide to hold a summit with Bashar al-Assad after deciding that the Syrian leader’s not such a bad guy after all, since he also doesn’t like the Islamic State and owes his position to Russian support. Maybe Trump will team up with Turkey to build a wall around Syria because “if we stop them over there, we won’t fight them over here.” With Trump, all options seem to be in play, and it all depends on what Fox News covers, what the last autocrat or three-star general whispered in his ear, and whether the president’s spleen is acting up or not. The opinions of his own advisors or the foreign policy commissariat seem to matter little. If anything, Trump delights in confounding the experts. After all, he believes himself to be the expert-in-chief. Foreign policymaking in the Trump era is a lot like curling. Trump lets loose the stone and then the other members of the team start sweeping at the ice in an attempt to alter the trajectory. Sometimes Trump throws in the general direction of the target. Sometimes his aim is so errant that there’s nothing the sweepers can do. So, after Trump tweeted his new Syria policy, National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went into action to alter its trajectory. In an attempt to placate allies aghast at Trump’s decision, Bolton put so many conditions on the pull-out as to seem to render the announcement null and void. Pompeo similarly tried to assure Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf States that US policy remains steady: defeat the Islamic State, shut out Iran. This cavalcade of caveats accomplished little more than to confuse allies and mystify observers. Bolton angered Recep Tayyip Erdoğan so much with his remarks about continued US support for Syrian Kurds that the Turkish president refused to meet with the national security adviser when he visited Ankara this month. A prominent pro-government newspaper decried Bolton’s “soft coup against Trump.” Trump has subsequently changed his mind about Syria, somewhat, but it wasn’t at the behest of Bolton or Pompeo. The president was persuaded to go slow on the withdrawal when he received a briefing in Iraq from a lieutenant general who explained that the military needed more time to wrap up operations in Syria. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had probably said the same thing to Trump. He resigned when the president ignored his advice. Mattis had disagreed one too many times with the president and thus undermined his authority. With Trump, proximity breeds contempt. Trump originally demanded that troops withdraw in 30 days. Now, the Pentagon has four months to redeploy the couple thousand troops. The rush to the exit will be more like a covert crawl. And they won’t likely be going very far. The latest reports suggest that the redeployed soldiers are heading for Iraq, to bases in Kirkuk and Anbar. A history of ambivalence Trump has been roundly criticised for the incoherence of his policy toward Syria. But let’s face it, Washington has never figured out how to deal with the country — its ruthless leader, its fragmented opposition, its breakaway Kurds, its covetous neighbours — since the Arab Spring protests broke out in 2011. At the very outset, the Obama administration hesitated to throw its support behind pro-democracy demonstrators and was even more ambivalent about intervening militarily when the demonstrators chose to take up arms. This was not surprising. Obama had been slow to withdraw support from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt earlier that year when crowds gathered in Tahrir Square. When civil strife broke out in Libya, Obama was equally reluctant to get involved, finally opting to “lead from behind” in the international effort to oust Muammar Gaddafi. The situation in Syria promised to be even more complicated and volatile. Eventually, the Obama administration dipped its toe in the water with two principal programs, one run by the Pentagon, the other covertly by the CIA. The Pentagon’s program was a spectacular failure, with graduates either exiting the program to fight for radical groups the United States disdained or going on to ignominious defeat on the battlefield. This initiative ended in 2015. The CIA program, Timber Sycamore, funnelled billions of dollars of arms and equipment to fighters on the ground in Syria, thanks to Saudi financing and Turkish logistics. This program, too, encountered many difficulties. For instance, arms ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda sympathisers. The United States was also reluctant to go all in for fear of provoking Russia. In 2017, Trump cancelled the program. Trump or no Trump, the United States faces myriad problems in Syria. Assad has consolidated his position, with the help of Russia and Iran. The Islamic State has been reduced to a beleaguered fiefdom, but religious extremism hasn’t disappeared and a pretty unsavoury group remains in control of Idlib province. The Kurds in the north have established an autonomous region, with US assistance, but the Turkish government considers them a mere extension of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) that it is fighting within its own borders. The United States can’t expect to influence this state of play in Syria, and certainly not with only 2,000 troops. So, it makes a lot of sense to pull them out. Let the Israelis and Saudis get angry, and let the Russians, Iranians and Turks rejoice. US involvement in Syria — hesitant, misguided, quixotic — has been benighted from the beginning. Trump recently tweeted in support of his action that the United States must “stop the endless wars.” That makes eminent sense. But don’t be fooled into thinking that Trump actually believes what he tweets. Even as he was making his withdrawal announcement, the president was directing the Pentagon to increase its air strikes on targets in Syria. More war, not less It’s ludicrous to paint Donald Trump as a peace president. The man is only selectively anti-war. He just doesn’t like the wars that other presidents started. Trump threatened to use nuclear weapons against North Korea. He considered military options in Venezuela and discussed the potential of a coup with dissident army officers. But it’s Iran that’s served as the focus of Trump’s most hawkish ambitions. The president hasn’t been content just to unravel the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration, alongside representatives of several other countries, negotiated with Iran. Nor does Trump want to stop at simply applying another round of economic sanctions against the country. In September, John Bolton asked the Pentagon for military options to strike Iran. “It definitely rattled people,” a former senior White House official said. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.” But Trump’s confrontational approach to Iran preceded the brashness of Bolton, who has openly advocated regime change in Iran. Shortly after entering the White House, Trump began pushing for the Pentagon to blow up Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. Mattis, who’d been fired from the Obama administration for his anti-Iranian obsession, thought the plan was ludicrous and never provided the plans Trump wanted. Countering Iran has been an organising principle of the administration’s foreign policy, from helping the Saudis in Yemen to pressuring countries worldwide not to trade with Tehran. In his recent speech in Cairo, Secretary Pompeo made clear that even with the Syria pullout the administration remains focused on countering Iran, which “has spread its cancerous influence to Yemen, to Iraq, to Syria, and further into Lebanon.” With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public from his disastrous record as president and the multiple investigations into his affairs and policies. He won’t care about the consequences. The forever war in the Middle East is far from over. (John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.) (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The forever war in the Middle East is far from over

In this yard in the Texas town of Mission, they played as children, learned how to fish, picked cotton and gathered watermelons.&nbsp;

But because it's on the border with <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/death-toll-raised-to-79-in-mexico-pipeline-blast-new-focus-on-fuel-theft-191662&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjT8rm5iv7fAhUMpY8KHc8fD8gQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0CA6sDow_1lZ4t-OjwETAO">Mexico</a>, the Cavazos family could lose their property — to Donald Trump's border wall.

