<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/russia-turkey-may-sign-new-contract-on-s-400-systems-in-2020-ria-264578">Russia and Turkey</a> are working on a contract for the delivery of a new batch of Russian S-400 missile systems, the Interfax news agency cited a senior official at a Russian military cooperation agency as saying on Friday.

Such a deal would be likely to further strain <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/erdogan-says-he-told-trump-turkey-will-not-give-up-russian-s-400s-263168">Ankara's relations</a> with Washington which has suspended Turkey from the US&nbsp;F-35 stealth fighter jet programme, in which it was a producer and buyer, to penalise it for buying S-400 batteries this year.

"We're gradually working on this question. Most importantly, both sides are intent on continuing cooperation in this sphere," the head of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation was quoted as saying.

The official, Dmitry Shugaev, said he thought there was a "fairly high likelihood" Turkey and Russia would sign a contract for the delivery of an additional batch of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-bought-s-400s-from-russia-to-use-them-not-to-put-them-aside-262580">S-400s</a> next year.

The head of Russia's state arms exporter told RIA news agency on November&nbsp;26 that Moscow and Ankara were actively discussing Ankara taking up an option in its original missile contract for it to receive more S-400 systems.

Russia and Turkey are working on a contract for the delivery of a new batch of Russian S-400 missile systems, the Interfax news agency cited a senior official at a Russian military cooperation agency as saying on Friday.

Russia and Turkey are working on a contract for the delivery of a new batch of Russian S-400 missile systems, the Interfax news agency cited a senior official at a Russian military cooperation agency as saying on Friday. Such a deal would be likely to further strain Ankara's relations with Washington which has suspended Turkey from the US F-35 stealth fighter jet programme, in which it was a producer and buyer, to penalise it for buying S-400 batteries this year. "We're gradually working on this question. Most importantly, both sides are intent on continuing cooperation in this sphere," the head of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation was quoted as saying. The official, Dmitry Shugaev, said he thought there was a "fairly high likelihood" Turkey and Russia would sign a contract for the delivery of an additional batch of S-400s next year. The head of Russia's state arms exporter told RIA news agency on November 26 that Moscow and Ankara were actively discussing Ankara taking up an option in its original missile contract for it to receive more S-400 systems.

Russia, Turkey working on new S-400 missile contract: Sources

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-denies-world-bank-cuts-related-to-uighur-rights-concerns-261605">World Bank</a> on Thursday adopted a plan to aid China with $1 billion to $1.5 billion in low-interest loans annually through June 2025, despite the objections of US&nbsp;Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Mnuchin told a House Financial Services Committee hearing that the Treasury's representative on the bank's board had objected on to the plan on Wednesday, adding he wanted the World Bank to "graduate" China from its concessional loan programs for low- and middle-income countries.

The new five-year plan calls for lending to "gradually decline" from the previous five-year average of $1.8 billion.

It was published on Thursday afternoon after the World Bank's board "expressed broad support" for the multilateral development lender's engagement in China's structural and environmental reforms.

The World Bank loaned China $1.3 billion in the fiscal 2019 year ended June 30, down from about $2.4 billion during fiscal 2017.

"Lending levels may fluctuate up and down from year to year due to normal pipeline management based on project readiness," the World Bank said in the new plan.

It said Beijing had requested continued financing from the World Bank's International Bank for Reconstruction and Development division "as platforms for reform, institution building and knowledge transfer."

But the decline in lending is not fast enough for Mnuchin, who has argued China is too wealthy for such international aid when it is lending hundreds of billions of dollars of its own to poor countries through its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/china-will-take-belt-and-road-initiative-all-over-unless-other-countries-provide-alternative-warns-sri-lankas-gotabaya-rajapaksa-265560">Belt and Road infrastructure</a> drive.

US&nbsp;lawmakers are also increasingly expressing concerns that US&nbsp;taxpayer funds loaned through the World Bank to China will enable human rights abuses and unfair economic competition with the United States.

In Senate floor remarks on Thursday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley cited alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang associated with detention camps for Muslim Uighurs in criticizing the World Bank lending plan.

"The World Bank, using American tax dollars, should not be lending to wealthy countries that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-media-blasts-us-for-uighur-bill-calls-for-action-266285">violate the human rights</a> of their citizens and attempt to dominate weaker countries either militarily or economically," Grassley said.

China defended its partnership with the World Bank.

"We are willing to make an effort and work together (with the bank) to summarize and share China's success and experience in poverty alleviation with other developing countries, to realize a long-term sustainable development for these countries," foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a news briefing Friday.

Although the United States hold an effective veto power over major board decisions such as capital increases and leadership appointments, the latest China lending plan did not require a formal vote.

