US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counter part - Xi Jinping sat down virtually and spoke for three and a half hours. This meeting was hailed to be an ice breaker between the two nations.Because US and China's relations are at an all time low. The worrying part is that the good days are far from away. In a latest statement White house press secretary - Jen Psaki has said - that the US sees China from the prism of competition and not conflict. But washington still seems reluctant to completely trust beijing. The concerns of human rights abuses in xinjiang are still one of the main contentions.

US President Joe Biden, Chinese counter part - Xi Jinping hold meet

House Democrats passed a large bill Friday that aims to curb climate change, fight poverty and invest in children, workers and families. How large? Probably about $2.2 trillion. But there’s a wide range of other estimates for the price tag, reflecting the difficulties in pinning a true “score” to a plan that has changed a lot over the past weeks and months.

Lawmakers, along with budget experts, haven’t settled on a headline number for the bill, which is now headed to the Senate after a Friday morning vote. That’s because they don’t agree on how to count up all the various programs that President Joe Biden and his party have stuffed into it.

Some are using $1.7 trillion, which is the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate for the bill’s total “direct spending.” The estimate is a useful measure, but not a complete one, because it leaves out some tax benefits that cost the government money, including ones meant to fight climate change.

Some are putting the price tag at as much as $2.5 trillion, a calculation that includes changes to the state and local tax deduction, and which is, for accounting reasons, a bit misleading.

Biden and his aides have said the bill costs nothing, because, by White House math, it would not add to the deficit over the course of a decade. But $0 is neither an accurate nor a useful way to convey the size of a sweeping piece of legislation that would build affordable housing, provide paid leave to workers, reduce child care costs, establish universal prekindergarten, cut taxes for parents, seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of measures and much more.

The simplest and best number to use when discussing the bill — and the one that is most consistent with the price tags that have been attached to earlier versions of it — is $2.2 trillion. That’s the total value of the new government spending programs in the legislation, plus the value of the new tax cuts it includes.

Is $2.2 trillion the new $1.85 trillion?

The New York Times had initially called the bill a $1.85 trillion package. That was a number Democrats attached to the “framework” for the legislation known as the Build Back Better Act that Biden announced late last month. But two things changed in recent days, causing us to recalculate.

First, House Democrats added several items to Biden’s framework, including a provision that would fund paid leave for workers. That made the package’s price tag bigger.

Then Thursday, the nonpartisan CBO released its official score of the bill. It’s an estimate of how much the spending programs and the tax cuts would cost the federal government, and how much money would be raised by the tax increases and spending cuts that Democrats are using as “pay-fors.” The CBO’s estimates differed from the administration’s in some important ways.

When you add up the CBO scores for all the spending and tax cuts in the bill — which is to say, all of the things Democrats say will benefit Americans — you get about $2.2 trillion.

How did the legislation grow to $2.2 trillion?

The short answer is: paid leave. That measure alone added more than $200 billion to the cost of the bill. A variety of other cost adjustments, like for the housing and immigration provisions in the plan as well as other spending additions, did the rest.

What about SALT?

This is a tricky one. The other big change from Biden’s framework in the House bill is a rejiggering of a limit on the deductions individuals can take on federal income tax forms for the state and local taxes they pay. It’s a measure that would largely help high earners in high-tax states like New Jersey and New York. But oddly enough, it doesn’t add to the bill’s official cost — mostly because the measure is an accounting move, meant to deliver more goodies to certain taxpayers in the short term while taking some benefits away later.

Republicans capped the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT, at $10,000 per household in 2017. Under that bill, the cap would go away in 2026, meaning an unlimited deduction would return. The Democrats’ plan would increase the cap to $80,000 per household for most of the decade before dropping it to $10,000 again in 2031. That means households taking advantage of the deduction would get a significant tax break for the next several years but a smaller one for the back half of the decade.

The budget office found that the change would essentially be a financial wash for the government, raising a bit more over the decade than the current system, since SALT currently maintains a higher cap all decade instead of allowing the cap to disappear in 2025.

Some groups, like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington, have chosen to break off just the early-year benefits of the SALT change and add them to the total cost. The Times isn’t doing that, in order to stay consistent with how we add up the costs and benefits of the rest of the bill, which are measured across the full decade.

Is this how the cost of the 2017 tax cuts was measured?

Mechanically, yes. Practically, no.

With both the 2017 law and this bill, we’re trying to add up the cost of the parts of the legislation meant to benefit people and companies. That’s the “price tag.”

For former President Donald Trump’s cuts, most estimates initially used $1.5 trillion as the cost. This number reflected the amount of money Republicans added to the federal deficit as part of the budget process that allowed them to bypass a Democratic filibuster. It was a net calculation: The law actually had trillions of dollars in tax cuts, partially offset by trillions more in tax increases, but in many cases, they were meant to cancel each other out. For example, businesses got a lower corporate tax rate but had to pay a one-time tax on profits they were holding overseas and shielding from U.S. taxes. Individuals lost their personal exemptions but gained higher standard deductions.

Trump often bragged about the larger figure — the total amount of tax cuts, without factoring in the offsetting tax increases — but most analysts agreed that the effect on the economy was best measured by the gap between the total cuts and the total offsets. The CBO initially pegged that at $1.5 trillion, then increased the estimate to $1.9 trillion after accounting for interest payments on the borrowing needed to finance those cuts.

The Democratic bill is different. Its benefits are a mix of tax cuts and spending programs, which we are adding together. Those benefits are offset by what’s known as pay-fors — changes that add revenue. But even after taking those pay-fors into consideration, there are reasonable quibbles you could make over what should go in what category.

For example: We count an effort to reduce prescription drug costs as a pay-for, as do many Democrats, because it saves the government money. It also saves money for consumers, so you could argue it should go on the “benefits” side, but as a negative number, which would reduce the price tag to less than $2 trillion.

Will the price tag change when the bill goes to the Senate?

Yes. Senators are almost certain to amend the House bill, most likely to reduce its cost and bring it more in line with Biden’s framework. At least one centrist Democrat, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, has said he does not want the bill to cost more than $1.9 trillion. He also opposes the paid leave program. Other spending and tax cuts could also be curbed. If that happens, the cost of the bill will change again.

House Democrats passed a large bill Friday that aims to curb climate change, fight poverty and invest in children, workers and families. How large? Probably about $2.

House Democrats passed a large bill Friday that aims to curb climate change, fight poverty and invest in children, workers and families. How large? Probably about $2.2 trillion. But there’s a wide range of other estimates for the price tag, reflecting the difficulties in pinning a true “score” to a plan that has changed a lot over the past weeks and months. Lawmakers, along with budget experts, haven’t settled on a headline number for the bill, which is now headed to the Senate after a Friday morning vote. That’s because they don’t agree on how to count up all the various programs that President Joe Biden and his party have stuffed into it. Some are using $1.7 trillion, which is the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate for the bill’s total “direct spending.” The estimate is a useful measure, but not a complete one, because it leaves out some tax benefits that cost the government money, including ones meant to fight climate change. Some are putting the price tag at as much as $2.5 trillion, a calculation that includes changes to the state and local tax deduction, and which is, for accounting reasons, a bit misleading. Biden and his aides have said the bill costs nothing, because, by White House math, it would not add to the deficit over the course of a decade. But $0 is neither an accurate nor a useful way to convey the size of a sweeping piece of legislation that would build affordable housing, provide paid leave to workers, reduce child care costs, establish universal prekindergarten, cut taxes for parents, seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions through a variety of measures and much more. The simplest and best number to use when discussing the bill — and the one that is most consistent with the price tags that have been attached to earlier versions of it — is $2.2 trillion. That’s the total value of the new government spending programs in the legislation, plus the value of the new tax cuts it includes. Is $2.2 trillion the new $1.85 trillion? The New York Times had initially called the bill a $1.85 trillion package. That was a number Democrats attached to the “framework” for the legislation known as the Build Back Better Act that Biden announced late last month. But two things changed in recent days, causing us to recalculate. First, House Democrats added several items to Biden’s framework, including a provision that would fund paid leave for workers. That made the package’s price tag bigger. Then Thursday, the nonpartisan CBO released its official score of the bill. It’s an estimate of how much the spending programs and the tax cuts would cost the federal government, and how much money would be raised by the tax increases and spending cuts that Democrats are using as “pay-fors.” The CBO’s estimates differed from the administration’s in some important ways. When you add up the CBO scores for all the spending and tax cuts in the bill — which is to say, all of the things Democrats say will benefit Americans — you get about $2.2 trillion. How did the legislation grow to $2.2 trillion? The short answer is: paid leave. That measure alone added more than $200 billion to the cost of the bill. A variety of other cost adjustments, like for the housing and immigration provisions in the plan as well as other spending additions, did the rest. What about SALT? This is a tricky one. The other big change from Biden’s framework in the House bill is a rejiggering of a limit on the deductions individuals can take on federal income tax forms for the state and local taxes they pay. It’s a measure that would largely help high earners in high-tax states like New Jersey and New York. But oddly enough, it doesn’t add to the bill’s official cost — mostly because the measure is an accounting move, meant to deliver more goodies to certain taxpayers in the short term while taking some benefits away later. Republicans capped the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT, at $10,000 per household in 2017. Under that bill, the cap would go away in 2026, meaning an unlimited deduction would return. The Democrats’ plan would increase the cap to $80,000 per household for most of the decade before dropping it to $10,000 again in 2031. That means households taking advantage of the deduction would get a significant tax break for the next several years but a smaller one for the back half of the decade. The budget office found that the change would essentially be a financial wash for the government, raising a bit more over the decade than the current system, since SALT currently maintains a higher cap all decade instead of allowing the cap to disappear in 2025. Some groups, like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington, have chosen to break off just the early-year benefits of the SALT change and add them to the total cost. The Times isn’t doing that, in order to stay consistent with how we add up the costs and benefits of the rest of the bill, which are measured across the full decade. Is this how the cost of the 2017 tax cuts was measured? Mechanically, yes. Practically, no. With both the 2017 law and this bill, we’re trying to add up the cost of the parts of the legislation meant to benefit people and companies. That’s the “price tag.” For former President Donald Trump’s cuts, most estimates initially used $1.5 trillion as the cost. This number reflected the amount of money Republicans added to the federal deficit as part of the budget process that allowed them to bypass a Democratic filibuster. It was a net calculation: The law actually had trillions of dollars in tax cuts, partially offset by trillions more in tax increases, but in many cases, they were meant to cancel each other out. For example, businesses got a lower corporate tax rate but had to pay a one-time tax on profits they were holding overseas and shielding from U.S. taxes. Individuals lost their personal exemptions but gained higher standard deductions. Trump often bragged about the larger figure — the total amount of tax cuts, without factoring in the offsetting tax increases — but most analysts agreed that the effect on the economy was best measured by the gap between the total cuts and the total offsets. The CBO initially pegged that at $1.5 trillion, then increased the estimate to $1.9 trillion after accounting for interest payments on the borrowing needed to finance those cuts. The Democratic bill is different. Its benefits are a mix of tax cuts and spending programs, which we are adding together. Those benefits are offset by what’s known as pay-fors — changes that add revenue. But even after taking those pay-fors into consideration, there are reasonable quibbles you could make over what should go in what category. For example: We count an effort to reduce prescription drug costs as a pay-for, as do many Democrats, because it saves the government money. It also saves money for consumers, so you could argue it should go on the “benefits” side, but as a negative number, which would reduce the price tag to less than $2 trillion. Will the price tag change when the bill goes to the Senate? Yes. Senators are almost certain to amend the House bill, most likely to reduce its cost and bring it more in line with Biden’s framework. At least one centrist Democrat, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, has said he does not want the bill to cost more than $1.9 trillion. He also opposes the paid leave program. Other spending and tax cuts could also be curbed. If that happens, the cost of the bill will change again.

How much does Biden’s spending bill actually cost?

The United States and Taiwan next week will hold a second session of an economic dialogue launched last year in the face of increasing pressure on the island from China, the State Department said on Friday.

The announcement comes days after a virtual meeting between US&nbsp;President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. After the meeting, Xi warned that supporters in the United States of Taiwanese independence were "playing with fire."

A State Department statement said the US&nbsp;under secretary for economic growth, energy, and the environment, Jose Fernandez, will lead the second US-Taiwan Economic Prosperity Partnership Dialogue on Monday.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-virtual-summit-biden-seeks-guardrails-against-conflict-xi-calls-for-better-communication-429645">Also read |&nbsp;US-China virtual summit: Biden seeks 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication</a>

It said the dialogue would be conducted under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the United States, which act as respective unofficial embassies.

"Our partnership is built on strong two-way trade and investment, people-to-people ties, and in the common defense of freedom and shared democratic values," the statement said.

Taiwan's Foreign Ministry said the virtual meeting would be led from its side by Economy Minister Wang Mei-hua and Science and Technology Minister Wu Tsung-tsong.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/now-in-hindi-xi-jinpings-book-about-his-doctrine-of-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics-430460" hreflang="en">Now in Hindi: Xi Jinping's book about his doctrine of 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics'</a>

Taiwan hopes the dialogue may lead eventually to a free-trade agreement with the United States and hailed last year's inaugural meeting as a step forward.

It was part of increased US&nbsp;engagement with Taipei under former President Donald Trump that the Biden administration has continued, to the anger of Beijing, which claims Taiwan as its own.

The two sides held long-delayed talks on a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement virtually in July, and Taiwan said it hoped it would be possible to sign an FTA one day.

Last year, Taiwan's government lifted a ban on the import of pork containing a leanness-enhancing additive, ractopamine, removing a major stumbling block to a deal with Washington, but is due to hold a referendum on the issue in December.

Taiwan is a major producer of semiconductors, a shortage of which has roiled supply chains globally and affected auto makers in particular, concerning Washington, which has pressed Taiwan to speed up chip production.

The United States and Taiwan next week will hold a second session of an economic dialogue launched last year in the face of increasing pressure on the island from China, the State Department said on Friday.

The United States and Taiwan next week will hold a second session of an economic dialogue launched last year in the face of increasing pressure on the island from China, the State Department said on Friday. The announcement comes days after a virtual meeting between US President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. After the meeting, Xi warned that supporters in the United States of Taiwanese independence were "playing with fire." A State Department statement said the US under secretary for economic growth, energy, and the environment, Jose Fernandez, will lead the second US-Taiwan Economic Prosperity Partnership Dialogue on Monday. Also read | US-China virtual summit: Biden seeks 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication It said the dialogue would be conducted under the auspices of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the United States, which act as respective unofficial embassies. "Our partnership is built on strong two-way trade and investment, people-to-people ties, and in the common defense of freedom and shared democratic values," the statement said. Taiwan's Foreign Ministry said the virtual meeting would be led from its side by Economy Minister Wang Mei-hua and Science and Technology Minister Wu Tsung-tsong. Also read | Now in Hindi: Xi Jinping's book about his doctrine of 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics' Taiwan hopes the dialogue may lead eventually to a free-trade agreement with the United States and hailed last year's inaugural meeting as a step forward. It was part of increased US engagement with Taipei under former President Donald Trump that the Biden administration has continued, to the anger of Beijing, which claims Taiwan as its own. The two sides held long-delayed talks on a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement virtually in July, and Taiwan said it hoped it would be possible to sign an FTA one day. Last year, Taiwan's government lifted a ban on the import of pork containing a leanness-enhancing additive, ractopamine, removing a major stumbling block to a deal with Washington, but is due to hold a referendum on the issue in December. Taiwan is a major producer of semiconductors, a shortage of which has roiled supply chains globally and affected auto makers in particular, concerning Washington, which has pressed Taiwan to speed up chip production.

US and Taiwan to hold second round of economic dialogue next week

The mystery surrounding Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai's whereabouts took a fresh new twist on Friday when a Chinese state media reporter shared a few pictures of her on Twitter. Journalist Shen Shiwei, who works for CGTN - the international arm of the Chinese government-controlled broadcaster CCTV, shared the purported pictures of Peng on his Twitter account.

In the pictures shared by the reporter, the 'missing' tennis star can be seen posing along with some soft toys. Shiwei claimed the pictures were taken from the tennis star's WeChat thread and that they were shared with him by one of Peng's friends.

"Peng Shuai’s WeChat moments just posted three latest photos and said “Happy weekend”.&nbsp;Her friend shared the three photos and the screenshot of Peng’s WeChat moments," Shiwei wrote on Twitter while sharing the pictures allegedly taken from Peng Shuai's WeChat thread.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Peng Shuai’s WeChat moments just posted three latest photos and said “Happy weekend”. 
Her friend shared the three photos and the screenshot of Peng’s WeChat moments. <a href="https://t.co/tut8CEH6gu">pic.twitter.com/tut8CEH6gu</a>
— Shen Shiwei沈诗伟 (@shen_shiwei) <a href="https://twitter.com/shen_shiwei/status/1461715435385020419?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 19, 2021</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>

The authenticity of the pictures has been questioned by many as there continues to remain mystery over Peng's location. The tennis ace has been missing ever since her social media post on November 02 where she levelled sexual assault allegations against a former Chinese vice premier.