They are not going down without a fight.

In his sister Eloisa's dining room, Jose Alfredo Cavazos — who goes by Fred — displays the numerous letters sent by the federal government.

"Our property right now is in... the danger of being no more," says the 69-year-old, who lives next door to his sister, and uses a wheelchair to get around.

Construction seems inevitable: financing for the portion of the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/dr-congo-court-declares-tshisekedi-president-outraging-opponents-191652&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjG4YnQiv7fAhUFbo8KHXF7CgsQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1zTyiaj1figdxyXfInzu0B">president</a>'s much-awaited border wall that would pass through the Cavazos' property in the Rio Grande Valley was approved by Congress in March 2018.

It is separate from the wider debate about border wall funding that has roiled Washington for weeks, sparked a showdown between <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-reiterates-demand-for-wall-attacks-media-191492&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjw-fTsiv7fAhUTS48KHT4xDRkQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw165HyUbOwPbYj8U-SRgPI0">Trump</a> and Democratic lawmakers, and led to the longest government shutdown in American history.

The federal government has already surveyed the land, which mainly belongs to Eloisa — the first step towards construction. The family opposed the move, and the government filed suit, winning the initial case.

The Cavazos clan is not giving up just yet, though. They have appealed the initial decision, and are being represented on a pro bono basis by the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Raison de Vivre

Fred Cavazos runs his hand over the maps attached to each official document in the pile.&nbsp;

If the wall is built as planned, it will run along the levee that keeps the land from flooding — and will block his access to his land, where he tends a small herd of cattle and goats.

His other worry is that the family will lose revenue earned by renting out small riverside homes, often used as weekend getaways. Fred says the family makes about $35,000 a year from rentals, and they cannot live without it.

After all, who would want to come to spend a relaxing weekend staring at a giant concrete wall, or even towering steel slats? Would tenants even be allowed to cross back and forth?

"It's an unknown to us," says Rey Anzaldua, a cousin of the Cavazos siblings and Fred's best friend.

"It would still be our land... but it wouldn't have any value at all."

Beyond the financial strains, the very real possibility of seeing the family land split up has upset the entire clan.

Since their ancestors came from Spain and settled here in the 18th century, the family has "been losing land for so many years," said Anzaldua, who turns 74 this month.

With a Vietnam veteran cap and a sticker on his Jeep that says "No border wall," Anzaldua is bitter: "This land to us is worth more than money — we have an actual love for the land."

To boot, Fred is "totally disabled. This land is actually what keeps him alive," Anzaldua said.

Cavazos manages to get by despite his physical issues, helping Eloisa to collect the rent.&nbsp;

"If he didn't have this, I don't think he'd last very much longer," Anzaldua said.

Stall for as long as possible&nbsp;

Roy Snipes is a local priest who helps take care of the historic 19th century La Lomita chapel in Mission. His parish rents land from the Cavazos family for summer camps.&nbsp;

The church itself, which is classified as a historic monument, should not be affected by the wall construction, but it would end up in a sort of no man's land between the barrier and the river.&nbsp;

For Snipes, who has lived here for 26 years, building the wall would "desecrate a sacred place."

It also would likely keep undocumented migrants from visiting the church, which has been a safe place for them in the past.

"Nobody comes down here expecting to be interrogated and to present papers," says Snipes, a 73-year-old nicknamed the "Cowboy Priest" who sports a Stetson and a large metal cross over his white robe.

The local diocese also refused to allow the government to survey the land, and federal authorities filed a complaint. A decision is expected in February, according to the attorney for the diocese, David Garza.&nbsp;

No one here is under any illusions — it's going to be a tough battle.

"It's difficult to fight the government," Anzaldua said.

"To be very honest with you, what we want to do is we want to delay as much as we can," he explained.&nbsp;

"We would like to fight for long enough so maybe Trump will be out of office and some of this will stop."

In this yard in the Texas town of Mission, they played as children, learned how to fish, picked cotton and gathered watermelons. But because it's on the border with Mexico, the Cavazos family could lose their property — to Donald Trump's border wall.

In this yard in the Texas town of Mission, they played as children, learned how to fish, picked cotton and gathered watermelons. But because it's on the border with Mexico, the Cavazos family could lose their property — to Donald Trump's border wall. They are not going down without a fight. In his sister Eloisa's dining room, Jose Alfredo Cavazos — who goes by Fred — displays the numerous letters sent by the federal government. "Our property right now is in... the danger of being no more," says the 69-year-old, who lives next door to his sister, and uses a wheelchair to get around. Construction seems inevitable: financing for the portion of the president's much-awaited border wall that would pass through the Cavazos' property in the Rio Grande Valley was approved by Congress in March 2018. It is separate from the wider debate about border wall funding that has roiled Washington for weeks, sparked a showdown between Trump and Democratic lawmakers, and led to the longest government shutdown in American history. The federal government has already surveyed the land, which mainly belongs to Eloisa — the first step towards construction. The family opposed the move, and the government filed suit, winning the initial case. The Cavazos clan is not giving up just yet, though. They have appealed the initial decision, and are being represented on a pro bono basis by the Texas Civil Rights Project. Raison de Vivre Fred Cavazos runs his hand over the maps attached to each official document in the pile. If the wall is built as planned, it will run along the levee that keeps the land from flooding — and will block his access to his land, where he tends a small herd of cattle and goats. His other worry is that the family will lose revenue earned by renting out small riverside homes, often used as weekend getaways. Fred says the family makes about $35,000 a year from rentals, and they cannot live without it. After all, who would want to come to spend a relaxing weekend staring at a giant concrete wall, or even towering steel slats? Would tenants even be allowed to cross back and forth? "It's an unknown to us," says Rey Anzaldua, a cousin of the Cavazos siblings and Fred's best friend. "It would still be our land... but it wouldn't have any value at all." Beyond the financial strains, the very real possibility of seeing the family land split up has upset the entire clan. Since their ancestors came from Spain and settled here in the 18th century, the family has "been losing land for so many years," said Anzaldua, who turns 74 this month. With a Vietnam veteran cap and a sticker on his Jeep that says "No border wall," Anzaldua is bitter: "This land to us is worth more than money — we have an actual love for the land." To boot, Fred is "totally disabled. This land is actually what keeps him alive," Anzaldua said. Cavazos manages to get by despite his physical issues, helping Eloisa to collect the rent. "If he didn't have this, I don't think he'd last very much longer," Anzaldua said. Stall for as long as possible Roy Snipes is a local priest who helps take care of the historic 19th century La Lomita chapel in Mission. His parish rents land from the Cavazos family for summer camps. The church itself, which is classified as a historic monument, should not be affected by the wall construction, but it would end up in a sort of no man's land between the barrier and the river. For Snipes, who has lived here for 26 years, building the wall would "desecrate a sacred place." It also would likely keep undocumented migrants from visiting the church, which has been a safe place for them in the past. "Nobody comes down here expecting to be interrogated and to present papers," says Snipes, a 73-year-old nicknamed the "Cowboy Priest" who sports a Stetson and a large metal cross over his white robe. The local diocese also refused to allow the government to survey the land, and federal authorities filed a complaint. A decision is expected in February, according to the attorney for the diocese, David Garza. No one here is under any illusions — it's going to be a tough battle. "It's difficult to fight the government," Anzaldua said. "To be very honest with you, what we want to do is we want to delay as much as we can," he explained. "We would like to fight for long enough so maybe Trump will be out of office and some of this will stop."