Mnuchin told lawmakers he expected the World Bank's lending to China to fall below $1 billion during the current fiscal year, with more repayment funds flowing back to the lender from China than loan funds going out.

The World Bank said the loans in the five-year plan would be aimed at advancing market and fiscal reforms, promoting greener growth and increasing citizens' access to health and social services.

The World Bank on Thursday adopted a plan to aid China with $1 billion to $1.5 billion in low-interest loans annually through June 2025, despite the objections of US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

The World Bank on Thursday adopted a plan to aid China with $1 billion to $1.5 billion in low-interest loans annually through June 2025, despite the objections of US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Mnuchin told a House Financial Services Committee hearing that the Treasury's representative on the bank's board had objected on to the plan on Wednesday, adding he wanted the World Bank to "graduate" China from its concessional loan programs for low- and middle-income countries. The new five-year plan calls for lending to "gradually decline" from the previous five-year average of $1.8 billion. It was published on Thursday afternoon after the World Bank's board "expressed broad support" for the multilateral development lender's engagement in China's structural and environmental reforms. The World Bank loaned China $1.3 billion in the fiscal 2019 year ended June 30, down from about $2.4 billion during fiscal 2017. "Lending levels may fluctuate up and down from year to year due to normal pipeline management based on project readiness," the World Bank said in the new plan. It said Beijing had requested continued financing from the World Bank's International Bank for Reconstruction and Development division "as platforms for reform, institution building and knowledge transfer." But the decline in lending is not fast enough for Mnuchin, who has argued China is too wealthy for such international aid when it is lending hundreds of billions of dollars of its own to poor countries through its Belt and Road infrastructure drive. US lawmakers are also increasingly expressing concerns that US taxpayer funds loaned through the World Bank to China will enable human rights abuses and unfair economic competition with the United States. In Senate floor remarks on Thursday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley cited alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang associated with detention camps for Muslim Uighurs in criticizing the World Bank lending plan. "The World Bank, using American tax dollars, should not be lending to wealthy countries that violate the human rights of their citizens and attempt to dominate weaker countries either militarily or economically," Grassley said. China defended its partnership with the World Bank. "We are willing to make an effort and work together (with the bank) to summarize and share China's success and experience in poverty alleviation with other developing countries, to realize a long-term sustainable development for these countries," foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a news briefing Friday. Although the United States hold an effective veto power over major board decisions such as capital increases and leadership appointments, the latest China lending plan did not require a formal vote. Mnuchin told lawmakers he expected the World Bank's lending to China to fall below $1 billion during the current fiscal year, with more repayment funds flowing back to the lender from China than loan funds going out. The World Bank said the loans in the five-year plan would be aimed at advancing market and fiscal reforms, promoting greener growth and increasing citizens' access to health and social services.

World Bank adopts $1 billion-plus annual China lending plan over US objections

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-approves-uighur-bill-demanding-sanctions-on-senior-chinese-officials-266033">Trump&nbsp;administration</a>&nbsp;said on Wednesday it will make it harder for states to keep residents in the US&nbsp;food&nbsp;stamp program in a move that is projected to end benefits for nearly&nbsp;700,000&nbsp;people.

President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;has argued that many Americans receiving&nbsp;food&nbsp;stamps&nbsp;through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, do not need it given the strong economy and low unemployment. The program provides free&nbsp;food&nbsp;to 36 million Americans.

The&nbsp;administration&nbsp;has now finalised a rule that tightens guidelines on when and where states can waive limits on how long certain residents can receive benefits. The changes will move more "able-bodied" adults into the workplace, US&nbsp;Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said.

"States are seeking waivers for wide swaths of their population, and millions of&nbsp;people&nbsp;who could work are continuing to receive SNAP benefits," he told reporters.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-ends-freeze-on-lebanon-aid-worth-100-million-265820">United States</a> generally limits the amount of time that adults ages 18-49, who do not have dependents or disability, can receive&nbsp;food&nbsp;stamps&nbsp;to three months in a 36-month period unless they meet certain work requirements.

States can apply for waivers to this time limit due to tough economic conditions. However, counties with an unemployment rate as low as 2.5 per cent&nbsp;have been included in waived areas, according to the US&nbsp;Department of Agriculture, which runs SNAP.

The agency is stiffening guidelines defining where recipients can reside to be eligible for waivers and standards for demonstrating whether an area has enough jobs to justify a waiver.

The US&nbsp;unemployment rate was 3.6 per cent&nbsp;in October.

"We need everyone who can work to work," Perdue said.

But critics say the&nbsp;moves&nbsp;will hurt poor Americans.