Beijing's mouthpiece CGTN had earlier released an email allegedly from Peng, stating that she is not missing and that she has been resting at home. "I'm not missing, nor am I unsafe, I`ve been resting at home and everything is fine," read the email. However, China's history of silencing growing voices in the past has led to global outrage over the whereabouts of Peng as she is yet to make a public appearance since her post on November 2nd.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/china-says-politicising-sports-hurts-olympic-spirit-as-joe-biden-mulls-boycott-430437">China says 'politicising sports' hurts Olympic spirit as Joe Biden mulls boycott</a>

<h1>US expresses concerns</h1>

The United States (US) on Friday expressed concerns over the 'missing' Chinese tennis player and demanded "independent, verifiable proof" from China about her whereabouts. ."The US wants China to provide verifiable proofs of her whereabouts and that she is safe," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing at the White House on Friday.&nbsp;

The Women's Tennis Association (WTA) has also called for a "full, fair, and transparent investigation" into the matter while threatening to pull out their events from China if proper action is not taken in the case. Several tennis stars including the likes of Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka and Andy Murray have spoken up about the missing Chinese tennis player.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The mystery surrounding Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai's whereabouts took a fresh new twist on Friday when a Chinese state media reporter shared a few pictures of her on Twitter.

The mystery surrounding Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai's whereabouts took a fresh new twist on Friday when a Chinese state media reporter shared a few pictures of her on Twitter. Journalist Shen Shiwei, who works for CGTN - the international arm of the Chinese government-controlled broadcaster CCTV, shared the purported pictures of Peng on his Twitter account. In the pictures shared by the reporter, the 'missing' tennis star can be seen posing along with some soft toys. Shiwei claimed the pictures were taken from the tennis star's WeChat thread and that they were shared with him by one of Peng's friends. "Peng Shuai’s WeChat moments just posted three latest photos and said “Happy weekend”. Her friend shared the three photos and the screenshot of Peng’s WeChat moments," Shiwei wrote on Twitter while sharing the pictures allegedly taken from Peng Shuai's WeChat thread. Peng Shuai’s WeChat moments just posted three latest photos and said “Happy weekend”. Her friend shared the three photos and the screenshot of Peng’s WeChat moments. pic.twitter.com/tut8CEH6gu — Shen Shiwei沈诗伟 (@shen_shiwei) November 19, 2021 × The authenticity of the pictures has been questioned by many as there continues to remain mystery over Peng's location. The tennis ace has been missing ever since her social media post on November 02 where she levelled sexual assault allegations against a former Chinese vice premier. Beijing's mouthpiece CGTN had earlier released an email allegedly from Peng, stating that she is not missing and that she has been resting at home. "I'm not missing, nor am I unsafe, I`ve been resting at home and everything is fine," read the email. However, China's history of silencing growing voices in the past has led to global outrage over the whereabouts of Peng as she is yet to make a public appearance since her post on November 2nd. Also Read: China says 'politicising sports' hurts Olympic spirit as Joe Biden mulls boycott US expresses concerns The United States (US) on Friday expressed concerns over the 'missing' Chinese tennis player and demanded "independent, verifiable proof" from China about her whereabouts. ."The US wants China to provide verifiable proofs of her whereabouts and that she is safe," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing at the White House on Friday. The Women's Tennis Association (WTA) has also called for a "full, fair, and transparent investigation" into the matter while threatening to pull out their events from China if proper action is not taken in the case. Several tennis stars including the likes of Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka and Andy Murray have spoken up about the missing Chinese tennis player.

Chinese state media reporter shares purported pictures of Peng Shuai, US concerned over her whereabouts

As Joe&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;pops the cork on his alcohol-free birthday bubbly this weekend he will not need to be reminded that he was born as close to the end of Abraham Lincoln's presidency as he was to the start of his own.

The veteran Democrat, who turns&nbsp;79&nbsp;on Saturday, has said publicly he intends to run for reelection but there has been&nbsp;persistent speculation&nbsp;that he could change his mind given his advanced years.

There is usually little intrigue around the nomination when a US president is still in his first term, as no occupant of the White House has declined to seek reelection since Lyndon Johnson more than 50 years ago.

But&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;would be 86 at the end of a second term, and&nbsp;potential&nbsp;successors&nbsp;and their sponsors are already circling, seeing another four years as an assignment too far in&nbsp;Biden's storied political career.

In a new Politico/Morning Consult poll, only 40 per cent of voters surveyed agreed with the statement that&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;"is in good health," while 50 per cent disagreed -- a 29-point shift over a year.

"If his health declines, as sometimes happens in one's 80s, his plans might change," said David Greenberg, a journalism and history professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

"That would create a wide-open field, with many of the 2020 runners-up as possibilities, as well as a lot of people who didn't run."

If&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;were to become the nation's first octogenarian presidential candidate, he would be somewhat undermining the status he gave himself during the campaign as a "bridge" to the next generation -- taken by many as a tacit assurance that he would not seek a second term.&nbsp;

History-making Kamala Harris -- the first woman and first Black and Asian American ever sworn in as vice president -- would be the heir apparent.

<h2>&nbsp;'Bold leader'&nbsp;</h2>

But her halo has slipped amid a run of negative press alleging dysfunction among her staff, casting doubt on her standing within the administration and reporting her frustrations over her thorny assignments.

Asked by ABC Thursday if she'd spoken to&nbsp;Biden&nbsp;about his plans for the future, Harris said "absolutely not," adding that the administration was focused on infrastructure, national security and other priorities.

She rejected reports that she was feeling misused or wrongly deployed, telling the channel: "We're getting things done, and we're doing it together."

But Harris has struggled to make an impact, with her approval dipping to 28 per cent in one survey, and headlines outlining her frustrations over being politically sidelined and set up for failure.&nbsp;

It is not unusual for vice presidents to be assigned some heavy lifting during their time in the West Wing, but Harris has been handed some particularly tough portfolios,&nbsp;from&nbsp;voting rights to the immigration crisis at the southern border.

Overseas, her recent trip to Paris went without hitches, but jaunts to Latin America and Asia have been less successful.

Harris visited Guatemala and Mexico in June as part of her immigration mission, giving an interview to NBC News that was widely regarded as a disaster.&nbsp;

Asked why she had not yet been to the border, Harris replied: "And I haven't been to Europe... And I mean, I don't understand the point that you're making. I'm not discounting the importance of the border."

Hours after the interview, several US media outlets reported that Harris's communications chief&nbsp;Ashley Etienne&nbsp;was leaving -- "to pursue other opportunities," according to White House officials -- adding to speculation about low morale among the staff.&nbsp;

<h2>&nbsp;'Hope and rumour'&nbsp;</h2>

Amid Harris's travails, another barrier-breaking Democrat, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has risen to the fore as the point man on implementing much of&nbsp;Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure package.&nbsp;

But the first openly gay US cabinet secretary is also the face of the supply-chain crisis that right-wing media are predicting will ruin the holiday season.&nbsp;

Critics also point to the biggest flaw of his impressive campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, a glaring lack of support&nbsp;from&nbsp;voters of colour.&nbsp;

Three analysts interviewed by AFP -- former congressional chief of staff Mark Bayer, University of Toledo politics professor Sam Nelson and Tommy Goodwin, a Washington-based lobbyist -- said Harris would nevertheless be the frontrunner in any Democratic succession, with Buttigieg also in the conversation.

"Beyond those two, it's worth keeping an eye on California Governor Gavin Newsom," said Goodwin, while Nelson singled out a number of previous hopefuls, including Beto O'Rourke, who is vying for the Texas governor's mansion in 2022.

From&nbsp;the Senate, Cory Booker is said to be putting out feelers in the critical primary state of New Hampshire, while&nbsp;Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar is on a book tour and&nbsp;Elizabeth Warren has begun endorsing candidates beyond her Massachusetts base.

But Peter Loge, an associate professor at George Washington University, says any talk of&nbsp;Biden's retirement would be premature, recalling similar claims about Donald Trump in 2019. &nbsp;

"There is always speculation based on hope and whispered rumours," Loge told AFP, "most of which isn't based on more than hope and rumour."

As Joe Biden pops the cork on his alcohol-free birthday bubbly this weekend he will not need to be reminded that he was born as close to the end of Abraham Lincoln's presidency as he was to the start of his own.

As Joe Biden pops the cork on his alcohol-free birthday bubbly this weekend he will not need to be reminded that he was born as close to the end of Abraham Lincoln's presidency as he was to the start of his own. The veteran Democrat, who turns 79 on Saturday, has said publicly he intends to run for reelection but there has been persistent speculation that he could change his mind given his advanced years. There is usually little intrigue around the nomination when a US president is still in his first term, as no occupant of the White House has declined to seek reelection since Lyndon Johnson more than 50 years ago. But Biden would be 86 at the end of a second term, and potential successors and their sponsors are already circling, seeing another four years as an assignment too far in Biden's storied political career. In a new Politico/Morning Consult poll, only 40 per cent of voters surveyed agreed with the statement that Biden "is in good health," while 50 per cent disagreed -- a 29-point shift over a year. "If his health declines, as sometimes happens in one's 80s, his plans might change," said David Greenberg, a journalism and history professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "That would create a wide-open field, with many of the 2020 runners-up as possibilities, as well as a lot of people who didn't run." If Biden were to become the nation's first octogenarian presidential candidate, he would be somewhat undermining the status he gave himself during the campaign as a "bridge" to the next generation -- taken by many as a tacit assurance that he would not seek a second term. History-making Kamala Harris -- the first woman and first Black and Asian American ever sworn in as vice president -- would be the heir apparent. 'Bold leader' But her halo has slipped amid a run of negative press alleging dysfunction among her staff, casting doubt on her standing within the administration and reporting her frustrations over her thorny assignments. Asked by ABC Thursday if she'd spoken to Biden about his plans for the future, Harris said "absolutely not," adding that the administration was focused on infrastructure, national security and other priorities. She rejected reports that she was feeling misused or wrongly deployed, telling the channel: "We're getting things done, and we're doing it together." But Harris has struggled to make an impact, with her approval dipping to 28 per cent in one survey, and headlines outlining her frustrations over being politically sidelined and set up for failure. It is not unusual for vice presidents to be assigned some heavy lifting during their time in the West Wing, but Harris has been handed some particularly tough portfolios, from voting rights to the immigration crisis at the southern border. Overseas, her recent trip to Paris went without hitches, but jaunts to Latin America and Asia have been less successful. Harris visited Guatemala and Mexico in June as part of her immigration mission, giving an interview to NBC News that was widely regarded as a disaster. Asked why she had not yet been to the border, Harris replied: "And I haven't been to Europe... And I mean, I don't understand the point that you're making. I'm not discounting the importance of the border." Hours after the interview, several US media outlets reported that Harris's communications chief Ashley Etienne was leaving -- "to pursue other opportunities," according to White House officials -- adding to speculation about low morale among the staff. 'Hope and rumour' Amid Harris's travails, another barrier-breaking Democrat, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has risen to the fore as the point man on implementing much of Biden's $1.2 trillion infrastructure package. But the first openly gay US cabinet secretary is also the face of the supply-chain crisis that right-wing media are predicting will ruin the holiday season. Critics also point to the biggest flaw of his impressive campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, a glaring lack of support from voters of colour. Three analysts interviewed by AFP -- former congressional chief of staff Mark Bayer, University of Toledo politics professor Sam Nelson and Tommy Goodwin, a Washington-based lobbyist -- said Harris would nevertheless be the frontrunner in any Democratic succession, with Buttigieg also in the conversation. "Beyond those two, it's worth keeping an eye on California Governor Gavin Newsom," said Goodwin, while Nelson singled out a number of previous hopefuls, including Beto O'Rourke, who is vying for the Texas governor's mansion in 2022. From the Senate, Cory Booker is said to be putting out feelers in the critical primary state of New Hampshire, while Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar is on a book tour and Elizabeth Warren has begun endorsing candidates beyond her Massachusetts base. But Peter Loge, an associate professor at George Washington University, says any talk of Biden's retirement would be premature, recalling similar claims about Donald Trump in 2019. "There is always speculation based on hope and whispered rumours," Loge told AFP, "most of which isn't based on more than hope and rumour."

Biden hits 79 as potential successors watch from wings

The US and China agreed to continue dialogue on managing “strategic stability” on issues such as Taiwan, nuclear arms control, and cybersecurity. But as Voice of America White House Bureau Chief Patsy Widakuswara reports, the fundamentally contentious nature of the US-China relationship is unlikely to change.

WION-VOA Co-Production: Joe Biden meets with Xi Jinping virtually

Vice President Kamala Harris has brushed aside reports that she feels “frustrated and underutilised” in the Biden administration.

"I am very, very excited about the work that we have accomplished," she said during an interview to ABC's Good Morning America programme. “But I am also absolutely, absolutely clear-eyed that there is a lot more to do and we're going to get it done.”

When asked whether she feels “misused or underused”, Harris retorted, “No, I don’t”.

The response from Harris comes in the backdrop of a CNN report which claimed dysfunction between her team and the president’s office.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/underwater-polls-suggest-kamala-harris-least-popular-vice-president-since-1970s-402209">'Underwater': Polls suggest Kamala Harris least popular Vice President since 1970s</a>

The report, citing unnamed sources from the administration, claimed that Harris feels sidelined in the administration and that she is feeling “constrained in what she's able to do politically.”

The report further claims that Harris “is struggling with a rocky relationship with some parts of the White House, while long-time supporters feel abandoned and see no coherent public sense of what she's done or been trying to do as vice president.”

The White House has also denied any tensions in the office.

“The president selected the vice president to serve as his running mate because he felt she was exactly the person you wanted to have by his side to govern the country," press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters.

"She is a key partner. She's a bold leader. And she is somebody who has taken on incredibly important assignments.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/twitter-cant-keep-calm-as-it-discovers-kamala-harris-is-a-part-of-bts-army-358228">Twitter can't keep calm as it discovers Kamala Harris is a part of BTS ARMY</a>

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris’ communications director Ashley Etienne has resigned from the office, a White House official told CNN.

‘Ashley is a valued member of the vice president’s team, who has worked tirelessly to advance the goals of this administration,’ the official said on Thursday. ‘She is leaving the office in December to pursue other opportunities.’

It is being said that Etienne’s exit was due as she ‘was not a good fit’ for the vice president’s office and did not actively shape the communications strategy for&nbsp;Harris.

(With inputs from agencies)

Vice President Kamala Harris has brushed aside reports that she feels “frustrated and underutilised” in the Biden administration. "I am very, very excited about the work that we have accomplished," she said during an interview to ABC's Good Morning America programme.

Vice President Kamala Harris has brushed aside reports that she feels “frustrated and underutilised” in the Biden administration. "I am very, very excited about the work that we have accomplished," she said during an interview to ABC's Good Morning America programme. “But I am also absolutely, absolutely clear-eyed that there is a lot more to do and we're going to get it done.” When asked whether she feels “misused or underused”, Harris retorted, “No, I don’t”. The response from Harris comes in the backdrop of a CNN report which claimed dysfunction between her team and the president’s office. Also read | 'Underwater': Polls suggest Kamala Harris least popular Vice President since 1970s The report, citing unnamed sources from the administration, claimed that Harris feels sidelined in the administration and that she is feeling “constrained in what she's able to do politically.” The report further claims that Harris “is struggling with a rocky relationship with some parts of the White House, while long-time supporters feel abandoned and see no coherent public sense of what she's done or been trying to do as vice president.” The White House has also denied any tensions in the office. “The president selected the vice president to serve as his running mate because he felt she was exactly the person you wanted to have by his side to govern the country," press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. "She is a key partner. She's a bold leader. And she is somebody who has taken on incredibly important assignments.” Also read | Twitter can't keep calm as it discovers Kamala Harris is a part of BTS ARMY Meanwhile, Kamala Harris’ communications director Ashley Etienne has resigned from the office, a White House official told CNN. ‘Ashley is a valued member of the vice president’s team, who has worked tirelessly to advance the goals of this administration,’ the official said on Thursday. ‘She is leaving the office in December to pursue other opportunities.’ It is being said that Etienne’s exit was due as she ‘was not a good fit’ for the vice president’s office and did not actively shape the communications strategy for Harris. (With inputs from agencies)

Kamala Harris brushes aside reports of tensions with Biden administration, says ‘excited about the work’

President Joe Biden said Thursday he was considering a US diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, in what would be an attempt to show toughness over China's rights abuses without impacting US athletes.

That is "something we are considering," Biden told reporters while meeting with Canada's prime minister, Justin Trudeau, at the White House. The Beijing Olympics take place next February.

Biden's comments followed a long-awaited video summit with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping late Monday, during which the two leaders said they wanted to ensure stability and prevent accidental conflicts.

The US president is under pressure at home to speak out on China's human rights abuses, especially in the Xinjiang region where the US government says repression of the Uyghur ethnic group qualifies as genocide.

Campaigners say that at least one million Uyghurs and other Turkic-speaking, mostly Muslim minorities have been incarcerated in camps in Xinjiang, where China is also accused of forcibly sterilising women and imposing forced labour.