In Texas, a family fights to keep Trump wall off property

Lady Gaga is the latest celebrity to have called out US President Donald Trump over US government shutdown. The singer took a moment in the middle of her show in Las Vegas on Saturday night to adress the issue and criticised Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.&nbsp; 
 
The incident happened during her performance of ‘Million Reasons’, The Hollywood Reporter posted. She said, “If the f@#$ing president of the United Sates could please put our government back… there are people who live paycheck to paycheck and need their money.” 
 
Gaga also took an aim at Pence, whose wife Karen has been criticised for accepting a job at a school that excludes LGBT children, adding, “And to Mike Pence, who thinks it`s acceptable that his wife works at a school that bans LGBTQ — you`re wrong. You say we should not discriminate against Christianity. You are the worst representation of what it means to be a Christian." 
 
She further added, "I am a Christian woman, and what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome. So you can take all that disgrace, Mr. Pence, and you can look yourself in the mirror and you`ll find it right there." 
 
Gaga is the latest celebrity to have voiced her opinion on the government shutdown. Earlier celebrities like Cardi B, Snoog Dogg, &nbsp;Cher, Mia Farrow and others.&nbsp; 
 
The &nbsp;US government partially shut down on 22 December, 2018 after Republicans, Democrats and the President failed to reach an agreement over the funding for a wall that he has proposed at the US- Mexico border to help curb illegal immigration. 
 
Meanwhile, Lady Gaga won the 2019 Critics` Choice Awards for best actress along with Glenn Close recently. She also took home the Critics` Choice Award for best song for `Shallow'.&nbsp;

Lady Gaga is the latest celebrity to have called out US President Donald Trump over US government shutdown. The singer took a moment in the middle of her show in Las Vegas on Saturday night to adress the issue and criticised Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

Lady Gaga is the latest celebrity to have called out US President Donald Trump over US government shutdown. The singer took a moment in the middle of her show in Las Vegas on Saturday night to adress the issue and criticised Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. The incident happened during her performance of ‘Million Reasons’, The Hollywood Reporter posted. She said, “If the f@#$ing president of the United Sates could please put our government back… there are people who live paycheck to paycheck and need their money.” Gaga also took an aim at Pence, whose wife Karen has been criticised for accepting a job at a school that excludes LGBT children, adding, “And to Mike Pence, who thinks it`s acceptable that his wife works at a school that bans LGBTQ — you`re wrong. You say we should not discriminate against Christianity. You are the worst representation of what it means to be a Christian." She further added, "I am a Christian woman, and what I do know about Christianity is that we bear no prejudice and everybody is welcome. So you can take all that disgrace, Mr. Pence, and you can look yourself in the mirror and you`ll find it right there." Gaga is the latest celebrity to have voiced her opinion on the government shutdown. Earlier celebrities like Cardi B, Snoog Dogg, Cher, Mia Farrow and others. The US government partially shut down on 22 December, 2018 after Republicans, Democrats and the President failed to reach an agreement over the funding for a wall that he has proposed at the US- Mexico border to help curb illegal immigration. Meanwhile, Lady Gaga won the 2019 Critics` Choice Awards for best actress along with Glenn Close recently. She also took home the Critics` Choice Award for best song for `Shallow'.

Lady Gaga calls out Trump over government shutdown, says Mike Pence is the 'worst representation of a Christian'

United States President Donald Trump early on Sunday again took on House Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stating that he is still pondering over Pelosi's request to postpone addressing the State of Union amid the ongoing partial shutdown in the Federal government, which has lasted 30 days and is still counting.

"Nancy, I am still thinking about the State of the Union speech. There are so many options- including doing it as per your written offer (made during the Shutdown, security is no problem), and my written acceptance. While a contract is a contract, I`ll get back to you soon!" Trump tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Nancy, I am still thinking about the State of the Union speech, there are so many options - including doing it as per your written offer (made during the Shutdown, security is no problem), and my written acceptance. While a contract is a contract, I’ll get back to you soon!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1086984547856732161?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

According to The Hill, Pelosi, last week, had pleaded President Trump to reschedule his speech that was slated to take place on January 29 and had also suggested the latter to "work together to determine another suitable date after the government has re-opened."

President Trump on Thursday cancelled Pelosi`s planned seven-day trip to Brussels, Afghanistan, and Egypt, as a "public relations event", citing the government shutdown, adding that the trip would be rescheduled once the shutdown is "over."

Trump`s response came a day after Pelosi asked him to postpone his State of the Union address to a later date after raising concerns about the security apparatus due to the shutdown.

The House Speaker had also suggested the US President deliver his comments for the State of Union in writing.

In addition, the US President also termed Pelosi as a 'Radical Democrat'&nbsp;for behaving too`irrationally and has gone so far to the left`."Nancy Pelosi has behaved so irrationally and has gone so far to the left that she has now officially become a Radical Democrat. She is so petrified of the "lefties" in her party that she has lost control...And by the way, clean up the streets in San Francisco, they are disgusting!" Trump added.&nbsp;

United States President Donald Trump early on Sunday again took on House Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stating that he is still pondering over Pelosi's request to postpone addressing the State of Union amid the ongoing partial shutdown in the Federal government, which has lasted 30 days and is still counting.