"This is an unacceptable escalation of the&nbsp;administration's war on working families, and it comes during a time when too many are forced to stretch already-thin budgets to make ends meet," said US&nbsp;Representative Marcia Fudge, an Ohio Democrat.

The&nbsp;administration&nbsp;has sought to tighten requirements for&nbsp;food&nbsp;stamps&nbsp;without congressional approval after Congress blocked a&nbsp;Trump-backed effort to pass new restrictions through the Farm Bill last year.

The latest rule will take effect next year and save the US&nbsp;government $5.5 billion over five years by removing about 688,000&nbsp;people&nbsp;from&nbsp;food&nbsp;stamps, said Brandon Lipps, a USDA deputy undersecretary.

"For those impacted, it will mean less nutritious meals or meals that are skipped altogether," said Cassie Ramos, policy associate for the Centre&nbsp;for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group.

The Trump administration said on Wednesday it will make it harder for states to keep residents in the US food stamp program in a move that is projected to end benefits for nearly 700,000 people.

The Trump administration said on Wednesday it will make it harder for states to keep residents in the US food stamp program in a move that is projected to end benefits for nearly 700,000 people. President Donald Trump has argued that many Americans receiving food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, do not need it given the strong economy and low unemployment. The program provides free food to 36 million Americans. The administration has now finalised a rule that tightens guidelines on when and where states can waive limits on how long certain residents can receive benefits. The changes will move more "able-bodied" adults into the workplace, US Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said. "States are seeking waivers for wide swaths of their population, and millions of people who could work are continuing to receive SNAP benefits," he told reporters. The United States generally limits the amount of time that adults ages 18-49, who do not have dependents or disability, can receive food stamps to three months in a 36-month period unless they meet certain work requirements. States can apply for waivers to this time limit due to tough economic conditions. However, counties with an unemployment rate as low as 2.5 per cent have been included in waived areas, according to the US Department of Agriculture, which runs SNAP. The agency is stiffening guidelines defining where recipients can reside to be eligible for waivers and standards for demonstrating whether an area has enough jobs to justify a waiver. The US unemployment rate was 3.6 per cent in October. "We need everyone who can work to work," Perdue said. But critics say the moves will hurt poor Americans. "This is an unacceptable escalation of the administration's war on working families, and it comes during a time when too many are forced to stretch already-thin budgets to make ends meet," said US Representative Marcia Fudge, an Ohio Democrat. The administration has sought to tighten requirements for food stamps without congressional approval after Congress blocked a Trump-backed effort to pass new restrictions through the Farm Bill last year. The latest rule will take effect next year and save the US government $5.5 billion over five years by removing about 688,000 people from food stamps, said Brandon Lipps, a USDA deputy undersecretary. "For those impacted, it will mean less nutritious meals or meals that are skipped altogether," said Cassie Ramos, policy associate for the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group.

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps' benefits

The Pentagon on Wednesday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-planning-to-send-14000-troops-to-middle-east-report-266277">denied a report</a> that the United States was weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the possible deployment would include "dozens" more ships and double the number of troops added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, citing unnamed US officials.

The paper said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month.

But the Pentagon disputed the accuracy of the report.

"To be clear, the reporting is wrong. The US&nbsp;is not considering sending 14,000 additional troops to the Middle East," spokeswoman Alyssa Farah tweeted.

The region has seen a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-to-rejoin-doha-talks-with-taliban-after-kabul-visit-state-department-266270">Washington</a> has already ratcheted up its military presence in the Gulf and expanded economic sanctions on Tehran, elevating tensions across the region.&nbsp;

In mid-November, the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat.

In October Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000 new troops.

Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes.

Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region.

"There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security.

But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region.

"We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said.

"So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away."

"Clearly <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-willing-to-compromise-us-security-impeachment-hearing-chair-266274">the United States</a> has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

The Pentagon on Wednesday denied a report that the United States was weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran.

The Pentagon on Wednesday denied a report that the United States was weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported that the possible deployment would include "dozens" more ships and double the number of troops added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, citing unnamed US officials. The paper said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month. But the Pentagon disputed the accuracy of the report. "To be clear, the reporting is wrong. The US is not considering sending 14,000 additional troops to the Middle East," spokeswoman Alyssa Farah tweeted. The region has seen a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran. Washington has already ratcheted up its military presence in the Gulf and expanded economic sanctions on Tehran, elevating tensions across the region. In mid-November, the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat. In October Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000 new troops. Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes. Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region. "There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security. But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region. "We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said. "So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away." "Clearly the United States has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

United States not mulling 14,000 more troops for Middle East: Pentagon

How Indian Navy is calibrating its Indo-Pacific strategy

US&nbsp;House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said she has instructed the House Judiciary panel to draft articles of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-lawyer-giuliani-back-in-ukraine-as-impeachment-probe-escalates-266286">impeachment against President Donald Trump</a>.