China's foreign ministry on Friday brushed off the rights accusations as "inconsistent with the truth and completely groundless," calling Washington's claims a "joke in the eyes of Chinese people."

"Politicising sports is against the Olympic spirit, and harms the interests of athletes from all countries," foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a regular press briefing Friday.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that the Biden administration would soon announce a diplomatic boycott, meaning that while athletes would still compete, government representatives would not be in the stands.

White House officials said that the issue was not raised during the Biden-Xi virtual summit.

- Balancing act -

US-China relations hit a low point under Biden's predecessor Donald Trump, with a massive trade war and incendiary debate over how the Covid-19 virus first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

Biden has sought to re-engage with Beijing, while at the same time focusing on strengthening traditional US alliances to counter China's ever-growing economic clout and military presence across the Indo-Pacific region.

He has held two lengthy phone calls with Xi and was keen to meet in person.&nbsp;

But with the Chinese leader not traveling outside of the country since the start of the Covid pandemic, this week's virtual summit was the only possible next step.

Following Biden's mention of a possible Olympics boycott, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said she did not "have an update on what our presence will be."

"I want to give the national security team and the president space to make the decision," she said.

For Biden, that decision will be part of a complex diplomatic balancing act.

His administration has left Trump-era trade tariffs on China in place and continues to order naval patrols through sensitive international sea lanes that China is accused of trying to bring under its control.

However, with Biden also emphasizing the need for dialogue, critics on the right say he is being too soft.

This makes the looming Olympic Games a political flashpoint.

"The United States must implement a complete and total boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics. The threat to our athletes and China's crimes against humanity leave us no other option," Republican Senator Tom Cotton tweeted Thursday.

Psaki said the White House sees US-China relations "through the prism of competition, not conflict."

However, she added, "we have serious concerns" about human rights.

President Joe Biden said Thursday he was considering a US diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, in what would be an attempt to show toughness over China's rights abuses without impacting US athletes.

President Joe Biden said Thursday he was considering a US diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, in what would be an attempt to show toughness over China's rights abuses without impacting US athletes. That is "something we are considering," Biden told reporters while meeting with Canada's prime minister, Justin Trudeau, at the White House. The Beijing Olympics take place next February. Biden's comments followed a long-awaited video summit with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping late Monday, during which the two leaders said they wanted to ensure stability and prevent accidental conflicts. The US president is under pressure at home to speak out on China's human rights abuses, especially in the Xinjiang region where the US government says repression of the Uyghur ethnic group qualifies as genocide. Campaigners say that at least one million Uyghurs and other Turkic-speaking, mostly Muslim minorities have been incarcerated in camps in Xinjiang, where China is also accused of forcibly sterilising women and imposing forced labour. China's foreign ministry on Friday brushed off the rights accusations as "inconsistent with the truth and completely groundless," calling Washington's claims a "joke in the eyes of Chinese people." "Politicising sports is against the Olympic spirit, and harms the interests of athletes from all countries," foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said at a regular press briefing Friday. On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that the Biden administration would soon announce a diplomatic boycott, meaning that while athletes would still compete, government representatives would not be in the stands. White House officials said that the issue was not raised during the Biden-Xi virtual summit. - Balancing act - US-China relations hit a low point under Biden's predecessor Donald Trump, with a massive trade war and incendiary debate over how the Covid-19 virus first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan. Biden has sought to re-engage with Beijing, while at the same time focusing on strengthening traditional US alliances to counter China's ever-growing economic clout and military presence across the Indo-Pacific region. He has held two lengthy phone calls with Xi and was keen to meet in person. But with the Chinese leader not traveling outside of the country since the start of the Covid pandemic, this week's virtual summit was the only possible next step. Following Biden's mention of a possible Olympics boycott, Press Secretary Jen Psaki said she did not "have an update on what our presence will be." "I want to give the national security team and the president space to make the decision," she said. For Biden, that decision will be part of a complex diplomatic balancing act. His administration has left Trump-era trade tariffs on China in place and continues to order naval patrols through sensitive international sea lanes that China is accused of trying to bring under its control. However, with Biden also emphasizing the need for dialogue, critics on the right say he is being too soft. This makes the looming Olympic Games a political flashpoint. "The United States must implement a complete and total boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics. The threat to our athletes and China's crimes against humanity leave us no other option," Republican Senator Tom Cotton tweeted Thursday. Psaki said the White House sees US-China relations "through the prism of competition, not conflict." However, she added, "we have serious concerns" about human rights.

China says 'politicising sports' hurts Olympic spirit as Joe Biden mulls boycott

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on Thursday held an extensive conversation with Donald Lu, the United States assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs on various matters ‘concerning’ Nepal-US relations.&nbsp;

Donald Lu, who is on a two-day visit, reiterated the United States’ commitment to continuing its support and partnership with Nepal on COVID-19, climate change, and other mutual interests.&nbsp;

Lu's visit comes as the US and Nepal mark 75 years of diplomatic relations.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-senior-officials-visit-nepal-as-two-nations-mark-75-years-of-diplomatic-ties-430144" hreflang="en">US senior officials visit Nepal as two nations mark 75 years of diplomatic ties&nbsp;&nbsp;</a>

The conversation also covered various areas of Nepal’s development priorities as well as the United States’ cooperation, including the MCC. Both sides expressed satisfaction on the overall state of Nepal-US relations.&nbsp;

The Prime Minister thanked the US Government for continued cooperation in the socio-economic development of Nepal. He expressed appreciation for the generous support of COVID-19 vaccines to Nepal.&nbsp;

To date, the US has provided an assistance of totals over $122 million&nbsp;beyond vaccine, according to US Ambassador to Nepal, Randy Berry.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/chinese-spy-agency-playing-active-role-to-destabilise-nepals-relations-with-other-nations-report-428958">Chinese spy agency playing active role to destabilise Nepal’s relations with other nations: Report</a>

Speaking on the recently concluded COP26, “Assistant Secretary of State Ambassador Lu conveyed the US Government’s planned support in the areas of adaptation and mitigation through climate finance and technology transfer,” said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement.&nbsp;

Prime Minister highlighted Nepal’s democratic credentials and the commitment to human rights and the rule of law.&nbsp;

PM Deuba also confirmed his participation in the forthcoming Summit for Democracy to be convened by the President of the United States.&nbsp;

President Biden will host the first of two Summits for Democracy on December 9-10, which will bring together leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector to set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and to tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action.

Meanwhile, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Kelly Keiderling arrived in Nepal later on Thursday.&nbsp;

"Asst Secretary Lu and Deputy Assistant Secretary Keiderling reiterated the United States' commitment to continuing its support and partnership with Nepal in the areas of mutual interest like COVID-19, climate change, and others," US Ambassador Randy Berry said in a tweet.&nbsp;

Along with meeting government leaders, both US officials will also visit cultural heritage sites.

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on Thursday held an extensive conversation with Donald Lu, the United States assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs on various matters ‘concerning’ Nepal-US relations.

Nepal Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on Thursday held an extensive conversation with Donald Lu, the United States assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs on various matters ‘concerning’ Nepal-US relations. Donald Lu, who is on a two-day visit, reiterated the United States’ commitment to continuing its support and partnership with Nepal on COVID-19, climate change, and other mutual interests. Lu's visit comes as the US and Nepal mark 75 years of diplomatic relations. Also read | US senior officials visit Nepal as two nations mark 75 years of diplomatic ties The conversation also covered various areas of Nepal’s development priorities as well as the United States’ cooperation, including the MCC. Both sides expressed satisfaction on the overall state of Nepal-US relations. The Prime Minister thanked the US Government for continued cooperation in the socio-economic development of Nepal. He expressed appreciation for the generous support of COVID-19 vaccines to Nepal. To date, the US has provided an assistance of totals over $122 million beyond vaccine, according to US Ambassador to Nepal, Randy Berry. Also read | Chinese spy agency playing active role to destabilise Nepal’s relations with other nations: Report Speaking on the recently concluded COP26, “Assistant Secretary of State Ambassador Lu conveyed the US Government’s planned support in the areas of adaptation and mitigation through climate finance and technology transfer,” said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement. Prime Minister highlighted Nepal’s democratic credentials and the commitment to human rights and the rule of law. PM Deuba also confirmed his participation in the forthcoming Summit for Democracy to be convened by the President of the United States. President Biden will host the first of two Summits for Democracy on December 9-10, which will bring together leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector to set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and to tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action. Meanwhile, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Kelly Keiderling arrived in Nepal later on Thursday. "Asst Secretary Lu and Deputy Assistant Secretary Keiderling reiterated the United States' commitment to continuing its support and partnership with Nepal in the areas of mutual interest like COVID-19, climate change, and others," US Ambassador Randy Berry said in a tweet. Along with meeting government leaders, both US officials will also visit cultural heritage sites.

Nepal PM and US State SCA officials discuss matters ‘concerning’ two nations, including MCC

The Biden administration has asked some of the world`s largest oil consuming nations - including China, India and Japan - to consider releasing crude stockpiles in a coordinated effort to lower global energy prices, according to several people familiar with the matter.

The unusual request comes as US&nbsp;President Joe Biden fends off political pressure over rising pump prices and other consumer costs driven by a rebound in economic activity from lows plumbed early in the coronavirus pandemic.

It also reflects US&nbsp;frustration with members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies who have rebuffed repeated requests from Washington to speed up their production increases.

"We`re talking about the symbolism of the largest consumers of the world sending a message to OPEC that `you`ve got to change your behaviour," one of the sources said.

In Asia, where China said it is working on a crude release, oil prices extended declines prompted by the U.S. request, after settling on Wednesday further below seven-year highs struck in early October.

Biden and top aides have discussed the possibility of a coordinated release of stockpiled oil with close allies including Japan, South Korea and India, as well as with China, over the past several weeks, the sources said.

The US and allies have coordinated strategic petroleum reserve releases before, for example in 2011 during a war in OPEC member Libya.

But the current proposal represents an unprecedented challenge to OPEC, the cartel that has influenced oil prices for more than five decades, because it involves China, the world`s biggest importer of crude.

A Japanese industry ministry official said the United States has requested Tokyo`s cooperation in dealing with higher oil prices, but he could not confirm whether the request included coordinated releases of stockpiles. By law, Japan cannot use reserve releases to lower prices, the official said.

A senior cabinet official declined to comment.

China`s state reserve bureau said it was working on a release of crude oil reserves although it declined to comment on the U.S. request.

A South Korean official confirmed the United States had asked Seoul to release some oil reserves.

"We are thoroughly reviewing the U.S. request, however, we do not release oil reserve because of rising oil prices. We could release oil reserve in case of supply imbalance, but not to respond to rising oil prices," the official said.

The U.S. share of any potential release of reserves would need to be more than 20 million to 30 million barrels to affect markets, according to a U.S. source who participated in the discussions. Such a release could be in the form of a sale or a loan from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve - or both.

The SPR was set up in the 1970s after the Arab Oil Embargo to ensure the United States has adequate supply to weather an emergency.

Several people familiar with the matter cautioned that negotiations over a coordinated supply release have not been finalized nor has any final decision been made about whether to pursue any specific course of action on oil prices.

The White House declined to comment on the detailed content of conversations with other countries.

After Reuters reported on the White House discussions, U.S. crude and global benchmark Brent slumped, with the latter dropping below 80% a barrel.&nbsp;

OPEC and other producers including Russia, known collectively as OPEC+, have been adding around 400,000 barrels per day to the market on a monthly basis, but have resisted Biden`s calls for more rapid increases, arguing the rebound in demand could be fragile.

OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo said on Tuesday he expected a global supply surplus to emerge as soon as December.

"These are signals that we have to be very, very careful," he told reporters.

Rising oil prices have vexed Biden ahead of the 2022 midterm elections which will determine whether his Democratic party maintains slim majorities in the U.S. Congress.

U.S. gasoline prices average $3.41 per gallon recently, according to AAA, more than 60% higher than a year ago as the economy has rebounded from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Several Biden aides attribute his falling public approval ratings in recent months to worsening inflation from energy to food and other areas. The consumer price index is up 6.2% over the last 12 months, with its energy components up 30%.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency, which monitors national SPRs for members that include the U.S. Japan and most western countries, declined to comment.

The IEA in the past has coordinated releases involving several countries.

The Biden administration has asked some of the world`s largest oil consuming nations - including China, India and Japan - to consider releasing crude stockpiles in a coordinated effort to lower global energy prices, according to several people familiar with the matter.

The Biden administration has asked some of the world`s largest oil consuming nations - including China, India and Japan - to consider releasing crude stockpiles in a coordinated effort to lower global energy prices, according to several people familiar with the matter. The unusual request comes as US President Joe Biden fends off political pressure over rising pump prices and other consumer costs driven by a rebound in economic activity from lows plumbed early in the coronavirus pandemic. It also reflects US frustration with members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies who have rebuffed repeated requests from Washington to speed up their production increases. "We`re talking about the symbolism of the largest consumers of the world sending a message to OPEC that `you`ve got to change your behaviour," one of the sources said. In Asia, where China said it is working on a crude release, oil prices extended declines prompted by the U.S. request, after settling on Wednesday further below seven-year highs struck in early October. Biden and top aides have discussed the possibility of a coordinated release of stockpiled oil with close allies including Japan, South Korea and India, as well as with China, over the past several weeks, the sources said. The US and allies have coordinated strategic petroleum reserve releases before, for example in 2011 during a war in OPEC member Libya. But the current proposal represents an unprecedented challenge to OPEC, the cartel that has influenced oil prices for more than five decades, because it involves China, the world`s biggest importer of crude. A Japanese industry ministry official said the United States has requested Tokyo`s cooperation in dealing with higher oil prices, but he could not confirm whether the request included coordinated releases of stockpiles. By law, Japan cannot use reserve releases to lower prices, the official said. A senior cabinet official declined to comment. China`s state reserve bureau said it was working on a release of crude oil reserves although it declined to comment on the U.S. request. A South Korean official confirmed the United States had asked Seoul to release some oil reserves. "We are thoroughly reviewing the U.S. request, however, we do not release oil reserve because of rising oil prices. We could release oil reserve in case of supply imbalance, but not to respond to rising oil prices," the official said. The U.S. share of any potential release of reserves would need to be more than 20 million to 30 million barrels to affect markets, according to a U.S. source who participated in the discussions. Such a release could be in the form of a sale or a loan from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve - or both. The SPR was set up in the 1970s after the Arab Oil Embargo to ensure the United States has adequate supply to weather an emergency. Several people familiar with the matter cautioned that negotiations over a coordinated supply release have not been finalized nor has any final decision been made about whether to pursue any specific course of action on oil prices. The White House declined to comment on the detailed content of conversations with other countries. After Reuters reported on the White House discussions, U.S. crude and global benchmark Brent slumped, with the latter dropping below 80% a barrel. OPEC and other producers including Russia, known collectively as OPEC+, have been adding around 400,000 barrels per day to the market on a monthly basis, but have resisted Biden`s calls for more rapid increases, arguing the rebound in demand could be fragile. OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo said on Tuesday he expected a global supply surplus to emerge as soon as December. "These are signals that we have to be very, very careful," he told reporters. Rising oil prices have vexed Biden ahead of the 2022 midterm elections which will determine whether his Democratic party maintains slim majorities in the U.S. Congress. U.S. gasoline prices average $3.41 per gallon recently, according to AAA, more than 60% higher than a year ago as the economy has rebounded from the COVID-19 pandemic. Several Biden aides attribute his falling public approval ratings in recent months to worsening inflation from energy to food and other areas. The consumer price index is up 6.2% over the last 12 months, with its energy components up 30%. The Paris-based International Energy Agency, which monitors national SPRs for members that include the U.S. Japan and most western countries, declined to comment. The IEA in the past has coordinated releases involving several countries.

US asks India, China, others to consider tapping oil reserves

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings.

The marquee programs within the Democrats’ social safety net and climate change bill — such as universal prekindergarten, child care subsidies and prescription drug price controls — have garnered most of the public attention. But when a nearly $2 trillion piece of legislation moves through Congress, it affords lawmakers ample opportunity to pursue any number of niche issues — and lobbyists and industries plenty of room to notch long-sought victories tucked deep inside thousands of pages of text.

That is the case with the Build Back Better Act, which could aid a wide array of special interests and Democratic allies that have waited years for such a moment.

“I welcome the attention. I don’t think these are fringe, niche issues,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who had no reservations about extolling one of his cherished provisions: the tax incentive to help consumers purchase electric bicycles, or e-bikes.

So far, President Joe Biden and leading Democrats have publicly championed the bill’s biggest-ticket and most ambitious items. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he expected a vote on the measure by Friday, although it could slip to Saturday.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, called it “the most important investment in our families, our people, since the New Deal.”

Republican opponents, too, have largely fixated on the broader issues: the role of government, the economic repercussions of tax increases and the potentially inflationary effect that more government spending could have.