United States President Donald Trump early on Sunday again took on House Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stating that he is still pondering over Pelosi's request to postpone addressing the State of Union amid the ongoing partial shutdown in the Federal government, which has lasted 30 days and is still counting. "Nancy, I am still thinking about the State of the Union speech. There are so many options- including doing it as per your written offer (made during the Shutdown, security is no problem), and my written acceptance. While a contract is a contract, I`ll get back to you soon!" Trump tweeted. Nancy, I am still thinking about the State of the Union speech, there are so many options - including doing it as per your written offer (made during the Shutdown, security is no problem), and my written acceptance. While a contract is a contract, I’ll get back to you soon! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2019 × According to The Hill, Pelosi, last week, had pleaded President Trump to reschedule his speech that was slated to take place on January 29 and had also suggested the latter to "work together to determine another suitable date after the government has re-opened." President Trump on Thursday cancelled Pelosi`s planned seven-day trip to Brussels, Afghanistan, and Egypt, as a "public relations event", citing the government shutdown, adding that the trip would be rescheduled once the shutdown is "over." Trump`s response came a day after Pelosi asked him to postpone his State of the Union address to a later date after raising concerns about the security apparatus due to the shutdown. The House Speaker had also suggested the US President deliver his comments for the State of Union in writing. In addition, the US President also termed Pelosi as a 'Radical Democrat' for behaving too`irrationally and has gone so far to the left`."Nancy Pelosi has behaved so irrationally and has gone so far to the left that she has now officially become a Radical Democrat. She is so petrified of the "lefties" in her party that she has lost control...And by the way, clean up the streets in San Francisco, they are disgusting!" Trump added.

Trump still 'thinking' on Pelosi's proposal of postponing State of Union speech

First-term Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California, a rising party star and outspoken critic of President Donald Trump's immigration policies, launched her 2020 campaign for the White House on Monday in an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Harris, 54, the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, enters the race with the potential advantage of being the Democratic candidate who looks most like the party's increasingly diverse base of young, female and minority voters.

“Let’s do this, together. Let’s claim our future. For ourselves, for our children, and for our country,” Harris said in a campaign video that was released to coincide with her television appearance.

The announcement falls on the US Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday honouring the slain civil rights leader, and the day was selected as a reminder of the aspirational fight for progress, an aide said.

The former California state attorney general has become popular with liberal activists for her tough questioning of Trump administration appointees and officials, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, during Senate hearings.

Her campaign will focus on reducing the high cost of living with a middle-class tax credit, pursuing immigration and criminal justice changes and a Medicare-for-all healthcare system. She has said she will reject corporate political action committee money.

Harris’ campaign will be based in Baltimore, with a second office in Oakland, California. Her slogan will be “For the People,” in a nod to Harris’ roots as a prosecutor, aides said.

She will hold a launch rally in Oakland before the end of the month.

As one of the earliest congressional critics of President Donald Trump's immigration policies, Harris has pushed hard for a deal to protect from deportation those immigrants who came to the country illegally as children, a group known as Dreamers.

Harris is the fifth Democrat to enter what is shaping up to be a crowded battle for the nomination to challenge Trump, the likely Republican candidate.

She and other Democrats will have to navigate the party's debate about whether an establishment figure who can appeal to centrist voters or a fresh face who can energize its increasingly diverse and progressive base offers the best chance to beat Trump in 2020.

Harris, who made history in 2016 as the first black woman elected to the US Senate from California, has embraced the party's diversity ahead of a Democratic nominating campaign where minority voters and liberal activists are expected to have an outsized voice.

Former prosecutor

She has pushed back against critics of "identity politics," who she says are using the term as a pejorative to marginalize issues of race, gender and sexual orientation.

"It is used to try and shut us up," Harris told a conference of liberal activists last summer.

The former San Francisco prosecutor drew notice when her rapid-fire grilling of Sessions during a 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing caused him to complain.

"It makes me nervous," Sessions said.

In September, she was among a handful of Democrats who aggressively questioned Kavanaugh at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing about his views on abortion and on the special counsel probe into potential Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

In the Senate, she has introduced a bill to give lower-income families cash payments and tax credits to help battle wage stagnation and rising housing costs, and has been a strong advocate of criminal justice reforms.

Harris launched a book tour in early January to promote a memoir, making a series of media appearances that helped bolster her visibility ahead of her campaign announcement.

Her campaign could be aided by the schedule for the state-by-state party nominating process that is scheduled to begin in February 2020.

The kickoff state of Iowa, which launched Barack Obama's presidential bid in 2008, has a strong base of liberal activists, and the race will then quickly move to more diverse states such as Nevada and South Carolina. Her home state of California also has moved up its primary to increase its influence.

But political foes will pore over her record in California, where she has come under scrutiny for declining as attorney general to prosecute OneWest, the bank once headed by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for alleged foreclosure violations.

Harris, who voted against Mnuchin's confirmation as head of the Treasury, has said she "followed the facts" in declining to prosecute.

She also has been criticized for saying she was not aware of sexual harassment allegations against one of her top aides, who resigned in December after a California newspaper asked him about a 2016 harassment lawsuit. Xavier Becerra, who replaced Harris as attorney general, settled the lawsuit in May 2017 for $400,000.

First-term Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California, a rising party star and outspoken critic of President Donald Trump's immigration policies, launched her 2020 campaign for the White House on Monday in an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America.

First-term Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California, a rising party star and outspoken critic of President Donald Trump's immigration policies, launched her 2020 campaign for the White House on Monday in an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America." Harris, 54, the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, enters the race with the potential advantage of being the Democratic candidate who looks most like the party's increasingly diverse base of young, female and minority voters. “Let’s do this, together. Let’s claim our future. For ourselves, for our children, and for our country,” Harris said in a campaign video that was released to coincide with her television appearance. The announcement falls on the US Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday honouring the slain civil rights leader, and the day was selected as a reminder of the aspirational fight for progress, an aide said. The former California state attorney general has become popular with liberal activists for her tough questioning of Trump administration appointees and officials, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, during Senate hearings. Her campaign will focus on reducing the high cost of living with a middle-class tax credit, pursuing immigration and criminal justice changes and a Medicare-for-all healthcare system. She has said she will reject corporate political action committee money. Harris’ campaign will be based in Baltimore, with a second office in Oakland, California. Her slogan will be “For the People,” in a nod to Harris’ roots as a prosecutor, aides said. She will hold a launch rally in Oakland before the end of the month. As one of the earliest congressional critics of President Donald Trump's immigration policies, Harris has pushed hard for a deal to protect from deportation those immigrants who came to the country illegally as children, a group known as Dreamers. Harris is the fifth Democrat to enter what is shaping up to be a crowded battle for the nomination to challenge Trump, the likely Republican candidate. She and other Democrats will have to navigate the party's debate about whether an establishment figure who can appeal to centrist voters or a fresh face who can energize its increasingly diverse and progressive base offers the best chance to beat Trump in 2020. Harris, who made history in 2016 as the first black woman elected to the US Senate from California, has embraced the party's diversity ahead of a Democratic nominating campaign where minority voters and liberal activists are expected to have an outsized voice. Former prosecutor She has pushed back against critics of "identity politics," who she says are using the term as a pejorative to marginalize issues of race, gender and sexual orientation. "It is used to try and shut us up," Harris told a conference of liberal activists last summer. The former San Francisco prosecutor drew notice when her rapid-fire grilling of Sessions during a 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing caused him to complain. "It makes me nervous," Sessions said. In September, she was among a handful of Democrats who aggressively questioned Kavanaugh at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing about his views on abortion and on the special counsel probe into potential Russian meddling in the 2016 election. In the Senate, she has introduced a bill to give lower-income families cash payments and tax credits to help battle wage stagnation and rising housing costs, and has been a strong advocate of criminal justice reforms. Harris launched a book tour in early January to promote a memoir, making a series of media appearances that helped bolster her visibility ahead of her campaign announcement. Her campaign could be aided by the schedule for the state-by-state party nominating process that is scheduled to begin in February 2020. The kickoff state of Iowa, which launched Barack Obama's presidential bid in 2008, has a strong base of liberal activists, and the race will then quickly move to more diverse states such as Nevada and South Carolina. Her home state of California also has moved up its primary to increase its influence. But political foes will pore over her record in California, where she has come under scrutiny for declining as attorney general to prosecute OneWest, the bank once headed by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for alleged foreclosure violations. Harris, who voted against Mnuchin's confirmation as head of the Treasury, has said she "followed the facts" in declining to prosecute. She also has been criticized for saying she was not aware of sexual harassment allegations against one of her top aides, who resigned in December after a California newspaper asked him about a 2016 harassment lawsuit. Xavier Becerra, who replaced Harris as attorney general, settled the lawsuit in May 2017 for $400,000.