"The president's actions have seriously violated the constitution," Pelosi told reporters.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a statement early Thursday on the status of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, one day after the House Judiciary Committee began weighing potential charges against the Republican president.

The Democratic-led panel on Wednesday heard from four legal experts as US lawmakers considered whether Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival rose to the level of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-willing-to-compromise-us-security-impeachment-hearing-chair-266274">impeachable offenses</a>.

The hearing came after the House Intelligence panel this week submitted findings from its inquiry into Trump's push for Kiev to launch an investigation related to former US Vice President Joe Biden, a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. He also wanted Ukraine to look into the discredited theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 election.

Democrats have accused Trump of abusing his power by withholding $391 million in security aid to Ukraine - a US ally facing Russian aggression - to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to announce the investigation.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

The House may vote by year's end on formal impeachment charges known as articles of impeachment, but Democrats, who control the chamber, say no decision has been made at this point on the specific charges.

Those charges could include abuse of power, bribery, obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice.

Judiciary panel Democrats on Wednesday also said they may look beyond Trump's relations with Ukraine to include Trump's earlier alleged efforts to impede former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into his 2016 campaign's relations with Russia, but they stopped short of saying that could trigger a separate charge.

If the House votes to impeach Trump, the Republican-led Senate would hold a trial to decide whether to remove the president from office.

Trump's fellow Republicans in both the House and the Senate have stood by the president.

"If it does come to us, I think it will be along party lines," Republican Senator Rand Paul told Fox News in an interview on Thursday, adding that the "frivolous and partisan" effort could harm vulnerable Democrats in the November election.

&nbsp;

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said she has instructed the House Judiciary panel to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. "The president's actions have seriously violated the constitution," Pelosi told reporters.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said she has instructed the House Judiciary panel to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. "The president's actions have seriously violated the constitution," Pelosi told reporters. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a statement early Thursday on the status of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, one day after the House Judiciary Committee began weighing potential charges against the Republican president. The Democratic-led panel on Wednesday heard from four legal experts as US lawmakers considered whether Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival rose to the level of impeachable offenses. The hearing came after the House Intelligence panel this week submitted findings from its inquiry into Trump's push for Kiev to launch an investigation related to former US Vice President Joe Biden, a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. He also wanted Ukraine to look into the discredited theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 election. Democrats have accused Trump of abusing his power by withholding $391 million in security aid to Ukraine - a US ally facing Russian aggression - to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to announce the investigation. Trump has denied any wrongdoing. The House may vote by year's end on formal impeachment charges known as articles of impeachment, but Democrats, who control the chamber, say no decision has been made at this point on the specific charges. Those charges could include abuse of power, bribery, obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice. Judiciary panel Democrats on Wednesday also said they may look beyond Trump's relations with Ukraine to include Trump's earlier alleged efforts to impede former US Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into his 2016 campaign's relations with Russia, but they stopped short of saying that could trigger a separate charge. If the House votes to impeach Trump, the Republican-led Senate would hold a trial to decide whether to remove the president from office. Trump's fellow Republicans in both the House and the Senate have stood by the president. "If it does come to us, I think it will be along party lines," Republican Senator Rand Paul told Fox News in an interview on Thursday, adding that the "frivolous and partisan" effort could harm vulnerable Democrats in the November election.

Trump abused power, US House to draft impeachment charges against him: Nancy Pelosi

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-threatens-france-with-100-tariffs-on-goods-over-digital-tax-265818">French authorities</a> on Wednesday banned&nbsp;two&nbsp;US&nbsp;pesticides&nbsp;which ecologists deem harmful to&nbsp;bees.

A court in Nice, ruling in a case brought by&nbsp;two&nbsp;ecological associations, banned the products from US group Dow AgroSciences, on the grounds that their containing sulfoxaflor was harmful to&nbsp;bees' nervous systems.

The court said sulfoxaflor was liable "to present a major&nbsp;risk&nbsp;of toxicity" to pollinators.

The court had already suspended the Transform and Closer brands products from sale in 2017 after they had received initial clearance from the French food and safety agency Anses.

Sulfoxaflor is designed to help protect fruit and vegetables against greenfly but some studies have suggested it can cause harm to&nbsp;bees&nbsp;-- whose declining numbers are already a cause of concern in numerous countries,&nbsp;affecting their central nervous systems and disorientating them.