That has left lawmakers that much freer to secure provisions that have largely avoided scrutiny. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., another proponent of electric bike subsidies, said the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee drafted its section of the bill, provision by provision, and no one objected to the e-bike measure, which would cover 30% of the cost, up to $900, to, as he put it, “put butts on bikes.”

“Once you get out there, once you start talking about benefits and once you talk to people who have tried e-bikes, they accept it and they want it,” he said. Getting the money into the bill “was easier than I expected,” he added.

Such pride of authorship appears to be widely shared. Many obscure provisions may emerge as subjects of ridicule, but Democrats are not shying away from their work. Every niche item has a constituency that regards it as central.

A Senate Republican memo, for instance, singled out the $50 million pilot program, tucked into a broader home health care section, to promote the use of doulas, professionals whose sole priority is to support and provide guidance to birthing mothers. Doulas — the word means “servant” in Greek — typically lack formal obstetric training and provide care such as massage and other touch therapy, rather than medical services. They are used by only a small percentage of pregnant women in the United States.

But some Democratic-led states have moved to broaden access to them, including New York, which began a pilot program to expand Medicaid coverage for doula services. The Democrats who secured the doula funding in the hulking social policy bill do not duck their responsibility for it. Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., co-chairwoman of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, said the doula provision is just one of several she helped secure.

Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women, arguing that the doula assistance is a necessity.

“Too many moms have died in the United States, and doulas have the cultural competency to support mothers before, during and after birth,” Kelly said. Doulas, she said, are “advocates for the birthing mom.”

Blumenauer was especially proud of a $1.9 billion provision, written to stave off the death of local news media, that would provide local newspapers and broadcasters a payroll tax credit worth 50% of wages up to $50,000 for the first year and 30% of wages in the second year for each employee. And it is not confined to tiny outlets; a “qualifying publication” must “serve a local community by providing local news,” but the credit is capped at 1,500 employees a quarter.

“The collapse of local journalism has had serious consequences for our ability to govern,” said Blumenauer, a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pointing to anti-Muslim and other offensive remarks made by a Republican truck driver who defeated New Jersey’s Senate president this month — but revealed by the news media only after his election.

“There was no opportunity for local media to provide even basic information about the candidates,” Blumenauer said. “The guy would never have been elected if he had gotten any scrutiny at all.”

Some of the measures tucked into the bill have languished for years. In 2007, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., drafted legislation that would allow lawyers who work on a contingency basis — they will be paid only if they win — to take a tax write-off of expenses from a case as they are incurred. Currently, such expenses can be claimed only once judgment on the case has been rendered.

Since the measure was written, Specter switched parties, was defeated and then died, but his work has found its moment. The change would generate considerable savings for trial lawyers — $2.5 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ nonpartisan referee on tax policy.

“Lawyers working on a contingency fee basis cannot deduct their expenses until the case resolves, which can be years after the expense is incurred,” said Carly Moore Sfregola, a spokeswoman for the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ lobby. “Contingency fee arrangements are the only way that regular people can afford to seek justice.”

And many of the measures have bipartisan origins. An effort to include independent music producers in an existing tax break for film, television and live theatrical productions found a champion in Tennessee’s conservative firebrand senator, Marsha Blackburn, at the behest of Nashville.

Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, D-Calif., initially drafted the Helping Independent Tracks Succeed, or HITS, Act at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, but she was able to bring along Blackburn; Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kan., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Now, with Sanchez’s help, the act and its tax deduction of up to $150,000 for the costs of producing sound recordings have found their way into the social policy bill, at a cost to the Treasury of $35 million over 10 years.

Blackburn has no intention of voting for the larger bill, but, she said, the act still “is my baby.” In a recent interview on the Fox Business Network, she condemned the legislation, saying, “You’ve got the socialist Democrats who are trying to push all of these socialist wish list items into this bill.”

Other provisions might suffer from their names more than their intentions. Tree planting is widely accepted as a way to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and a provision in the climate change section of the bill to ensure that tree planting include poor neighborhoods might have escaped notice.

But because Democrats used the buzz phrase “tree equity” to describe it, Senate Republicans singled out the $2.5 billion provision in a memo as one of the questionable “earmarks for Democrat interests and allies,” along with environmental justice tax credits for universities and climate justice block grants.

Republicans have also denounced a $177 million tax credit to entice university donors to support infrastructure research, a provision that Blumenauer said should be extolled, not ridiculed.

“Large research institutions are awash in money,” he said. “For smaller colleges, we’re trying to give an opportunity to build their own programs on infrastructure and give more flexibility by encouraging private donations.”

So far, the highest-profile Republicans have kept their criticism at the loftiest level. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, took to the House floor to declare, “On the merits, this bill deserves to be defeated. Fundamentally, it’s anti-worker, anti-family, anti-jobs, anti-energy and anti-American.”

But as its more obscure provisions come to light, the line of attack may change.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, previewed that message before the House Rules Committee last week, when she denounced a bill that she said “gives kickbacks to your political allies and campaign donors, all while you print records amount of money that we don’t have to build more inflation.”

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings.

It includes a $4.1 billion tax break for people who buy electric bicycles, $2.5 billion for “tree equity,” another $2.5 billion to help “contingency fee” lawyers recoup their expenses and a long-sought tax break for producers of sound recordings. The marquee programs within the Democrats’ social safety net and climate change bill — such as universal prekindergarten, child care subsidies and prescription drug price controls — have garnered most of the public attention. But when a nearly $2 trillion piece of legislation moves through Congress, it affords lawmakers ample opportunity to pursue any number of niche issues — and lobbyists and industries plenty of room to notch long-sought victories tucked deep inside thousands of pages of text. That is the case with the Build Back Better Act, which could aid a wide array of special interests and Democratic allies that have waited years for such a moment. “I welcome the attention. I don’t think these are fringe, niche issues,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who had no reservations about extolling one of his cherished provisions: the tax incentive to help consumers purchase electric bicycles, or e-bikes. So far, President Joe Biden and leading Democrats have publicly championed the bill’s biggest-ticket and most ambitious items. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said Tuesday that he expected a vote on the measure by Friday, although it could slip to Saturday. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, called it “the most important investment in our families, our people, since the New Deal.” Republican opponents, too, have largely fixated on the broader issues: the role of government, the economic repercussions of tax increases and the potentially inflationary effect that more government spending could have. That has left lawmakers that much freer to secure provisions that have largely avoided scrutiny. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif., another proponent of electric bike subsidies, said the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee drafted its section of the bill, provision by provision, and no one objected to the e-bike measure, which would cover 30% of the cost, up to $900, to, as he put it, “put butts on bikes.” “Once you get out there, once you start talking about benefits and once you talk to people who have tried e-bikes, they accept it and they want it,” he said. Getting the money into the bill “was easier than I expected,” he added. Such pride of authorship appears to be widely shared. Many obscure provisions may emerge as subjects of ridicule, but Democrats are not shying away from their work. Every niche item has a constituency that regards it as central. A Senate Republican memo, for instance, singled out the $50 million pilot program, tucked into a broader home health care section, to promote the use of doulas, professionals whose sole priority is to support and provide guidance to birthing mothers. Doulas — the word means “servant” in Greek — typically lack formal obstetric training and provide care such as massage and other touch therapy, rather than medical services. They are used by only a small percentage of pregnant women in the United States. But some Democratic-led states have moved to broaden access to them, including New York, which began a pilot program to expand Medicaid coverage for doula services. The Democrats who secured the doula funding in the hulking social policy bill do not duck their responsibility for it. Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., co-chairwoman of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, said the doula provision is just one of several she helped secure. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women, arguing that the doula assistance is a necessity. “Too many moms have died in the United States, and doulas have the cultural competency to support mothers before, during and after birth,” Kelly said. Doulas, she said, are “advocates for the birthing mom.” Blumenauer was especially proud of a $1.9 billion provision, written to stave off the death of local news media, that would provide local newspapers and broadcasters a payroll tax credit worth 50% of wages up to $50,000 for the first year and 30% of wages in the second year for each employee. And it is not confined to tiny outlets; a “qualifying publication” must “serve a local community by providing local news,” but the credit is capped at 1,500 employees a quarter. “The collapse of local journalism has had serious consequences for our ability to govern,” said Blumenauer, a senior member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pointing to anti-Muslim and other offensive remarks made by a Republican truck driver who defeated New Jersey’s Senate president this month — but revealed by the news media only after his election. “There was no opportunity for local media to provide even basic information about the candidates,” Blumenauer said. “The guy would never have been elected if he had gotten any scrutiny at all.” Some of the measures tucked into the bill have languished for years. In 2007, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., drafted legislation that would allow lawyers who work on a contingency basis — they will be paid only if they win — to take a tax write-off of expenses from a case as they are incurred. Currently, such expenses can be claimed only once judgment on the case has been rendered. Since the measure was written, Specter switched parties, was defeated and then died, but his work has found its moment. The change would generate considerable savings for trial lawyers — $2.5 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ nonpartisan referee on tax policy. “Lawyers working on a contingency fee basis cannot deduct their expenses until the case resolves, which can be years after the expense is incurred,” said Carly Moore Sfregola, a spokeswoman for the American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers’ lobby. “Contingency fee arrangements are the only way that regular people can afford to seek justice.” And many of the measures have bipartisan origins. An effort to include independent music producers in an existing tax break for film, television and live theatrical productions found a champion in Tennessee’s conservative firebrand senator, Marsha Blackburn, at the behest of Nashville. Rep. Linda T. Sánchez, D-Calif., initially drafted the Helping Independent Tracks Succeed, or HITS, Act at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, but she was able to bring along Blackburn; Rep. Ron Estes, R-Kan., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Now, with Sanchez’s help, the act and its tax deduction of up to $150,000 for the costs of producing sound recordings have found their way into the social policy bill, at a cost to the Treasury of $35 million over 10 years. Blackburn has no intention of voting for the larger bill, but, she said, the act still “is my baby.” In a recent interview on the Fox Business Network, she condemned the legislation, saying, “You’ve got the socialist Democrats who are trying to push all of these socialist wish list items into this bill.” Other provisions might suffer from their names more than their intentions. Tree planting is widely accepted as a way to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and a provision in the climate change section of the bill to ensure that tree planting include poor neighborhoods might have escaped notice. But because Democrats used the buzz phrase “tree equity” to describe it, Senate Republicans singled out the $2.5 billion provision in a memo as one of the questionable “earmarks for Democrat interests and allies,” along with environmental justice tax credits for universities and climate justice block grants. Republicans have also denounced a $177 million tax credit to entice university donors to support infrastructure research, a provision that Blumenauer said should be extolled, not ridiculed. “Large research institutions are awash in money,” he said. “For smaller colleges, we’re trying to give an opportunity to build their own programs on infrastructure and give more flexibility by encouraging private donations.” So far, the highest-profile Republicans have kept their criticism at the loftiest level. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, took to the House floor to declare, “On the merits, this bill deserves to be defeated. Fundamentally, it’s anti-worker, anti-family, anti-jobs, anti-energy and anti-American.” But as its more obscure provisions come to light, the line of attack may change. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, previewed that message before the House Rules Committee last week, when she denounced a bill that she said “gives kickbacks to your political allies and campaign donors, all while you print records amount of money that we don’t have to build more inflation.”

From electric bikes to ‘tree equity,’ Biden's social policy bill funds niche items

On Tuesday, U.S. officials said that they made progress in their talks with Chinese officials to improve working conditions and access for journalists in China.

China's treatment of US journalists has deteriorated in recent years, and Washington regularly denounces it. US has also taken steps against Chinese media operating on US soil, which has been accused of serving as propaganda organs for Beijing.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-514-trillion-china-overtakes-us-in-terms-of-amassing-the-biggest-net-worth-429724" hreflang="en">At $514 trillion, China overtakes US in terms of amassing the biggest net worth</a>

In 2020, China expelled Americans working for major news organizations such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

On Tuesday, a State Department spokesman said that as a result of the Department's discussions in recent months, "some initial progress" has been made in "a few areas" that relate to the media environment.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-says-it-is-concerned-over-harassment-of-media-covering-china-floods-401617">US says it is concerned over harassment of media covering China floods</a>

"We welcome this progress but see it simply as initial steps," the State Department official said, adding that Washington would continue to push for "expanding access and improving conditions for US and other foreign media," and for broader freedom of the press in general.

The official said China had "committed to issue visas for a group of US reporters, provided they are eligible under all applicable laws and regulations."

Watch |&nbsp;Xi Jinping: China-US should advance cause for world peace

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/xi-jinping-china-us-should-advance-cause-for-world-peace-429657/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Beijing also promised to "permit US journalists already in the PRC (People's Republic of China) to freely depart and return, which they had previously been unable to do," the US official said.

The Chinese government has also announced that US journalist visas will be extended to one year. US officials said Washington would reciprocate on all measures.

According to the State Department, the measures, which were announced on Monday after US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping held a virtual summit, will allow US media correspondents to return to China "to continue their important work."

On Tuesday, U.S. officials said that they made progress in their talks with Chinese officials to improve working conditions and access for journalists in China. China's treatment of US journalists has deteriorated in recent years, and Washington regularly denounces it.

On Tuesday, U.S. officials said that they made progress in their talks with Chinese officials to improve working conditions and access for journalists in China. China's treatment of US journalists has deteriorated in recent years, and Washington regularly denounces it. US has also taken steps against Chinese media operating on US soil, which has been accused of serving as propaganda organs for Beijing. Also read | At $514 trillion, China overtakes US in terms of amassing the biggest net worth In 2020, China expelled Americans working for major news organizations such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. On Tuesday, a State Department spokesman said that as a result of the Department's discussions in recent months, "some initial progress" has been made in "a few areas" that relate to the media environment. Also read | US says it is concerned over harassment of media covering China floods "We welcome this progress but see it simply as initial steps," the State Department official said, adding that Washington would continue to push for "expanding access and improving conditions for US and other foreign media," and for broader freedom of the press in general. The official said China had "committed to issue visas for a group of US reporters, provided they are eligible under all applicable laws and regulations." Watch | Xi Jinping: China-US should advance cause for world peace Beijing also promised to "permit US journalists already in the PRC (People's Republic of China) to freely depart and return, which they had previously been unable to do," the US official said. The Chinese government has also announced that US journalist visas will be extended to one year. US officials said Washington would reciprocate on all measures. According to the State Department, the measures, which were announced on Monday after US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping held a virtual summit, will allow US media correspondents to return to China "to continue their important work."

Journalists to freely depart and return; Washington hails 'progress' for US media working in China

The virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, produced no breakthroughs in a relationship that has spiraled dangerously downward. That was not the intent.

Instead, the two leaders sought to keep the many disputes between the two countries from escalating into a broader conflict. If they can translate their words into a kind of détente, it would count as a diplomatic success.

“It seems clear to me we need to establish some common-sense guardrails,” Biden told Xi in opening remarks, speaking over what amounted to the equivalent of a Zoom call from the Roosevelt Room at the White House and the East Hall in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

Xi, for his part, called Biden “my old friend” and used a nautical metaphor, comparing the two countries to ships that must together navigate the ocean’s wind and waves without colliding.

Bubbling under the surface, though, was acrimony that could prove difficult to resolve.

At the end of 3 1/2 hours of talks, the two did not even cobble together the sort of joint statement that has typically punctuated summits between the United States and China over the decades. Xi’s last meeting with a U.S. president, Donald Trump in 2019, also ended with no joint statement, marking the deterioration in ties.

Nor did the meeting end with any agreement to have groups of officials from both sides hold further talks on strategic nuclear issues and conflicts in cyberspace — the way Biden did in his summit in June with another quarrelsome geopolitical rival, President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

“We were not expecting a breakthrough,” a senior administration official told reporters shortly after the talks with Xi ended. “There were none.”

Instead, the two sides issued their own statements, each emphasizing the points of long-standing contention. They amounted to catalogs of mutual grievances that offered little room for compromise.

Biden raised concerns about human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, and about China’s “unfair trade and economic policies” harming American workers, the White House statement said. Xi, according to China’s own readout, said that U.S. support for Taiwan was “playing with fire,” and explicitly warned that the world risked slipping back into the superpower confrontations of a half-century ago.

“Engaging in ideological demarcation, camp division, group confrontation, will inevitably bring disaster to the world,” Xi said, a clear reference to a pillar of the new administration’s strategy for challenging China by teaming up with like-minded nations that fear China or oppose its authoritarian model. “The consequence of the Cold War are not far away.”

With that reference, Xi plunged directly into the debate now underway in Washington about whether the two powers are descending into something akin to the Cold War, or whether the deep economic, trade and technological links between China and the U.S. make any comparison to the old U.S.-Soviet Union relationship impossible.

The tone of the meeting was a reminder that China, perhaps inevitably, remains what Biden and his top advisers have cast as the greatest geopolitical challenge to the United States in its history. They have rejected the Cold War comparisons as overly simplistic, and as Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, put it, “We have the choice not to do that.”

“China is going to be a factor in the international system for the foreseeable future — it’s not going anywhere,” Sullivan said last week during a speech to the Lowy Institute in Australia. “And the United States is not going anywhere, and we’re not going anywhere in the Indo-Pacific either. And so we’re going to have to learn how to deal with that reality.”