Indian-American Democrat Kamala Harris enters 2020 US presidential elections

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.'&nbsp;

This was tom-tommed as a big shift from the government of India's long-standing policy that the peace process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled and with the participation of the government in Kabul. It made a splash because the Taliban was talking to the US ahead of the latter's plan to pull out from its 17-year-long military engagement in Afghanistan which has cost over a trillion dollars and claimed tens of thousands of lives besides turning it into a terrorist hub.&nbsp;

However, General Rawat was only taking forward the ball set rolling exactly two months before. The policy shift was already public by November 8, when two former diplomats, Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan went to Russia for the Moscow format of talks on the Afghan peace process. Technically, Sinha and Raghavan did not represent Government of India (GoI) – their participation was “non-official”, in Track II mode. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Raghavan, who was India's High Commissioner to Pakistan, is Director-General of the GoI think tank, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). Sinha, a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, was Ambassador to Afghanistan. There was nothing really unofficial about their non-official presence in the Moscow format of talks where the Taliban and Afghanistan's High Peace Council delegations were also present.&nbsp;

By the time General Rawat stood up to say his piece, official India had already held at least one round of non-official talks. Just a day before General Rawat spoke, the Taliban had called off talks with the US as they did not want the Afghan government to be in the talks. The Taliban did this a day before the fourth round of talks with US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. &nbsp;

Besides the US, Russia and China, the Taliban's old supporters, namely, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan were also back in the game as stakeholders in the peace process. Iran also joined the game. It went claimed “influence” over the Taliban and offered to use that influence in India's favour.&nbsp;

In the nearly two decades since the Taliban hosted the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar -- when external affairs minister Jaswant Singh went to Taliban territory to get the hostages released in return for two Pakistani terrorists – GoI has also developed lines to the Taliban. &nbsp;

It is obvious that the Taliban holds the whip hand in the Afghan peace process. It is set on talking to the US – on its own terms – because the US is the occupation force to be sent packing. US General Austin Miller's narrow escape from the October 18 shooting, which killed Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq among others in a room, seems to have convinced the Americans that they can no longer continue their military occupation. This is underscored by the perception that the Taliban “allowed” General Miller to “escape” – to let the US know that they can pick their targets when they choose to. &nbsp;

With the US bowing to the Taliban's terms, others, including India, cannot risk lagging behind. The Taliban's tough talk and a tougher line on talking terms is suspected to be based on the covert support of some powerful country. That apart, there is a growing perception, including in New Delhi, that the Taliban is involved in many behind-the-scene engagements; and, these are what enable it to call the shots. &nbsp;

Thus, negotiating India's place in the peace process is as much a diplomatic and strategic minefield as Afghanistan was during the worst phase of America's war in that country.&nbsp;

&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.' This was tom-tommed as a big shift from the government of India's long-standing policy that the peace process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled and with the participation of the government in Kabul. It made a splash because the Taliban was talking to the US ahead of the latter's plan to pull out from its 17-year-long military engagement in Afghanistan which has cost over a trillion dollars and claimed tens of thousands of lives besides turning it into a terrorist hub. However, General Rawat was only taking forward the ball set rolling exactly two months before. The policy shift was already public by November 8, when two former diplomats, Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan went to Russia for the Moscow format of talks on the Afghan peace process. Technically, Sinha and Raghavan did not represent Government of India (GoI) – their participation was “non-official”, in Track II mode. Raghavan, who was India's High Commissioner to Pakistan, is Director-General of the GoI think tank, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). Sinha, a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, was Ambassador to Afghanistan. There was nothing really unofficial about their non-official presence in the Moscow format of talks where the Taliban and Afghanistan's High Peace Council delegations were also present. By the time General Rawat stood up to say his piece, official India had already held at least one round of non-official talks. Just a day before General Rawat spoke, the Taliban had called off talks with the US as they did not want the Afghan government to be in the talks. The Taliban did this a day before the fourth round of talks with US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Besides the US, Russia and China, the Taliban's old supporters, namely, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan were also back in the game as stakeholders in the peace process. Iran also joined the game. It went claimed “influence” over the Taliban and offered to use that influence in India's favour. In the nearly two decades since the Taliban hosted the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar -- when external affairs minister Jaswant Singh went to Taliban territory to get the hostages released in return for two Pakistani terrorists – GoI has also developed lines to the Taliban. It is obvious that the Taliban holds the whip hand in the Afghan peace process. It is set on talking to the US – on its own terms – because the US is the occupation force to be sent packing. US General Austin Miller's narrow escape from the October 18 shooting, which killed Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq among others in a room, seems to have convinced the Americans that they can no longer continue their military occupation. This is underscored by the perception that the Taliban “allowed” General Miller to “escape” – to let the US know that they can pick their targets when they choose to. With the US bowing to the Taliban's terms, others, including India, cannot risk lagging behind. The Taliban's tough talk and a tougher line on talking terms is suspected to be based on the covert support of some powerful country. That apart, there is a growing perception, including in New Delhi, that the Taliban is involved in many behind-the-scene engagements; and, these are what enable it to call the shots. Thus, negotiating India's place in the peace process is as much a diplomatic and strategic minefield as Afghanistan was during the worst phase of America's war in that country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What lies behind the Taliban's tough line

A white high school student seen with classmates appearing to confront a Native American Vietnam veteran near the Lincoln Memorial issued a statement on Sunday that video of the incident that went viral gives a false impression that the teens were instigators.

Nick Sandmann, a student from the private, all-male Covington Catholic High School in northern Kentucky, is seen in the video standing face to face with the Indian activist, Nathan Phillips, staring at him with a smile, while Phillips sings and plays the drum.

The footage, shared online by organizers of an indigenous people's march that took place in Washington on Friday before the incident, shows a group of fellow Covington students surrounding Phillips apparently mocking him.

Phillips recounted in a separate video that he heard the students chanting "build that wall," during the encounter.&nbsp;

The students, many wearing baseball caps emblazoned with <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/cardi-b-slams-donald-trump-amid-government-shutdown-191062&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi29KH0pv7fAhWKF3IKHQvyBvoQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0ZxvSrbliPCQFxFY8xlkI4">President Donald Trump</a>'s "Make America Great Again" slogan, were in the nation's capital the same day for an anti-abortion rally.

The footage sparked outrage on social media and led the high school to issue a statement condemning the students' actions and promising an investigation.

But Sandmann, whose statement was tweeted by CNN anchor Jake Tapper late on Sunday, insisted the video was misinterpreted, leading to "outright lies being spread about my family and me."

He denied acting with any disrespect toward Phillips.

According to Sandmann, his group was waiting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for their bus back to Kentucky when four African American protesters nearby began shouting racially charged insults at them.

With permission from their teacher chaperones, the students responded by shouting "school spirit" chants to "drown out the hateful comments" directed at them.

In the midst of this interaction, Sandmann said, he noticed that a Native American protester - since identified as Phillips - "began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him."

"He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face," Sandmann recalled.

"I never interacted with this protester. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves," Sandmann wrote, adding that he was "startled and confused" as to why Phillips approached him.

Sandmann said he reasoned that by remaining "motionless and calm" he hoped to defuse the situation.

His account was reinforced, at least in part, by a New York Times report on Sunday quoting Phillips, 64, as acknowledging he had approached the crowd of students in a bid to ease racial tensions that had flared between the mostly white teens and the African American protesters.

"I stepped in between to pray," said Phillips, an elder of Nebraska's Omaha tribe and a well-known activist who was among those leading the Standing Rock protests in 2016-2017 against the construction of an oil pipeline in North Dakota.

Phillips could not be reached by Reuters for comment over the weekend. 
&nbsp;

A white high school student seen with classmates appearing to confront a Native American Vietnam veteran near the Lincoln Memorial issued a statement on Sunday that video of the incident that went viral gives a false impression that the teens were instigators.

A white high school student seen with classmates appearing to confront a Native American Vietnam veteran near the Lincoln Memorial issued a statement on Sunday that video of the incident that went viral gives a false impression that the teens were instigators. Nick Sandmann, a student from the private, all-male Covington Catholic High School in northern Kentucky, is seen in the video standing face to face with the Indian activist, Nathan Phillips, staring at him with a smile, while Phillips sings and plays the drum. The footage, shared online by organizers of an indigenous people's march that took place in Washington on Friday before the incident, shows a group of fellow Covington students surrounding Phillips apparently mocking him. Phillips recounted in a separate video that he heard the students chanting "build that wall," during the encounter. The students, many wearing baseball caps emblazoned with President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan, were in the nation's capital the same day for an anti-abortion rally. The footage sparked outrage on social media and led the high school to issue a statement condemning the students' actions and promising an investigation. But Sandmann, whose statement was tweeted by CNN anchor Jake Tapper late on Sunday, insisted the video was misinterpreted, leading to "outright lies being spread about my family and me." He denied acting with any disrespect toward Phillips. According to Sandmann, his group was waiting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for their bus back to Kentucky when four African American protesters nearby began shouting racially charged insults at them. With permission from their teacher chaperones, the students responded by shouting "school spirit" chants to "drown out the hateful comments" directed at them. In the midst of this interaction, Sandmann said, he noticed that a Native American protester - since identified as Phillips - "began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him." "He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face," Sandmann recalled. "I never interacted with this protester. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves," Sandmann wrote, adding that he was "startled and confused" as to why Phillips approached him. Sandmann said he reasoned that by remaining "motionless and calm" he hoped to defuse the situation. His account was reinforced, at least in part, by a New York Times report on Sunday quoting Phillips, 64, as acknowledging he had approached the crowd of students in a bid to ease racial tensions that had flared between the mostly white teens and the African American protesters. "I stepped in between to pray," said Phillips, an elder of Nebraska's Omaha tribe and a well-known activist who was among those leading the Standing Rock protests in 2016-2017 against the construction of an oil pipeline in North Dakota. Phillips could not be reached by Reuters for comment over the weekend.

Student in Trump hat denies mocking Native American activist

Leading US Senator Lindsey Graham vowed Sunday to urge President Donald Trump to meet Imran Khan to boost Washington's Afghanistan peace efforts, calling the Pakistani prime minister an "agent of change".

The Republican -- an influential ally of Trump -- made the comments in Islamabad after meeting with the Pakistani leader, saying Khan was a "new partner" who could potentially help with a peace deal in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

"I'm going to urge him (Trump) to meet with the prime minister as soon as practical," Graham told reporters, saying he believed Khan and Trump would "hit if off" because they have "similar personalities".&nbsp;

"Prime Minister Khan is the agent of change that I've been looking for," he added.&nbsp;

Ties between Washington and Islamabad have soured recently, with US officials repeatedly accusing Pakistan of turning a blind eye to or even collaborating with the Afghan Taliban, which launch attacks in Afghanistan from alleged havens along the border between the two countries.

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Pakistan's alleged duplicity, saying late last year that Islamabad does not do "a damn thing" for the US.

Khan has been equally critical of Trump, saying before 2018's election in Pakistan that a potential meeting with the US president would be a "bitter pill" to swallow.

The US lawmaker's trip to Pakistan comes as American officials have held several rounds of talks with Taliban representatives.

Graham said a meeting between the two leaders was vital to carve out a potential deal in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

"They actually need to meet and come up with a agenda that will push a resolution to the war in Afghanistan," the senator added.&nbsp;

Graham -- once a potent critic of Trump -- has transformed in recent months into an ardent defender and influential ally of the president.&nbsp;

The senator's arrival also overlapped with an ongoing trip by US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been shuttling around the region for months to build support for the peace initiative.&nbsp;

Khalilzad was in Kabul last week and then flew to Pakistan were he also met with the prime minister Friday as news reports in Pakistan suggested Islamabad was open to hosting the next round of talks with the insurgents.