Although the two leaders have spoken by telephone twice this year, the conference was intended to replicate the more thorough discussion of issues in previous summits between the United States and China — something that has not been possible because pandemic and political preoccupations have kept Xi from traveling since January 2020.

The White House had hoped to hold the meeting in person, possibly at the Group of 20 meeting in Rome last month, but concluded that it was better to meet remotely than to let tensions fester into next year. Xi is sure to be preoccupied then with the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February and a Communist Party congress in November that is expected to extend his rule.

Biden has repeatedly suggested that it should be possible for the United States to engage in vigorous competition with China and to confront it over certain issues, without risking clashes — whether in the disputed waters off China’s coast or in the murky shadows of cyberspace.

He also wanted to hold the meeting after he had begun to shore up American competitiveness at home. Just hours before meeting Xi, he signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which his aides cited as an example of refocusing on international competitiveness. He also recently signed other legislation that bans some key Chinese technology players, like telecommunications giant Huawei, from operating inside the United States.

What is perceived as a move to strengthen the economy in one capital can seem aggressive in the other.

“Both leaders are dissatisfied with the state of the relationship and the behavior of the other country,” said Danny Russel, a former assistant secretary of state who participated in talks with Xi during the Obama administration. “Both are also mindful of the risk of an incident between our militaries that could quickly spin out of control.”

No one meeting could have resolved the enormous divisions that have grown between the two countries.

The trade war that Trump started remains unresolved, with China still more than $180 billion short of a pledge to purchase $380 billion in American products before a deadline of Dec. 31. Problems have also emerged or gotten worse, including a Pentagon assessment that China is rapidly expanding its strategic nuclear arsenal, and may be abandoning its decadeslong strategy of maintaining a “minimum deterrent.”

Administration officials declined to discuss what was said about the nuclear buildup, beyond a vague statement that Biden “underscored the importance of managing strategic risks.”

Other topics that analysts thought would come up did not, according to the senior administration official. They included disputes over granting visas for diplomats, journalists and others, as well as a possible invitation to attend the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February.

Many also expected an effort to create a forum for discussing disputes.

The two sides did agree to talks among lower-level officials. That, and the leaders’ tone in their published statements, raised hopes that tensions could ease at least a bit.

“All the right things were said by both sides to stabilize a relationship marked by mutual mistrust,” said Rorry Daniels, a security specialist with the National Committee on American Foreign Policy in New York. “The question moving forward is how each side will adjust policy to meet this change of direction.”

On Tuesday, Biden suggested that officials from both sides would meet in working groups, though he did not specify on which issues. “We got a lot to follow up on,” he said.

After Biden’s last telephone call with the Chinese leader in September, the tone of the relationship, at least, improved considerably.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his counterpart, Wang Yi, met on the sidelines of the G-20 gathering and spoke by phone again last weekend. Biden’s envoy on climate change, John Kerry, and Xi’s, Xie Zhenhua, reached a surprise agreement on the issue at the talks this month in Glasgow, Scotland.

Xi, according to the Chinese description of the talks, suggested that cooperation on issues like climate change was conditional on stability across the spectrum of the relationship — a stance at odds with Biden’s view.

“China and the United States are entering a period of détente, but we don’t know how long it will be and to what extent,” said Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor of international studies at Renmin University in Beijing. “We have a lot of uncertainties now.”

Even as the two leaders met virtually, another meeting was taking place in Beijing, commemorating the American pilots known as the Flying Tigers who aided China during its war against Japan in 1941 and 1942.

“The story of the Flying Tigers undergirds the profound friendship forged by the lives and blood of the Chinese and American people,” Qin Gang, China’s ambassador to the United States, said during the event. Acknowledging the tensions in the relationship, he added that the two countries “should inherit the friendly friendship tempered by war.”

The virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, produced no breakthroughs in a relationship that has spiraled dangerously downward.

The virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, produced no breakthroughs in a relationship that has spiraled dangerously downward. That was not the intent. Instead, the two leaders sought to keep the many disputes between the two countries from escalating into a broader conflict. If they can translate their words into a kind of détente, it would count as a diplomatic success. “It seems clear to me we need to establish some common-sense guardrails,” Biden told Xi in opening remarks, speaking over what amounted to the equivalent of a Zoom call from the Roosevelt Room at the White House and the East Hall in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Xi, for his part, called Biden “my old friend” and used a nautical metaphor, comparing the two countries to ships that must together navigate the ocean’s wind and waves without colliding. Bubbling under the surface, though, was acrimony that could prove difficult to resolve. At the end of 3 1/2 hours of talks, the two did not even cobble together the sort of joint statement that has typically punctuated summits between the United States and China over the decades. Xi’s last meeting with a U.S. president, Donald Trump in 2019, also ended with no joint statement, marking the deterioration in ties. Nor did the meeting end with any agreement to have groups of officials from both sides hold further talks on strategic nuclear issues and conflicts in cyberspace — the way Biden did in his summit in June with another quarrelsome geopolitical rival, President Vladimir Putin of Russia. “We were not expecting a breakthrough,” a senior administration official told reporters shortly after the talks with Xi ended. “There were none.” Instead, the two sides issued their own statements, each emphasizing the points of long-standing contention. They amounted to catalogs of mutual grievances that offered little room for compromise. Biden raised concerns about human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, and about China’s “unfair trade and economic policies” harming American workers, the White House statement said. Xi, according to China’s own readout, said that U.S. support for Taiwan was “playing with fire,” and explicitly warned that the world risked slipping back into the superpower confrontations of a half-century ago. “Engaging in ideological demarcation, camp division, group confrontation, will inevitably bring disaster to the world,” Xi said, a clear reference to a pillar of the new administration’s strategy for challenging China by teaming up with like-minded nations that fear China or oppose its authoritarian model. “The consequence of the Cold War are not far away.” With that reference, Xi plunged directly into the debate now underway in Washington about whether the two powers are descending into something akin to the Cold War, or whether the deep economic, trade and technological links between China and the U.S. make any comparison to the old U.S.-Soviet Union relationship impossible. The tone of the meeting was a reminder that China, perhaps inevitably, remains what Biden and his top advisers have cast as the greatest geopolitical challenge to the United States in its history. They have rejected the Cold War comparisons as overly simplistic, and as Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, put it, “We have the choice not to do that.” “China is going to be a factor in the international system for the foreseeable future — it’s not going anywhere,” Sullivan said last week during a speech to the Lowy Institute in Australia. “And the United States is not going anywhere, and we’re not going anywhere in the Indo-Pacific either. And so we’re going to have to learn how to deal with that reality.” Although the two leaders have spoken by telephone twice this year, the conference was intended to replicate the more thorough discussion of issues in previous summits between the United States and China — something that has not been possible because pandemic and political preoccupations have kept Xi from traveling since January 2020. The White House had hoped to hold the meeting in person, possibly at the Group of 20 meeting in Rome last month, but concluded that it was better to meet remotely than to let tensions fester into next year. Xi is sure to be preoccupied then with the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February and a Communist Party congress in November that is expected to extend his rule. Biden has repeatedly suggested that it should be possible for the United States to engage in vigorous competition with China and to confront it over certain issues, without risking clashes — whether in the disputed waters off China’s coast or in the murky shadows of cyberspace. He also wanted to hold the meeting after he had begun to shore up American competitiveness at home. Just hours before meeting Xi, he signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which his aides cited as an example of refocusing on international competitiveness. He also recently signed other legislation that bans some key Chinese technology players, like telecommunications giant Huawei, from operating inside the United States. What is perceived as a move to strengthen the economy in one capital can seem aggressive in the other. “Both leaders are dissatisfied with the state of the relationship and the behavior of the other country,” said Danny Russel, a former assistant secretary of state who participated in talks with Xi during the Obama administration. “Both are also mindful of the risk of an incident between our militaries that could quickly spin out of control.” No one meeting could have resolved the enormous divisions that have grown between the two countries. The trade war that Trump started remains unresolved, with China still more than $180 billion short of a pledge to purchase $380 billion in American products before a deadline of Dec. 31. Problems have also emerged or gotten worse, including a Pentagon assessment that China is rapidly expanding its strategic nuclear arsenal, and may be abandoning its decadeslong strategy of maintaining a “minimum deterrent.” Administration officials declined to discuss what was said about the nuclear buildup, beyond a vague statement that Biden “underscored the importance of managing strategic risks.” Other topics that analysts thought would come up did not, according to the senior administration official. They included disputes over granting visas for diplomats, journalists and others, as well as a possible invitation to attend the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February. Many also expected an effort to create a forum for discussing disputes. The two sides did agree to talks among lower-level officials. That, and the leaders’ tone in their published statements, raised hopes that tensions could ease at least a bit. “All the right things were said by both sides to stabilize a relationship marked by mutual mistrust,” said Rorry Daniels, a security specialist with the National Committee on American Foreign Policy in New York. “The question moving forward is how each side will adjust policy to meet this change of direction.” On Tuesday, Biden suggested that officials from both sides would meet in working groups, though he did not specify on which issues. “We got a lot to follow up on,” he said. After Biden’s last telephone call with the Chinese leader in September, the tone of the relationship, at least, improved considerably. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his counterpart, Wang Yi, met on the sidelines of the G-20 gathering and spoke by phone again last weekend. Biden’s envoy on climate change, John Kerry, and Xi’s, Xie Zhenhua, reached a surprise agreement on the issue at the talks this month in Glasgow, Scotland. Xi, according to the Chinese description of the talks, suggested that cooperation on issues like climate change was conditional on stability across the spectrum of the relationship — a stance at odds with Biden’s view. “China and the United States are entering a period of détente, but we don’t know how long it will be and to what extent,” said Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor of international studies at Renmin University in Beijing. “We have a lot of uncertainties now.” Even as the two leaders met virtually, another meeting was taking place in Beijing, commemorating the American pilots known as the Flying Tigers who aided China during its war against Japan in 1941 and 1942. “The story of the Flying Tigers undergirds the profound friendship forged by the lives and blood of the Chinese and American people,” Qin Gang, China’s ambassador to the United States, said during the event. Acknowledging the tensions in the relationship, he added that the two countries “should inherit the friendly friendship tempered by war.”

US-China summit produces little more than polite words, but they help

US President Joe Biden asked for a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. But failed to achieve any breakthrough. Biden was ineffective in pressing Xi Jinping on Xinjiang, Taiwan & Wuhan virus origins. Palki Sharma tells you why Biden's China policy is failing.

Gravitas | Xi-Biden meeting: US President fails to secure any breakthrough

President Joe Biden signed into law a $1 trillion infrastructure bill at a White House ceremony on Monday. The white House witnessed a rare bipartisan for the signing.

United States: Joe Biden signs $1 TN infrastructure bill into law

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House.

$1.2 trillion of infrastructure improvements includes fixing bridges and roads, replacing lead water pipes, building a charging network for electric vehicles, and the expansion of broadband internet access.

A government investment of this magnitude hasn't been seen since the national highway system was built in the 1950s.

Also read&nbsp; |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-virtual-summit-biden-urges-for-guardrails-against-conflict-xi-calls-for-better-communication-429645">US-China virtual summit: Biden urges for 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication</a>

"We've heard countless speeches… but today we're finally getting this done," Biden told hundreds of invitees on the White House South Lawn.

"So my message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better."

The bill is "proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together to deliver results," Biden said. "Let's believe in one another and let's believe in America."

Spending on infrastructure is popular, but Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump was unsuccessful at achieving the goal for four years, making promises of an upcoming "infrastructure week" a running joke.

Even now, Biden had to rack up months of negotiating with his fractious Democratic Party to get them to vote, running the risk of a humiliating defeat.

In a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats control only a narrow majority, but in a rare moment of cooperation, a substantial number of Republicans in the Senate joined them along with a symbolic handful in the House.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insisting-china-play-by-the-rules-of-the-road-biden-xi-virtual-summit-seeks-to-settle-tense-relationship-429637">Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship</a>

"We agreed this would be a truly bipartisan process," Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, told the White House gathering. "This should be the beginning of a renewed effort to work together on big issues facing our country." 
 
However, there is a possibility that this&nbsp;feel-good moment will not last.

Biden's approval ratings are on the decline, with the latest Washington Post-ABC poll showing just 41 per cent approval. It is most concerning for the White House that support is ebbing away not only among independent voters but also within the Democratic Party itself.

In spite of the outreach by some Republicans, the majority of the opposition party has little interest in declaring a truce.

In a scathing attack against the 13 Republicans in the House who voted alongside the Democrats, Trump said Republicans who crossed the aisle should be "ashamed" and are not real Republicans.

The hard-right Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, particularly vocal in her support for Trump, called the 13 fellow Republicans "traitors." She tweeted out the office phone numbers of the fellow Republicans, some of whom reported receiving torrents of violent abuse.

"These are the 13 ‘Republicans’ who handed over their voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America via so-called infrastructure" she had&nbsp;said in the since-deleted tweet.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-trade-taiwan-warnings-ahead-of-biden-xi-summit-429229">US, China trade Taiwan warnings ahead of Biden-Xi summit</a>

Republicans will almost certainly increase their numbers in midterm congressional elections in just under a year, further straining Biden's already tenuous hold on Washington.

However, the White House hopes the bill signing will give a boost to Biden, who holds a video link meeting with Xi Jinping today.

Watch |&nbsp;Biden-Xi summit: Presidents of world's two largest economies to meet, Chinese aggression in focus

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/biden-xi-summit-presidents-of-worlds-two-largest-economies-to-meet-chinese-aggression-in-focus-429595/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The $1.75 trillion package for childcare, education, and other social spending that Biden describes as a historic effort to eliminate social inequalities is still pending.

The proposal is being held up by internal party disagreements and has zero Republican support. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, told the White House gathering that she hopes the bill will be passed this week.

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House.

Amid heavy criticism and a bleak outlook from opinion polls, President Joe Biden signed into law the largest US infrastructure overhaul in more than half a century on Monday at a rare bipartisan celebration in the White House. $1.2 trillion of infrastructure improvements includes fixing bridges and roads, replacing lead water pipes, building a charging network for electric vehicles, and the expansion of broadband internet access. A government investment of this magnitude hasn't been seen since the national highway system was built in the 1950s. Also read | US-China virtual summit: Biden urges for 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication "We've heard countless speeches… but today we're finally getting this done," Biden told hundreds of invitees on the White House South Lawn. "So my message to the American people is this: America is moving again and your life is going to change for the better." The bill is "proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together to deliver results," Biden said. "Let's believe in one another and let's believe in America." Spending on infrastructure is popular, but Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump was unsuccessful at achieving the goal for four years, making promises of an upcoming "infrastructure week" a running joke. Even now, Biden had to rack up months of negotiating with his fractious Democratic Party to get them to vote, running the risk of a humiliating defeat. In a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats control only a narrow majority, but in a rare moment of cooperation, a substantial number of Republicans in the Senate joined them along with a symbolic handful in the House. Also read | Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship "We agreed this would be a truly bipartisan process," Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, told the White House gathering. "This should be the beginning of a renewed effort to work together on big issues facing our country." However, there is a possibility that this feel-good moment will not last. Biden's approval ratings are on the decline, with the latest Washington Post-ABC poll showing just 41 per cent approval. It is most concerning for the White House that support is ebbing away not only among independent voters but also within the Democratic Party itself. In spite of the outreach by some Republicans, the majority of the opposition party has little interest in declaring a truce. In a scathing attack against the 13 Republicans in the House who voted alongside the Democrats, Trump said Republicans who crossed the aisle should be "ashamed" and are not real Republicans. The hard-right Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, particularly vocal in her support for Trump, called the 13 fellow Republicans "traitors." She tweeted out the office phone numbers of the fellow Republicans, some of whom reported receiving torrents of violent abuse. "These are the 13 ‘Republicans’ who handed over their voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s Communist takeover of America via so-called infrastructure" she had said in the since-deleted tweet. Also read | US, China trade Taiwan warnings ahead of Biden-Xi summit Republicans will almost certainly increase their numbers in midterm congressional elections in just under a year, further straining Biden's already tenuous hold on Washington. However, the White House hopes the bill signing will give a boost to Biden, who holds a video link meeting with Xi Jinping today. Watch | Biden-Xi summit: Presidents of world's two largest economies to meet, Chinese aggression in focus The $1.75 trillion package for childcare, education, and other social spending that Biden describes as a historic effort to eliminate social inequalities is still pending. The proposal is being held up by internal party disagreements and has zero Republican support. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, told the White House gathering that she hopes the bill will be passed this week.

Achieving what Trump couldn't, Biden celebrates rare win with US infrastructure bill signing

China & US race to become the world's top superpowers, their leaders are facing contrasting political scenarios back home. US President Joe Biden's approval rating has witnessed a downward trend in the past two months. While Xi Jinping is all set for a 3rd term in office.

Xi & Biden face contrasting domestic political scenarios

US President Joe Biden opened the virtual summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping from the White House early on Tuesday morning. This is the first meeting between the two leaders since Biden has assumed office. The highly anticipated summit is expected to be one of the most extensive meetings under the Biden administration, Washington is hopeful of setting the agenda.