The Taliban, however, have threatened to suspend the fledgling peace efforts, accusing Washington of changing the agenda of the talks and "unilaterally" adding new subjects.

Graham's trip also comes after US officials announced in December that Trump intends to withdraw as many as half of the 14,000 US troops deployed in Afghanistan.

The meetings are the latest in a flurry of diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing the Taliban to the table for negotiations with the Afghan government on ending the conflict which began with the US invasion in 2001.

Leading US Senator Lindsey Graham vowed Sunday to urge President Donald Trump to meet Imran Khan to boost Washington's Afghanistan peace efforts, calling the Pakistani prime minister an "agent of change".

Leading US Senator Lindsey Graham vowed Sunday to urge President Donald Trump to meet Imran Khan to boost Washington's Afghanistan peace efforts, calling the Pakistani prime minister an "agent of change". The Republican -- an influential ally of Trump -- made the comments in Islamabad after meeting with the Pakistani leader, saying Khan was a "new partner" who could potentially help with a peace deal in Afghanistan. "I'm going to urge him (Trump) to meet with the prime minister as soon as practical," Graham told reporters, saying he believed Khan and Trump would "hit if off" because they have "similar personalities". "Prime Minister Khan is the agent of change that I've been looking for," he added. Ties between Washington and Islamabad have soured recently, with US officials repeatedly accusing Pakistan of turning a blind eye to or even collaborating with the Afghan Taliban, which launch attacks in Afghanistan from alleged havens along the border between the two countries. Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Pakistan's alleged duplicity, saying late last year that Islamabad does not do "a damn thing" for the US. Khan has been equally critical of Trump, saying before 2018's election in Pakistan that a potential meeting with the US president would be a "bitter pill" to swallow. The US lawmaker's trip to Pakistan comes as American officials have held several rounds of talks with Taliban representatives. Graham said a meeting between the two leaders was vital to carve out a potential deal in Afghanistan. "They actually need to meet and come up with a agenda that will push a resolution to the war in Afghanistan," the senator added. Graham -- once a potent critic of Trump -- has transformed in recent months into an ardent defender and influential ally of the president. The senator's arrival also overlapped with an ongoing trip by US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been shuttling around the region for months to build support for the peace initiative. Khalilzad was in Kabul last week and then flew to Pakistan were he also met with the prime minister Friday as news reports in Pakistan suggested Islamabad was open to hosting the next round of talks with the insurgents. The Taliban, however, have threatened to suspend the fledgling peace efforts, accusing Washington of changing the agenda of the talks and "unilaterally" adding new subjects. Graham's trip also comes after US officials announced in December that Trump intends to withdraw as many as half of the 14,000 US troops deployed in Afghanistan. The meetings are the latest in a flurry of diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing the Taliban to the table for negotiations with the Afghan government on ending the conflict which began with the US invasion in 2001.

US Senator Lindsey Graham urges meeting between Trump and Pak PM Imran Khan

US President Donald Trump had conversations about a proposed project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, far later than previously acknowledged, his lawyer said Sunday.

Trump's conversations with his then personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who was spearheading the negotiations in Moscow, continued throughout the year until October or November 2016, Rudy Giuliani said.

"It's our understanding that they went on throughout 2016 -- there weren't a lot of them, but there were conversations," the former New York mayor said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Can't be sure the exact dates, but the president can remember having conversations with him about it," he said.

Cohen, who was sentenced to three years in prison for an assortment of felonies, has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 2017 when he testified that the negotiations had ended by January of 2016.

In fact, he later admitted, they had gone on much longer, until June of 2016, when Trump had become the presumptive nominee of the Republican party.

The latest disclosure extends that timeline right up to the presidential elections in November.

The Trump Tower project has been a subject of scrutiny because Trump had denied any business dealings with the Russians.

He has since acknowledged that Cohen pursued a deal with the Russians well into 2016, but has insisted there was nothing wrong with seeking business opportunities while running for office.

Giuliani said Trump had fully answered questions about the Trump Tower project put to him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with a Russian effort to sway the 2016 elections in the Republican's favor, as well as possible obstruction by the president.

Giuliani portrayed Trump's role in the Moscow negotiations as that of a passive participant who was too busy running for president to pay much attention to it.

"It was Michael Cohen driving the project," he told CNN in a separate interview on its "State of the Union" show.

Candidate Trump, he said, was "tied up 18 hours a day with that (the campaign). If he could devote a minute a day to this, it would be a lot. A minute here, a minute there.

"Your recollection of that is not going to be as strong. The guy running it is going to remember it," he said.

Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee on February 7.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump had conversations about a proposed project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, far later than previously acknowledged, his lawyer said Sunday.

US President Donald Trump had conversations about a proposed project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, far later than previously acknowledged, his lawyer said Sunday. Trump's conversations with his then personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who was spearheading the negotiations in Moscow, continued throughout the year until October or November 2016, Rudy Giuliani said. "It's our understanding that they went on throughout 2016 -- there weren't a lot of them, but there were conversations," the former New York mayor said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Can't be sure the exact dates, but the president can remember having conversations with him about it," he said. Cohen, who was sentenced to three years in prison for an assortment of felonies, has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 2017 when he testified that the negotiations had ended by January of 2016. In fact, he later admitted, they had gone on much longer, until June of 2016, when Trump had become the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. The latest disclosure extends that timeline right up to the presidential elections in November. The Trump Tower project has been a subject of scrutiny because Trump had denied any business dealings with the Russians. He has since acknowledged that Cohen pursued a deal with the Russians well into 2016, but has insisted there was nothing wrong with seeking business opportunities while running for office. Giuliani said Trump had fully answered questions about the Trump Tower project put to him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with a Russian effort to sway the 2016 elections in the Republican's favor, as well as possible obstruction by the president. Giuliani portrayed Trump's role in the Moscow negotiations as that of a passive participant who was too busy running for president to pay much attention to it. "It was Michael Cohen driving the project," he told CNN in a separate interview on its "State of the Union" show. Candidate Trump, he said, was "tied up 18 hours a day with that (the campaign). If he could devote a minute a day to this, it would be a lot. A minute here, a minute there. "Your recollection of that is not going to be as strong. The guy running it is going to remember it," he said. Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee on February 7.