Xi Jinping: China-US should advance cause for world peace

Amid heightened tensions president of the world's two largest economies, the United States and China Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are meeting virtually. The highly anticipated summit is expected to be one of the most extensive meetings under the Biden administration, Washington is hopeful of setting the agenda.

Virtual meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping amid rising economic, military tensions

Amid heightened tensions president of the world's two largest economies, the United States and China Joe Biden and Xi Jinping are meeting virtually.

High stakes meet between Joe Biden, Xi Jinping

The reports in US and Taiwanese media that Taiwan is among invitees to the 'Summit of Democracy' to be hosted by US President Joe Biden could emerge as a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington.

China&nbsp;claims Taiwan as part of its mainland, and had repeatedly asked the US not to play role in Taiwan’s independence. Media reports about the virtual summit of Biden with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Tuesday said the latter warned the US against "playing with fire", or crossing "the red line" on Taiwan. Official statements from either side is awaited.

While the official list is yet to be released by the government, US news outlet Politico had recently compiled a <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017c-ec87-df97-a9ff-fcffee940000">list</a> of potential invitees for the Democracy summit, in which Taiwan’s name has been included among over 100 countries or governments.

Taiwanese media quoted its foreign ministry spokesperson Joanne Ou as saying that the island&nbsp;had been in talks with the US about the invitation and was “looking forward to share its democratic experience.”

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-raises-taiwan-issue-during-virtual-meet-xi-warns-dont-play-with-fire-429694">&nbsp;Biden raises Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire'</a>

More than 20 relevant Taiwanese ministries and committees and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy have actively taken stock of the progress of democracy and human rights-related work in recent years and have initiated a number of relevant projects, Taiwan news outlet Liberty Times quoted Ou as saying.

Ou further thanked the US government for reiterating its support for Taiwan’s democracy and said the foreign ministry will continue to coordinate with its American counterparts, according to the report.

The agenda for the Democracy Summit, which is scheduled to take place virtually from December 9-10, has not been finalised.

The event is part of Biden’s foreign policy which seeks to put the United States back into the global leadership to meet the authoritarian forces, led by China and Russia.

Much of the planning process is confidential, according to a report in Politico. All current plans are tentative, it said.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-raises-taiwan-issue-during-virtual-meet-xi-warns-dont-play-with-fire-429694">&nbsp;</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insisting-china-play-by-the-rules-of-the-road-biden-xi-virtual-summit-seeks-to-settle-tense-relationship-429637">Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship</a>

Taiwan, a self-governing democratic island off the southeast coast of China, has been one of the flashpoints of US-China relations.

Beijing claims that the province is part of the mainland, with Chinese leaders threatening to take it by force if it makes any moves toward formal independence.

In recent years, China has ramped up military activities near Taiwan, with a&nbsp;record number of planes intruding&nbsp;into the island's air defence identification zone in early October.

US has repeatedly expressed support to Taiwan and had described China’s military activities as “aggression”.

Earlier in the day, during an online meet, President Joe Biden again raked up the issue of Taiwan, saying that opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China.

According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”.

“Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua.

(With inputs from agencies)

The reports in US and Taiwanese media that Taiwan is among invitees to the 'Summit of Democracy' to be hosted by US President Joe Biden could emerge as a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington.

The reports in US and Taiwanese media that Taiwan is among invitees to the 'Summit of Democracy' to be hosted by US President Joe Biden could emerge as a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington. China claims Taiwan as part of its mainland, and had repeatedly asked the US not to play role in Taiwan’s independence. Media reports about the virtual summit of Biden with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Tuesday said the latter warned the US against "playing with fire", or crossing "the red line" on Taiwan. Official statements from either side is awaited. While the official list is yet to be released by the government, US news outlet Politico had recently compiled a list of potential invitees for the Democracy summit, in which Taiwan’s name has been included among over 100 countries or governments. Taiwanese media quoted its foreign ministry spokesperson Joanne Ou as saying that the island had been in talks with the US about the invitation and was “looking forward to share its democratic experience.” Also read | Biden raises Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire' More than 20 relevant Taiwanese ministries and committees and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy have actively taken stock of the progress of democracy and human rights-related work in recent years and have initiated a number of relevant projects, Taiwan news outlet Liberty Times quoted Ou as saying. Ou further thanked the US government for reiterating its support for Taiwan’s democracy and said the foreign ministry will continue to coordinate with its American counterparts, according to the report. The agenda for the Democracy Summit, which is scheduled to take place virtually from December 9-10, has not been finalised. The event is part of Biden’s foreign policy which seeks to put the United States back into the global leadership to meet the authoritarian forces, led by China and Russia. Much of the planning process is confidential, according to a report in Politico. All current plans are tentative, it said. Also read | Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship Taiwan, a self-governing democratic island off the southeast coast of China, has been one of the flashpoints of US-China relations. Beijing claims that the province is part of the mainland, with Chinese leaders threatening to take it by force if it makes any moves toward formal independence. In recent years, China has ramped up military activities near Taiwan, with a record number of planes intruding into the island's air defence identification zone in early October. US has repeatedly expressed support to Taiwan and had described China’s military activities as “aggression”. Earlier in the day, during an online meet, President Joe Biden again raked up the issue of Taiwan, saying that opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China. According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”. “Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua. (With inputs from agencies)

Another flashpoint? Reports that Taiwan is among invitee list of US ‘Democracy Summit’ could rile China

US President Joe Biden held a virtual meeting with Xi Jinping. In this meeting, both the countries discussed common issues, strategic issues including mutual relations. Taiwan and human rights violations were Biden's top focus. During this meeting, Chinese President Xi said that America and China should respect each other.

Joe Biden tells Xi Jinping not to undermine Taiwan's sovereignty

Joe Biden raises concerns of human right abuses

US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping exchanged strong views on issues like Taiwan and human rights during a one-on-one online summit.

The three-and-half-hour session lasted “longer than expected”, a US official told reporters, adding, “the conversation was respectful and straightforward.”

During the meet, Biden told Xi that the US strongly opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China.

According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”.

“Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-virtual-summit-biden-seeks-guardrails-against-conflict-xi-calls-for-better-communication-429645">US-China virtual summit: Biden seeks 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication</a>

“Some people in the US intend to use Taiwan to control China. This trend is very dangerous and is like playing with fire, and those who play with fire will get burned,” he said.

Biden also raised “concerns” over wider issues of human rights abuses and mass repression against the Uyghurs in the northwest region of Xinjiang.

Xi called on the two countries to respect each other's social systems and development paths, respect each other's core interests and major concerns, and respect each other's right to development.

“We need to treat each other as equals, keep differences under control, and seek common ground while reserving differences,” Xinhua news agency quoted Xi as saying.

Xi stressed peaceful coexistence between the two countries, saying that no conflict and no confrontation is a line that both sides must hold.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insisting-china-play-by-the-rules-of-the-road-biden-xi-virtual-summit-seeks-to-settle-tense-relationship-429637">Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship</a>

Both Biden and Xi emphasized the need for working together on major global issues, especially Covid-19 and climate change.

Speaking from the White House to Xi on a television screen, Biden said it was their "responsibility as leaders of China and the United States to ensure that the competition between our countries does not veer into conflict, whether intended or unintended."

Xi, speaking from Beijing, called Biden "my old friend," but said their countries had to work more closely.

"We face multiple challenges together. As the world's two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the United States need to increase communication and cooperation," he said, speaking through an interpreter in brief public remarks, before they went behind closed doors.

The two leaders have spoken by phone twice since Biden's inauguration in January but with Xi refusing to travel abroad because of the pandemic, an online video meeting was the only option short of an in-person summit.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping exchanged strong views on issues like Taiwan and human rights during a one-on-one online summit. The three-and-half-hour session lasted “longer than expected”, a US official told reporters, adding, “the conversation was respectful and straightforward.

US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping exchanged strong views on issues like Taiwan and human rights during a one-on-one online summit. The three-and-half-hour session lasted “longer than expected”, a US official told reporters, adding, “the conversation was respectful and straightforward.” During the meet, Biden told Xi that the US strongly opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China. According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”. “Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua. Also read | US-China virtual summit: Biden seeks 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication “Some people in the US intend to use Taiwan to control China. This trend is very dangerous and is like playing with fire, and those who play with fire will get burned,” he said. Biden also raised “concerns” over wider issues of human rights abuses and mass repression against the Uyghurs in the northwest region of Xinjiang. Xi called on the two countries to respect each other's social systems and development paths, respect each other's core interests and major concerns, and respect each other's right to development. “We need to treat each other as equals, keep differences under control, and seek common ground while reserving differences,” Xinhua news agency quoted Xi as saying. Xi stressed peaceful coexistence between the two countries, saying that no conflict and no confrontation is a line that both sides must hold. Also read | Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship Both Biden and Xi emphasized the need for working together on major global issues, especially Covid-19 and climate change. Speaking from the White House to Xi on a television screen, Biden said it was their "responsibility as leaders of China and the United States to ensure that the competition between our countries does not veer into conflict, whether intended or unintended." Xi, speaking from Beijing, called Biden "my old friend," but said their countries had to work more closely. "We face multiple challenges together. As the world's two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the United States need to increase communication and cooperation," he said, speaking through an interpreter in brief public remarks, before they went behind closed doors. The two leaders have spoken by phone twice since Biden's inauguration in January but with Xi refusing to travel abroad because of the pandemic, an online video meeting was the only option short of an in-person summit. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden raises Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire'

A day ahead of the online meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, China has warned the United States against interfering in the matters related to “Taiwan’s independence”.

Biden and Xi will be meeting virtually on Tuesday morning (Beijing time) —Monday evening in Washington—for the first time since Biden became the president. The meeting comes in the backdrop of rising tensions over Taiwan, trade, human rights and other issues.

In a phone with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Saturday to discuss preparations for the meeting, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned of the dangers of US actions that might seem supportive of “Taiwan independence”.

“Any connivance of and support for the ‘Taiwan independence’ forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end,” Wang told Blinken, according to a readout of the call released by China on Saturday.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/president-biden-chinese-president-xi-plan-to-hold-virtual-summit-white-house-418758">President Biden, Chinese President Xi plan to hold virtual summit: White House</a>

that “any connivance of and support for the Taiwan independence forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end.”

An editorial in the English language China Daily on Monday said that it was likely that Xi would impress upon Biden that Beijing is resolved to “realise national reunification in the foreseeable future no matter the cost”.

“The Taiwan question is the ultimate red line of China”, wrote a Monday editorial by Global Times, a tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-says-xi-jinping-did-not-turn-down-meeting-offer-413150">Biden says Xi Jinping did not turn down meeting offer</a>

“In order to reduce the risk of a strategic collision between China and the U.S., the latter must take a step back from the Taiwan question and show its restraint,” it wrote.

Chinese State media outlets are briefed by authorities on important issues such as China-US relations and have been accurate in reflecting the priorities of Chinese leaders.

Washington has repeatedly signalled its support for Taiwan. On October 28, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen confirmed that the American troops are stationed in the island nation and are imparting training on the Taipei military troops.

Speaking with CNN on Tuesday, Tsai said the threat from Beijing is growing “every day”, while expressing confidence that US will defend the island against the Chinese attack.

Last week, Xi had warned against the return of Cold War-era tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, while referring to US’ involvement in Taiwanese’s affairs.

(With inputs from agencies)

A day ahead of the online meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, China has warned the United States against interfering in the matters related to “Taiwan’s independence”.

A day ahead of the online meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, China has warned the United States against interfering in the matters related to “Taiwan’s independence”. Biden and Xi will be meeting virtually on Tuesday morning (Beijing time) —Monday evening in Washington—for the first time since Biden became the president. The meeting comes in the backdrop of rising tensions over Taiwan, trade, human rights and other issues. In a phone with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Saturday to discuss preparations for the meeting, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned of the dangers of US actions that might seem supportive of “Taiwan independence”. “Any connivance of and support for the ‘Taiwan independence’ forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end,” Wang told Blinken, according to a readout of the call released by China on Saturday. Also read | President Biden, Chinese President Xi plan to hold virtual summit: White House that “any connivance of and support for the Taiwan independence forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end.” An editorial in the English language China Daily on Monday said that it was likely that Xi would impress upon Biden that Beijing is resolved to “realise national reunification in the foreseeable future no matter the cost”. “The Taiwan question is the ultimate red line of China”, wrote a Monday editorial by Global Times, a tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily. Also read | Biden says Xi Jinping did not turn down meeting offer “In order to reduce the risk of a strategic collision between China and the U.S., the latter must take a step back from the Taiwan question and show its restraint,” it wrote. Chinese State media outlets are briefed by authorities on important issues such as China-US relations and have been accurate in reflecting the priorities of Chinese leaders. Washington has repeatedly signalled its support for Taiwan. On October 28, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen confirmed that the American troops are stationed in the island nation and are imparting training on the Taipei military troops. Speaking with CNN on Tuesday, Tsai said the threat from Beijing is growing “every day”, while expressing confidence that US will defend the island against the Chinese attack. Last week, Xi had warned against the return of Cold War-era tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, while referring to US’ involvement in Taiwanese’s affairs. (With inputs from agencies)

Ahead of Biden & Xi’s virtual meeting, China warns US to back off on Taiwan support

President of the United States Joe Biden is all set for a virtual meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Taiwan is expected to feature prominently in the talks. China plans to build pressure on the US to 'step back' on the Taiwan issue. Will Biden concede?

Gravitas: Joe Biden to meet Xi Jinping 'virtually' | Taiwan to feature prominently in talks

A coalition of conservative religious groups is waging an intensive lobbying effort to remove a nondiscrimination provision from President Joe Biden’s ambitious prekindergarten and child care plans, fearing it would disqualify their programs from receiving a huge new infusion of federal money.

The fight could have major consequences for a central component of Biden’s $1.85 trillion social policy bill, which the House is to consider as soon as this week. It could go a long way toward determining which programs, neighbourhoods and families can benefit from the landmark early-childhood benefits established in the legislation, given that child care centres and preschools affiliated with religious organisations make up a substantial share of those offered in the United States — serving as many as 53 per cent of families, according to a survey last year by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/liberals-dig-in-against-infrastructure-bill-as-party-divisions-persist-416842">Liberals dig in against infrastructure bill as party divisions persist</a>

The provision at issue is a standard one in many federal laws, which would mandate that all providers comply with federal nondiscrimination statutes. Religious organisations, whose child care programs are currently exempt from some such laws, argue that it would effectively block many of their providers from participating, while civil rights advocates contend it is long past time for such institutions to comply.

Some of the faith groups are pressing lawmakers to scrap or modify the nondiscrimination language, asserting that it would essentially shut them out of the new federal program unless they made major changes to the way they operate. For instance, it could bar federal funds from going to programs that refused to hire a gay employee, gave preference to applicants of their faith or failed to renovate their facilities to accommodate students with disabilities.

The organisations argue that the rules would force them to choose between participating in the child care initiative and continuing to teach religious content, convene all-boys or all-girls programs, or give preferences in hiring or admissions to people of their religion. Congressional staff members working on the bill do not believe it prohibits religious organisations from teaching religious content.

The groups — including the US&nbsp;leaders of the Catholic Church and one of the country’s largest Orthodox Jewish groups — contend that unless the bill is rewritten, they will be forced to turn away families that want to use benefits from the bill to send children to their centres.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/key-to-bidens-climate-agenda-likely-to-be-cut-because-of-manchin-opposition-421381">Key to Biden’s climate agenda likely to be cut because of Manchin opposition</a>

“It will be detrimental to our ability to participate,” said Jennifer Daniels, the associate director for public policy at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “It would impact our ability to stick with our Catholic mission in a variety of ways. We’ve worked really hard to make our concerns known.”

Their efforts appear to have gained some traction in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote on the social policy bill, has privately told Democrats, he wants to ensure that religious programs can fully participate in the child care initiative.

But in the House, Democrats are just as adamant that the provision be retained in order to prevent federal money from flowing to any organisation that discriminates. Defenders include the Congressional Black Caucus and Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va. and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee, who wrote it into the social policy legislation.

The fight over preschool and child care programs is among the major conflicts that remain to be resolved before the social policy legislation can clear Congress and be signed into law by Biden.

“The Build Back Better Act must not allow government-funded discrimination — in employment or in the provision of services to participants — in publicly funded programs,” Scott and Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio and the chair of the Black Caucus wrote in a previously undisclosed letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“We believe that allowing such discrimination financed with public funds collected from all taxpayers is wrong,” the lawmakers wrote. “We are asking you to oppose any effort to remove or change the nondiscrimination provisions included in the child care and universal preschool provisions of the Build Back Better Act.”

The bill would provide nearly $400 billion to help states build universal prekindergarten and affordable child care programs over six years. It is intended to ensure that the vast majority of families — those with four-person households earning up to $300,000 — spend no more than 7 per cent of their income on child care. Families that earn less than 75 per cent of the state’s median income would pay nothing.

It explicitly includes religious organisations.

“Nothing in this section shall preclude the use of such certificates for sectarian child care services if freely chosen by the parent,” it says. “For the purposes of this section, child care certificates shall be considered federal financial assistance to the provider.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gaffe-prone-us-leaders-do-it-again-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-mistakes-obama-for-biden-416891">Gaffe-prone US leaders do it again: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mistakes Obama for Biden</a>

At issue is what’s arguably a major change the bill would make in how the federal government treats institutions that receive aid for the care of small children. For decades, low-income families have received funds from the Child Care and Development Block Grant program that they may use at a variety of child care centres. But since those centres are not necessarily considered direct recipients of federal funds, they are not bound by some nondiscrimination laws.

A similar situation exists for religious elementary schools that receive money through local school systems to educate low-income students.

Scott’s legislation would categorize any prekindergarten or child care centre that participates in the new program as a federal financial recipient, requiring it to either comply with nondiscrimination laws or turn away families, the conservative religious organisations argue.

“Religious providers are absolutely eligible to participate in the program — including receiving certificate funding, which is not considered direct federal financial assistance,” an aide to the Senate’s education committee said. “We are working with concerned organisations to ensure this distinction is clear.”

The bill would also prohibit any child care provider from using the funds to perform work on “buildings or facilities that are used primarily for sectarian instruction or religious worship.”

Senate Democrats say they are working to accommodate the religious organisations that object but will not agree to anything that would allow religious providers to discriminate against families that want to enrol children in their facilities. They note that some religious organisations — particularly those with a less conservative worldview — have no problem with the bill, including a few that signed a letter urging its passage.

And civil rights groups have pushed back hard at the efforts to remove the nondiscrimination provision, saying that any institution that wants to receive federal funds must submit to such laws.

“Who do they want to shut out? Is it the lesbian mom you want to shut out?” said Liz King, the director of the Education Equity Program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Is it the children with autism you want to shut out? Since at least 1964, the law and basic principle has been that federal funds cannot be used to discriminate. No one should have to subsidize their own discrimination.”

But religious organisations that have spent decades successfully steering clear of federal mandates say the legislation could be crippling to their educational programs.

“As a general rule, Catholic schools and most nonpublic schools purposefully avoid federal financial recipient status, because it triggers a whole host of federal regulatory obligations with which nonpublic schools are not currently required to comply,” Michael B. Sheedy, the executive director of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote in a letter last week to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “The provisions of most obvious concern include nondiscrimination provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity that could create religious freedom issues for religious providers.”

Manchin raised the issue at a recent closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats, emphasizing that the church and other faith-based organisations play a crucial role in helping care for many families in West Virginia, according to a person familiar with his comments.

Watch |&nbsp;US House expected to vote on Biden's social spending &amp; climate change bill

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-house-expected-to-vote-on-bidens-social-spending-climate-change-bill-426857/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Manchin argued that a little bit of funding would go a long way in helping religiously affiliated institutions provide a quality education for pre-K children, the person said, and he insisted they be eligible for any funds that are available. His position found widespread agreement among the other Democratic senators in the room, said two people familiar with the private discussion who described it on the condition of anonymity. Democrats did not get into the finer details of the dispute during their discussion, they said.

The debate is the latest skirmish in the battle over the role of religious organisations in participating in government programs — and how to include them while ensuring federal nondiscrimination protections that may conflict with their practices and beliefs.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against someone because of the “individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” It exempted church groups and faith-based organisations, but the act made no mention of whether such provisions could be applied if the groups were to accept federal funding.

Former President George W. Bush, through a series of executive orders, made it easier for churches and other faith-based organisations to receive federal money while circumventing certain anti-discrimination laws.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Orthodox Union want those practices to stay in place. In recent days, they have made the case to members of Congress that they could not accept money to run preschool or child care programs unless the bill expressly exempts them from anti-discrimination laws, such as Title IX, which protects against discrimination by sex, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which they argue could require costly upgrades to old buildings, including houses of worship.

“We appreciate that key Senate Democrats have told us that they agree that churches and synagogues must be included, but the devil is indeed in the details,” said Nathan J. Diament, the public policy director at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. “Right now, the way the bill text is drafted, there are details that will deter, if not make it impossible for, faith-based providers to participate.”

A coalition of conservative religious groups is waging an intensive lobbying effort to remove a nondiscrimination provision from President Joe Biden’s ambitious prekindergarten and child care plans, fearing it would disqualify their programs from receiving a huge new infusion of federal money.

A coalition of conservative religious groups is waging an intensive lobbying effort to remove a nondiscrimination provision from President Joe Biden’s ambitious prekindergarten and child care plans, fearing it would disqualify their programs from receiving a huge new infusion of federal money. The fight could have major consequences for a central component of Biden’s $1.85 trillion social policy bill, which the House is to consider as soon as this week. It could go a long way toward determining which programs, neighbourhoods and families can benefit from the landmark early-childhood benefits established in the legislation, given that child care centres and preschools affiliated with religious organisations make up a substantial share of those offered in the United States — serving as many as 53 per cent of families, according to a survey last year by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Also read | Liberals dig in against infrastructure bill as party divisions persist The provision at issue is a standard one in many federal laws, which would mandate that all providers comply with federal nondiscrimination statutes. Religious organisations, whose child care programs are currently exempt from some such laws, argue that it would effectively block many of their providers from participating, while civil rights advocates contend it is long past time for such institutions to comply. Some of the faith groups are pressing lawmakers to scrap or modify the nondiscrimination language, asserting that it would essentially shut them out of the new federal program unless they made major changes to the way they operate. For instance, it could bar federal funds from going to programs that refused to hire a gay employee, gave preference to applicants of their faith or failed to renovate their facilities to accommodate students with disabilities. The organisations argue that the rules would force them to choose between participating in the child care initiative and continuing to teach religious content, convene all-boys or all-girls programs, or give preferences in hiring or admissions to people of their religion. Congressional staff members working on the bill do not believe it prohibits religious organisations from teaching religious content. The groups — including the US leaders of the Catholic Church and one of the country’s largest Orthodox Jewish groups — contend that unless the bill is rewritten, they will be forced to turn away families that want to use benefits from the bill to send children to their centres. Also read | Key to Biden’s climate agenda likely to be cut because of Manchin opposition “It will be detrimental to our ability to participate,” said Jennifer Daniels, the associate director for public policy at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “It would impact our ability to stick with our Catholic mission in a variety of ways. We’ve worked really hard to make our concerns known.” Their efforts appear to have gained some traction in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a key swing vote on the social policy bill, has privately told Democrats, he wants to ensure that religious programs can fully participate in the child care initiative. But in the House, Democrats are just as adamant that the provision be retained in order to prevent federal money from flowing to any organisation that discriminates. Defenders include the Congressional Black Caucus and Rep. Robert C. Scott, D-Va. and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee, who wrote it into the social policy legislation. The fight over preschool and child care programs is among the major conflicts that remain to be resolved before the social policy legislation can clear Congress and be signed into law by Biden. “The Build Back Better Act must not allow government-funded discrimination — in employment or in the provision of services to participants — in publicly funded programs,” Scott and Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio and the chair of the Black Caucus wrote in a previously undisclosed letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “We believe that allowing such discrimination financed with public funds collected from all taxpayers is wrong,” the lawmakers wrote. “We are asking you to oppose any effort to remove or change the nondiscrimination provisions included in the child care and universal preschool provisions of the Build Back Better Act.” The bill would provide nearly $400 billion to help states build universal prekindergarten and affordable child care programs over six years. It is intended to ensure that the vast majority of families — those with four-person households earning up to $300,000 — spend no more than 7 per cent of their income on child care. Families that earn less than 75 per cent of the state’s median income would pay nothing. It explicitly includes religious organisations. “Nothing in this section shall preclude the use of such certificates for sectarian child care services if freely chosen by the parent,” it says. “For the purposes of this section, child care certificates shall be considered federal financial assistance to the provider.” Also read | Gaffe-prone US leaders do it again: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mistakes Obama for Biden At issue is what’s arguably a major change the bill would make in how the federal government treats institutions that receive aid for the care of small children. For decades, low-income families have received funds from the Child Care and Development Block Grant program that they may use at a variety of child care centres. But since those centres are not necessarily considered direct recipients of federal funds, they are not bound by some nondiscrimination laws. A similar situation exists for religious elementary schools that receive money through local school systems to educate low-income students. Scott’s legislation would categorize any prekindergarten or child care centre that participates in the new program as a federal financial recipient, requiring it to either comply with nondiscrimination laws or turn away families, the conservative religious organisations argue. “Religious providers are absolutely eligible to participate in the program — including receiving certificate funding, which is not considered direct federal financial assistance,” an aide to the Senate’s education committee said. “We are working with concerned organisations to ensure this distinction is clear.” The bill would also prohibit any child care provider from using the funds to perform work on “buildings or facilities that are used primarily for sectarian instruction or religious worship.” Senate Democrats say they are working to accommodate the religious organisations that object but will not agree to anything that would allow religious providers to discriminate against families that want to enrol children in their facilities. They note that some religious organisations — particularly those with a less conservative worldview — have no problem with the bill, including a few that signed a letter urging its passage. And civil rights groups have pushed back hard at the efforts to remove the nondiscrimination provision, saying that any institution that wants to receive federal funds must submit to such laws. “Who do they want to shut out? Is it the lesbian mom you want to shut out?” said Liz King, the director of the Education Equity Program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “Is it the children with autism you want to shut out? Since at least 1964, the law and basic principle has been that federal funds cannot be used to discriminate. No one should have to subsidize their own discrimination.” But religious organisations that have spent decades successfully steering clear of federal mandates say the legislation could be crippling to their educational programs. “As a general rule, Catholic schools and most nonpublic schools purposefully avoid federal financial recipient status, because it triggers a whole host of federal regulatory obligations with which nonpublic schools are not currently required to comply,” Michael B. Sheedy, the executive director of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote in a letter last week to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “The provisions of most obvious concern include nondiscrimination provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity that could create religious freedom issues for religious providers.” Manchin raised the issue at a recent closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats, emphasizing that the church and other faith-based organisations play a crucial role in helping care for many families in West Virginia, according to a person familiar with his comments. Watch | US House expected to vote on Biden's social spending & climate change bill Manchin argued that a little bit of funding would go a long way in helping religiously affiliated institutions provide a quality education for pre-K children, the person said, and he insisted they be eligible for any funds that are available. His position found widespread agreement among the other Democratic senators in the room, said two people familiar with the private discussion who described it on the condition of anonymity. Democrats did not get into the finer details of the dispute during their discussion, they said. The debate is the latest skirmish in the battle over the role of religious organisations in participating in government programs — and how to include them while ensuring federal nondiscrimination protections that may conflict with their practices and beliefs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against someone because of the “individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” It exempted church groups and faith-based organisations, but the act made no mention of whether such provisions could be applied if the groups were to accept federal funding. Former President George W. Bush, through a series of executive orders, made it easier for churches and other faith-based organisations to receive federal money while circumventing certain anti-discrimination laws. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Orthodox Union want those practices to stay in place. In recent days, they have made the case to members of Congress that they could not accept money to run preschool or child care programs unless the bill expressly exempts them from anti-discrimination laws, such as Title IX, which protects against discrimination by sex, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which they argue could require costly upgrades to old buildings, including houses of worship. “We appreciate that key Senate Democrats have told us that they agree that churches and synagogues must be included, but the devil is indeed in the details,” said Nathan J. Diament, the public policy director at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. “Right now, the way the bill text is drafted, there are details that will deter, if not make it impossible for, faith-based providers to participate.”

Faith groups push to scrap mandates in Biden’s child care plan

Ahead of the much-awaited Biden-Xi meet the United States has warned China over its pressure on Taiwan. The U.S. State department in a statement said that secretary of state Antony Blinken spoke with foreign minister Wang Yi, and "Expressed concern regarding china's continued military, diplomatic, and economic pressure against Taiwan".

United States warns China over its pressure on Taiwan

The election results from last week reconfirmed a basic reality about American politics: For either party, holding the White House comes with significant power, but in off-year elections, it is often a burden.

Democrats hoped that this year would be an exception. By trying to focus the electorate on Donald Trump, they sought to rouse the Democratic base. This approach would also avoid making elections a referendum on President Biden and his approval ratings, which have sagged after months of struggles with the Afghanistan exit, Covid, gas prices, inflation and congressional Democrats.

In other words, Democrats hoped that the usual rules of political gravity would not apply. But we should not be surprised that the familiar force endured.

Republicans performed well in races across the country — most notably in the governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey, states that Mr. Biden won by double digits in 2020. Vote counts are still being finalized, but it appears they shifted almost identically toward the Republicans compared with 2017, the last time those governorships were on the ballot — margins of about 11 points. Virginia provides a striking example of how often the presidential party does poorly — the White House party candidate has now lost the gubernatorial race in 11 of the past 12 elections.

Unfortunately for Democrats, political gravity is also likely to act against them in 2022 — and they face real limits on what they can do about it.

There were signs of Democratic decline in all sorts of different places. The suburban-exurban Loudoun County in Northern Virginia is an example. Terry McAuliffe carried it, but his Republican rival in the governor’s race, Glenn Youngkin, campaigned aggressively there on education issues and basically cut the margin compared with 2017 in half. Places like Loudoun are where Democrats made advancements in the Trump years. To have any hope of holding the House next year, the party will have to perform well in such areas.

Turnout in terms of raw votes cast compared with the 2017 gubernatorial race was up all over Virginia, but some of the places where turnout growth was smallest included Democratic urban areas and college towns.

But Republicans had no such trouble: Their turnout was excellent. In New Jersey, the county that saw the biggest growth in total votes compared with 2017 was Ocean, an exurb on the Jersey Shore, which Gov. Phil Murphy’s Republican challenger, Jack Ciattarelli, won by over 35 points.

Democrats have also struggled in rural areas, and the results last week suggest that they have not hit bottom there yet. In the Ninth Congressional District in rural southwestern Virginia, Mr. Youngkin performed even better than Mr. Trump did in 2020.

This combination — even deeper losses in rural areas paired with fallout in more populous areas — would be catastrophic for Democrats, particularly in the competitive Midwest, where Mr. Biden in 2020 helped arrest Democratic decline in many white, rural areas but where it is not hard to imagine Democratic performance continuing to slide.

Like this year, the fundamentals for the 2022 midterms are not in the Democrats’ favor. Midterms often act as an agent of change in the House. The president’s party has lost ground in the House in 37 of the 40 midterms since the Civil War, with an average seat loss of 33 (since World War II, the average is a smaller, though still substantial, 27). Since 1900, the House has flipped party control 11 times, and nine of those changes have come in midterm election years, including the last five (1954, 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2018). Given that Republicans need to pick up only five seats next year, they are very well positioned to win the chamber.

It is not entirely unheard-of for the presidential party to net House seats in the midterms. It happened in 1998 and 2002, though those come with significant caveats. In ’98, President Bill Clinton had strong approval in spite of (or perhaps aided by) his impeachment battle with Republicans and presided over a strong economy; Democrats had also had lost a lot of ground in the 1994 midterm (and made only a dent in that new Republican majority in 1996). They gained a modest four seats.

In 2002, Republicans were defending a slim majority, but they benefited from President George W. Bush’s sky-high approval rating following the Sept. 11 attacks and decennial reapportionment and redistricting, which contributed to their eight-seat net gain.

So against this political gravity, is there anything Democrats can do? The passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill as well as the possible passage of the party’s Build Back Better social spending package could help, though there is likely not a significant direct reward — new laws aren’t a magic bullet in campaigning. But a year from now, Democrats could be coming into the election under strong economic conditions and no longer mired in a high-profile intraparty stalemate (the McAuliffe campaign pointed to Democratic infighting as a drag).

Factors like gas prices and the trajectory of Covid may be largely beyond the Democrats’ influence, but it is entirely possible that the country’s mood will brighten by November 2022 — and that could bolster Mr. Biden’s approval rating.

When parties have bucked the midterm history, they’ve sometimes had an unusually good development emerge in their favor. If there is any lesson from last week’s results, it is that the circumstances were ordinary, not extraordinary. If they remain so, the Democratic outlook for next year — as it so often is for the presidential party in a midterm election — could be bleak.

The election results from last week reconfirmed a basic reality about American politics: For either party, holding the White House comes with significant power, but in off-year elections, it is often a burden.