Trump had conversations on Moscow tower up to the 2016 US elections: Lawyer Rudy Giuliani

President Donald Trump said on Sunday his proposed immigration deal to end a 30-day partial government shutdown would not lead to amnesty for "Dreamers," but appeared to signal support for amnesty as part of a broader immigration agreement.

In a morning Twitter storm, Trump also said he would not seek the removal of millions of illegal aliens living in the United States, while bashing House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for turning down his offer on Saturday.

"No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3-year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else," Trump said on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3 year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else. Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1086977510225727488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!"

The Dreamers, which refers to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, are protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

DACA was put in place under former President Barack Obama. The Trump administration said in September 2017 it would rescind DACA but it remains in effect under court order.

Trump did not make clear what he was referring to regarding the 11 million people mentioned in his tweet. About 12 million people are living in the United States illegally, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimates.

About one-quarter of the US&nbsp;government shut down on Dec. 22 over Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to fund a wall along the border with Mexico, which Democrats have refused to consider. Some 800,000 federal workers have been ordered to stay home or work without pay during the shutdown.

On Sunday, a day after Trump's DACA proposal, there appeared to be signs of movement, even as Democrats insisted the government should reopen before proceeding with talks over border security.

"What the president proposed yesterday - increasing border security, looking at TPS, looking at the Dreamers - I'll use that as a starting point. But you've got to start by reopening the government," US&nbsp;Senator Mark Warner said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) refers to another class of immigrants - nationals from designated countries affected by armed conflict, natural disaster, or other strife.

Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said reopening the government ahead of border security negotiations was important for preventing future shutdowns.

"If the president can arbitrarily shut down the government now, he will do it time and again," Warner said.

Warner also said Congress should approve pay for federal workers affected by the shutdown before they miss another paycheck this week.

"Let's at least pay them on Thursday, so they don't have to go through more angst," Warner said.

President Donald Trump said on Sunday his proposed immigration deal to end a 30-day partial government shutdown would not lead to amnesty for "Dreamers," but appeared to signal support for amnesty as part of a broader immigration agreement.

President Donald Trump said on Sunday his proposed immigration deal to end a 30-day partial government shutdown would not lead to amnesty for "Dreamers," but appeared to signal support for amnesty as part of a broader immigration agreement. In a morning Twitter storm, Trump also said he would not seek the removal of millions of illegal aliens living in the United States, while bashing House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for turning down his offer on Saturday. "No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3-year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else," Trump said on Twitter. No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3 year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else. Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2019 × "Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!" The Dreamers, which refers to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, are protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA was put in place under former President Barack Obama. The Trump administration said in September 2017 it would rescind DACA but it remains in effect under court order. Trump did not make clear what he was referring to regarding the 11 million people mentioned in his tweet. About 12 million people are living in the United States illegally, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimates. About one-quarter of the US government shut down on Dec. 22 over Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to fund a wall along the border with Mexico, which Democrats have refused to consider. Some 800,000 federal workers have been ordered to stay home or work without pay during the shutdown. On Sunday, a day after Trump's DACA proposal, there appeared to be signs of movement, even as Democrats insisted the government should reopen before proceeding with talks over border security. "What the president proposed yesterday - increasing border security, looking at TPS, looking at the Dreamers - I'll use that as a starting point. But you've got to start by reopening the government," US Senator Mark Warner said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Temporary Protected Status (TPS) refers to another class of immigrants - nationals from designated countries affected by armed conflict, natural disaster, or other strife. Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said reopening the government ahead of border security negotiations was important for preventing future shutdowns. "If the president can arbitrarily shut down the government now, he will do it time and again," Warner said. Warner also said Congress should approve pay for federal workers affected by the shutdown before they miss another paycheck this week. "Let's at least pay them on Thursday, so they don't have to go through more angst," Warner said.

Trump says no amnesty for 'Dreamers,' signals support in broader deal

US President Donald Trump bitterly attacked top Democrat Nancy Pelosi on Sunday after she rejected a deal on immigration and the Mexico border wall that would end a 30-day-old government shutdown.

Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, on Saturday called Trump's offer of temporary protections for about a million immigrants in return for $5.7 billion to fund the wall a "non-starter."

"Nancy Pelosi has behaved so irrationally &amp; has gone so far to the left that she has now officially become a Radical Democrat," Trump tweeted. "She is so petrified of the 'lefties' in her party that she has lost control."

"...And by the way, clean up the streets in San Francisco, they are disgusting!" he added, in a seemingly gratuitous aside. Pelosi is from San Francisco.

The offer also was assailed by prominent anti-immigrant voices, which denounced it as tantamount to amnesty.

"No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3-year extension of DACA," Trump said in another tweet, referring to former president Barack Obama's program to shield undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children.

Besides the 700,000 immigrants already enrolled in the so-called DACA or "Dreamers" program, Trump's proposal would also extend to another 300,000 people who had been protected from deportation under another program.

He said that while there would be "no big push" to remove the 11 million people in the country illegally, he warned: 'but be careful, Nancy!"&nbsp;

Vice President Mike Pence, who has been leading the administration's contacts with members of Congress, said a bill with the president's proposal would be introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate as early as Tuesday.

US President Donald Trump bitterly attacked top Democrat Nancy Pelosi on Sunday after she rejected a deal on immigration and the Mexico border wall that would end a 30-day-old government shutdown.

US President Donald Trump bitterly attacked top Democrat Nancy Pelosi on Sunday after she rejected a deal on immigration and the Mexico border wall that would end a 30-day-old government shutdown. Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, on Saturday called Trump's offer of temporary protections for about a million immigrants in return for $5.7 billion to fund the wall a "non-starter." "Nancy Pelosi has behaved so irrationally & has gone so far to the left that she has now officially become a Radical Democrat," Trump tweeted. "She is so petrified of the 'lefties' in her party that she has lost control." "...And by the way, clean up the streets in San Francisco, they are disgusting!" he added, in a seemingly gratuitous aside. Pelosi is from San Francisco. The offer also was assailed by prominent anti-immigrant voices, which denounced it as tantamount to amnesty. "No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3-year extension of DACA," Trump said in another tweet, referring to former president Barack Obama's program to shield undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children. Besides the 700,000 immigrants already enrolled in the so-called DACA or "Dreamers" program, Trump's proposal would also extend to another 300,000 people who had been protected from deportation under another program. He said that while there would be "no big push" to remove the 11 million people in the country illegally, he warned: 'but be careful, Nancy!" Vice President Mike Pence, who has been leading the administration's contacts with members of Congress, said a bill with the president's proposal would be introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate as early as Tuesday.

Trump attacks Democrat Nancy Pelosi for rejecting Mexico wall deal

In pictures: The week that was

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