The election results from last week reconfirmed a basic reality about American politics: For either party, holding the White House comes with significant power, but in off-year elections, it is often a burden. Democrats hoped that this year would be an exception. By trying to focus the electorate on Donald Trump, they sought to rouse the Democratic base. This approach would also avoid making elections a referendum on President Biden and his approval ratings, which have sagged after months of struggles with the Afghanistan exit, Covid, gas prices, inflation and congressional Democrats. In other words, Democrats hoped that the usual rules of political gravity would not apply. But we should not be surprised that the familiar force endured. Republicans performed well in races across the country — most notably in the governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey, states that Mr. Biden won by double digits in 2020. Vote counts are still being finalized, but it appears they shifted almost identically toward the Republicans compared with 2017, the last time those governorships were on the ballot — margins of about 11 points. Virginia provides a striking example of how often the presidential party does poorly — the White House party candidate has now lost the gubernatorial race in 11 of the past 12 elections. Unfortunately for Democrats, political gravity is also likely to act against them in 2022 — and they face real limits on what they can do about it. There were signs of Democratic decline in all sorts of different places. The suburban-exurban Loudoun County in Northern Virginia is an example. Terry McAuliffe carried it, but his Republican rival in the governor’s race, Glenn Youngkin, campaigned aggressively there on education issues and basically cut the margin compared with 2017 in half. Places like Loudoun are where Democrats made advancements in the Trump years. To have any hope of holding the House next year, the party will have to perform well in such areas. Turnout in terms of raw votes cast compared with the 2017 gubernatorial race was up all over Virginia, but some of the places where turnout growth was smallest included Democratic urban areas and college towns. But Republicans had no such trouble: Their turnout was excellent. In New Jersey, the county that saw the biggest growth in total votes compared with 2017 was Ocean, an exurb on the Jersey Shore, which Gov. Phil Murphy’s Republican challenger, Jack Ciattarelli, won by over 35 points. Democrats have also struggled in rural areas, and the results last week suggest that they have not hit bottom there yet. In the Ninth Congressional District in rural southwestern Virginia, Mr. Youngkin performed even better than Mr. Trump did in 2020. This combination — even deeper losses in rural areas paired with fallout in more populous areas — would be catastrophic for Democrats, particularly in the competitive Midwest, where Mr. Biden in 2020 helped arrest Democratic decline in many white, rural areas but where it is not hard to imagine Democratic performance continuing to slide. Like this year, the fundamentals for the 2022 midterms are not in the Democrats’ favor. Midterms often act as an agent of change in the House. The president’s party has lost ground in the House in 37 of the 40 midterms since the Civil War, with an average seat loss of 33 (since World War II, the average is a smaller, though still substantial, 27). Since 1900, the House has flipped party control 11 times, and nine of those changes have come in midterm election years, including the last five (1954, 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2018). Given that Republicans need to pick up only five seats next year, they are very well positioned to win the chamber. It is not entirely unheard-of for the presidential party to net House seats in the midterms. It happened in 1998 and 2002, though those come with significant caveats. In ’98, President Bill Clinton had strong approval in spite of (or perhaps aided by) his impeachment battle with Republicans and presided over a strong economy; Democrats had also had lost a lot of ground in the 1994 midterm (and made only a dent in that new Republican majority in 1996). They gained a modest four seats. In 2002, Republicans were defending a slim majority, but they benefited from President George W. Bush’s sky-high approval rating following the Sept. 11 attacks and decennial reapportionment and redistricting, which contributed to their eight-seat net gain. So against this political gravity, is there anything Democrats can do? The passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill as well as the possible passage of the party’s Build Back Better social spending package could help, though there is likely not a significant direct reward — new laws aren’t a magic bullet in campaigning. But a year from now, Democrats could be coming into the election under strong economic conditions and no longer mired in a high-profile intraparty stalemate (the McAuliffe campaign pointed to Democratic infighting as a drag). Factors like gas prices and the trajectory of Covid may be largely beyond the Democrats’ influence, but it is entirely possible that the country’s mood will brighten by November 2022 — and that could bolster Mr. Biden’s approval rating. When parties have bucked the midterm history, they’ve sometimes had an unusually good development emerge in their favor. If there is any lesson from last week’s results, it is that the circumstances were ordinary, not extraordinary. If they remain so, the Democratic outlook for next year — as it so often is for the presidential party in a midterm election — could be bleak.

How likely is a Democratic comeback next year?

Usually, it’s the party out of power that frets about whether it will ever win again. This time, it’s the party in control of government that’s staring into the political wilderness.

Democrats now have a Washington trifecta — command of the White House and both chambers of Congress. If the results of last week’s elections in Virginia and elsewhere are any indication, they may not retain it after next November’s midterm elections. And a decade or longer may pass before they win a trifecta again.

The unusual structure of American government, combined with the electorate’s reflexive instinct to check the party in power, makes it hard for any party to retain a hold on both the White House and Congress for long.

Since World War II, political parties have waited an average of 14 years to regain full control of government after losing it. Only one president — Harry Truman — has lost Congress and retaken it later. In every other case, the president’s party regained a trifecta only after losing the White House.

It would be foolish to predict the next decade of election results. Still, today’s Democrats will have a hard time defying this long history. Not only do the Democrats have especially slim majorities, but they face a series of structural disadvantages in the House and the Senate that make it difficult to translate popular vote majorities into governing majorities.

The specter of divided government is a bitter one for Democrats.

The party has won the national popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections but has nonetheless struggled to amass enough power to enact its agenda. That has added to the high stakes in the ongoing negotiations over the large Democratic spending package, which increasingly looks like a last chance for progressives to push an ambitious agenda.

And it has helped spur the kind of acrimonious internal Democratic debate over the party’s message and strategy that would usually follow an electoral defeat, with moderates and progressives clashing over whether the party’s highly educated activist base needs to take a back seat for the party to cling to its majority. The strong Republican showing in Virginia and New Jersey last week has prompted yet another round of recriminations.

But with such a long history of the president’s party struggling to hold on to power, one wonders whether any policy, tactic or message might help Democrats escape divided government.

The political winds seem to blow against the president’s party almost as soon as a new party seizes the White House. For decades, political scientists have observed a so-called thermostatic backlash in public opinion, in which voters instinctively move to turn down the temperature when government runs too hot in either party’s favor. The pattern dates back as long as survey research and helps explain why the election of Barack Obama led to the Tea Party, or how Donald Trump’s election led to record support for immigration.

The president’s party faces additional burdens at the ballot box. A sliver of voters prefers gridlock and divided government and votes for a check and balance against the president. And the party out of power tends to enjoy a turnout advantage, whether because the president’s opponents are resolved to stop his agenda or because of complacency by the president’s supporters.

While Democrats can still hope to avoid losing control of Congress in 2022, Biden’s sagging approval ratings make it seem increasingly unlikely that they will. Historically, only presidents with strong approval ratings have managed to avoid the midterm curse. And with Democrats holding only the most tenuous majorities in the House and the Senate, any losses at all would be enough to break the trifecta.

If the Democrats are going to get a trifecta again, 2024 would seem to be their best chance. The president’s party usually bounces back when the president seeks reelection, perhaps because presidential elections offer a clear choice between two sides, not merely a referendum on the party in power. And in the House, a Democratic rebound in 2024 is very easy to imagine, even if far from assured.

The Senate, however, may be a different and ultimately bleaker story for Democrats.

In the short term, the president’s party is relatively insulated from midterm losses in the Senate, since only one-third of the seats are up for grabs. And the president’s party usually doesn’t have to defend much in its first midterm, as it has often already lost many of the contested seats six years earlier — when the party out of power fared well en route to last winning the White House. The same thing insulates some Democratic losses in 2022.

But if 2024 represents an opening for a Democratic bounce-back in the House, it may not offer as favorable an opportunity in the Senate. Democrats will have no opportunity to reclaim any Senate seats they might lose in 2022. And they will need to defend the seats they won six years earlier, in their 2018 midterm rout, including some in otherwise reliably Republican states such as West Virginia, Ohio and Montana. To hold or regain the Senate — and a trifecta — they might need all of those seats.

The Democratic grip on the Senate is dependent on holding Republican-leaning states because the Democrats are at a significant disadvantage in the chamber. The party tends to excel in a relatively small number of populous states, but every state receives two senators, regardless of population.

The size of the Democratic disadvantage in the Senate can be overstated: Biden won 25 states, after all, and the Democrats control the chamber today by the margin of Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote.

But the Democratic majority is tenuous, and there are few opportunities to solidify it: There are only 27 states where Biden was within 5 points of victory in 2020. And since there are only 19 states where Biden won by more than he did nationwide, Republicans could easily flip many seats if they benefit from a favorable political environment.

With Republicans commanding such formidable structural advantages in the chamber, some Democrats fear they could be reduced to just 43 Senate seats by the end of the 2024 election. If Biden won reelection, Republicans could claim even more seats in 2026. The path back to a Democratic trifecta would be daunting.

Even if Democrats do hold down their Senate losses next year, it would still be a long road back to control of the chamber. They might struggle to win it back until there’s a new Republican president, when the benefits of being the party out of power will again work to their advantage. 
&nbsp;

Usually, it’s the party out of power that frets about whether it will ever win again. This time, it’s the party in control of government that’s staring into the political wilderness.

Usually, it’s the party out of power that frets about whether it will ever win again. This time, it’s the party in control of government that’s staring into the political wilderness. Democrats now have a Washington trifecta — command of the White House and both chambers of Congress. If the results of last week’s elections in Virginia and elsewhere are any indication, they may not retain it after next November’s midterm elections. And a decade or longer may pass before they win a trifecta again. The unusual structure of American government, combined with the electorate’s reflexive instinct to check the party in power, makes it hard for any party to retain a hold on both the White House and Congress for long. Since World War II, political parties have waited an average of 14 years to regain full control of government after losing it. Only one president — Harry Truman — has lost Congress and retaken it later. In every other case, the president’s party regained a trifecta only after losing the White House. It would be foolish to predict the next decade of election results. Still, today’s Democrats will have a hard time defying this long history. Not only do the Democrats have especially slim majorities, but they face a series of structural disadvantages in the House and the Senate that make it difficult to translate popular vote majorities into governing majorities. The specter of divided government is a bitter one for Democrats. The party has won the national popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections but has nonetheless struggled to amass enough power to enact its agenda. That has added to the high stakes in the ongoing negotiations over the large Democratic spending package, which increasingly looks like a last chance for progressives to push an ambitious agenda. And it has helped spur the kind of acrimonious internal Democratic debate over the party’s message and strategy that would usually follow an electoral defeat, with moderates and progressives clashing over whether the party’s highly educated activist base needs to take a back seat for the party to cling to its majority. The strong Republican showing in Virginia and New Jersey last week has prompted yet another round of recriminations. But with such a long history of the president’s party struggling to hold on to power, one wonders whether any policy, tactic or message might help Democrats escape divided government. The political winds seem to blow against the president’s party almost as soon as a new party seizes the White House. For decades, political scientists have observed a so-called thermostatic backlash in public opinion, in which voters instinctively move to turn down the temperature when government runs too hot in either party’s favor. The pattern dates back as long as survey research and helps explain why the election of Barack Obama led to the Tea Party, or how Donald Trump’s election led to record support for immigration. The president’s party faces additional burdens at the ballot box. A sliver of voters prefers gridlock and divided government and votes for a check and balance against the president. And the party out of power tends to enjoy a turnout advantage, whether because the president’s opponents are resolved to stop his agenda or because of complacency by the president’s supporters. While Democrats can still hope to avoid losing control of Congress in 2022, Biden’s sagging approval ratings make it seem increasingly unlikely that they will. Historically, only presidents with strong approval ratings have managed to avoid the midterm curse. And with Democrats holding only the most tenuous majorities in the House and the Senate, any losses at all would be enough to break the trifecta. If the Democrats are going to get a trifecta again, 2024 would seem to be their best chance. The president’s party usually bounces back when the president seeks reelection, perhaps because presidential elections offer a clear choice between two sides, not merely a referendum on the party in power. And in the House, a Democratic rebound in 2024 is very easy to imagine, even if far from assured. The Senate, however, may be a different and ultimately bleaker story for Democrats. In the short term, the president’s party is relatively insulated from midterm losses in the Senate, since only one-third of the seats are up for grabs. And the president’s party usually doesn’t have to defend much in its first midterm, as it has often already lost many of the contested seats six years earlier — when the party out of power fared well en route to last winning the White House. The same thing insulates some Democratic losses in 2022. But if 2024 represents an opening for a Democratic bounce-back in the House, it may not offer as favorable an opportunity in the Senate. Democrats will have no opportunity to reclaim any Senate seats they might lose in 2022. And they will need to defend the seats they won six years earlier, in their 2018 midterm rout, including some in otherwise reliably Republican states such as West Virginia, Ohio and Montana. To hold or regain the Senate — and a trifecta — they might need all of those seats. The Democratic grip on the Senate is dependent on holding Republican-leaning states because the Democrats are at a significant disadvantage in the chamber. The party tends to excel in a relatively small number of populous states, but every state receives two senators, regardless of population. The size of the Democratic disadvantage in the Senate can be overstated: Biden won 25 states, after all, and the Democrats control the chamber today by the margin of Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote. But the Democratic majority is tenuous, and there are few opportunities to solidify it: There are only 27 states where Biden was within 5 points of victory in 2020. And since there are only 19 states where Biden won by more than he did nationwide, Republicans could easily flip many seats if they benefit from a favorable political environment. With Republicans commanding such formidable structural advantages in the chamber, some Democrats fear they could be reduced to just 43 Senate seats by the end of the 2024 election. If Biden won reelection, Republicans could claim even more seats in 2026. The path back to a Democratic trifecta would be daunting. Even if Democrats do hold down their Senate losses next year, it would still be a long road back to control of the chamber. They might struggle to win it back until there’s a new Republican president, when the benefits of being the party out of power will again work to their advantage.

Why Democrats may have a long wait if they lose their grip on Washington

The United States President Joe Biden might get an invite by Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend the Beijing Winter Olympics, which is scheduled to take place in February next year.&nbsp;

CNBC on Thursday (November 11), citing two people familiar with the matter, reported that the Chinese President is likely to extend his personal invitation to Biden when the two leaders will meet during a virtual summit.&nbsp;

Latest media reports have stated that the much-anticipated summit is scheduled for Monday (November 15) evening. The summit will be virtual, although, there isn't any official confirmation yet regarding the date and time.&nbsp;

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/a-milestone-us-armys-elite-sniping-school-gets-its-first-woman-graduate-428768">‘A milestone': US Army’s elite sniping school gets its first woman graduate</a>

The summit will&nbsp;be held amid escalated tensions related to Taiwan; and how China has been treating Muslim ethnic groups in its western Xinjiang region. Several reports have accused China of committing crimes against humanity and possibly genocide against the Uyghur population. China has consistently denied it.&nbsp;

Also, a bipartisan group of US senators proposed an amendment recently to an annual defense policy bill that would prohibit the State Department from spending federal funds to "support or facilitate" the attendance of US government employees at the Games.&nbsp;

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also called for a diplomatic boycott. However, there is no official statement that can provide clarity over US' stand on Beijing Winter Olympics.&nbsp;

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-accuses-us-of-making-aggressive-moves-in-black-sea-428775">Russia accuses US of making 'aggressive moves' in Black Sea</a>

Apart from the calls by the human rights groups for a partial or full boycott over reported abuses, preparations for the next year's Winter Olympics Games have been overshadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic also.&nbsp;

As China reported on Friday (November 12) the first COVID-19 cases among foreign athletes at preparatory events. Two lugers of the same nationality tested positive, said Huang Chun, an official of the Games organising committee.&nbsp;

The Games will run from February 4 until February 20.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/xi-jinpings-uncontested-rule-over-china-428722/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The United States President Joe Biden might get an invite by Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend the Beijing Winter Olympics, which is scheduled to take place in February next year.

The United States President Joe Biden might get an invite by Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend the Beijing Winter Olympics, which is scheduled to take place in February next year. CNBC on Thursday (November 11), citing two people familiar with the matter, reported that the Chinese President is likely to extend his personal invitation to Biden when the two leaders will meet during a virtual summit. Latest media reports have stated that the much-anticipated summit is scheduled for Monday (November 15) evening. The summit will be virtual, although, there isn't any official confirmation yet regarding the date and time. ALSO READ | ‘A milestone': US Army’s elite sniping school gets its first woman graduate The summit will be held amid escalated tensions related to Taiwan; and how China has been treating Muslim ethnic groups in its western Xinjiang region. Several reports have accused China of committing crimes against humanity and possibly genocide against the Uyghur population. China has consistently denied it. Also, a bipartisan group of US senators proposed an amendment recently to an annual defense policy bill that would prohibit the State Department from spending federal funds to "support or facilitate" the attendance of US government employees at the Games. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also called for a diplomatic boycott. However, there is no official statement that can provide clarity over US' stand on Beijing Winter Olympics. ALSO READ | Russia accuses US of making 'aggressive moves' in Black Sea Apart from the calls by the human rights groups for a partial or full boycott over reported abuses, preparations for the next year's Winter Olympics Games have been overshadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic also. As China reported on Friday (November 12) the first COVID-19 cases among foreign athletes at preparatory events. Two lugers of the same nationality tested positive, said Huang Chun, an official of the Games organising committee. The Games will run from February 4 until February 20. ×

Joe Biden to attend Beijing Winter Olympics? Report says he might get a personal invitation from Xi Jinping

joe-biden

Joe Biden, News on Joe Biden, stories on Joe Biden, articles on Joe Biden, Joe Biden stories at Wion, Joe Biden news, Joe Biden latest news

joe biden