The maker of the products concerned in 2017 rated the sulfoxaflor-containing product lines as less harmful to biodiversity than a range of other&nbsp;pesticides&nbsp;which European authorities have increasingly restricted over the&nbsp;risk&nbsp;they are feared to pose to bee wellbeing as well as to aquatic life and fish.&nbsp;

Dow AgroSciences is now known as Corteva after Dow Chemical and DuPont merged&nbsp;two&nbsp;years ago.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/france-will-be-pugnacious-over-new-us-tariff-threat-minister-265915">The Nice court</a> found that measures to reduce any&nbsp;risk&nbsp;to&nbsp;bees&nbsp;by for example not applying the pesticide during the blossoming season were not sufficient to permit its use,&nbsp;citing&nbsp;previous concerns highlighted by EU authorities.

The court also ruled that Dow AgroSciences and Anses should pay both the associations who brought the legal action 1,500 euros ($1700) and urged tighter oversight for the authorisation of products which Francois Veillerette, director of Generations Futures, one of the bodies who brought the case, said could be "disastrous for biodiversity or human health."

French authorities on Wednesday banned two US pesticides which ecologists deem harmful to bees. A court in Nice, ruling in a case brought by two ecological associations, banned the products from US group Dow AgroSciences, on the grounds that their containing sulfoxaflor was harmful to bees' nervous systems.

French authorities on Wednesday banned two US pesticides which ecologists deem harmful to bees. A court in Nice, ruling in a case brought by two ecological associations, banned the products from US group Dow AgroSciences, on the grounds that their containing sulfoxaflor was harmful to bees' nervous systems. The court said sulfoxaflor was liable "to present a major risk of toxicity" to pollinators. The court had already suspended the Transform and Closer brands products from sale in 2017 after they had received initial clearance from the French food and safety agency Anses. Sulfoxaflor is designed to help protect fruit and vegetables against greenfly but some studies have suggested it can cause harm to bees -- whose declining numbers are already a cause of concern in numerous countries, affecting their central nervous systems and disorientating them. The maker of the products concerned in 2017 rated the sulfoxaflor-containing product lines as less harmful to biodiversity than a range of other pesticides which European authorities have increasingly restricted over the risk they are feared to pose to bee wellbeing as well as to aquatic life and fish. Dow AgroSciences is now known as Corteva after Dow Chemical and DuPont merged two years ago. The Nice court found that measures to reduce any risk to bees by for example not applying the pesticide during the blossoming season were not sufficient to permit its use, citing previous concerns highlighted by EU authorities. The court also ruled that Dow AgroSciences and Anses should pay both the associations who brought the legal action 1,500 euros ($1700) and urged tighter oversight for the authorisation of products which Francois Veillerette, director of Generations Futures, one of the bodies who brought the case, said could be "disastrous for biodiversity or human health."

France bans two US pesticides, citing risk to bees

Chinese official media excoriated the United States and called for harsh reprisals in editorials on Thursday after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-says-a-price-must-be-paid-over-us-uighur-bill-266177">US&nbsp;House of Representatives passed legislation</a> requiring a stronger response to Beijing's treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority.

The commentaries follow warnings from China on Wednesday that the legislation could affect bilateral cooperation, including a near-term deal to end the two countries' trade war.

A front-page editorial in the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper said the passage of the US&nbsp;legislation "harbours evil intent and is extremely sinister".

"Underestimating the determination and will of the Chinese people is doomed to fail," it said.

By a vote of 407 to 1, the US&nbsp;House of Representatives on Tuesday approved the Uighur bill, which would require the Trump administration to toughen its response to China's crackdown in Xinjiang, a region in China's far west.

The bill still has to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate before being sent to US&nbsp;President Donald Trump to sign into law.

Watch: US House ramps up China tensions with passing Uighur Bill

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-house-ramps-up-china-tensions-with-passing-uighur-bill-266047/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The White House has yet to say whether Trump would sign or veto the bill, which contains a provision allowing the president to waive sanctions if he determines that to be in the national interest.

UN&nbsp;experts and activists say China has detained possibly one million Uighurs in mass detention camps in Xinjiang.

China says the camps are part of an anti-terror crackdown and are providing <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-approves-uighur-bill-demanding-sanctions-on-senior-chinese-officials-266033">vocational training</a>. It denies any mistreatment of Uighurs.

The English-language China Daily called the bill a "stab in the back, given Beijing's efforts to stabilise the already turbulent China-US&nbsp;relationship".

"It seems an odds-on bet that more (sanctions) can be expected if the latest approval for State Department meddling goes into the statute books," it said.

The English-language edition of the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid published by the People's Daily, said China should be prepared for a "long-term battle with the US"

The editorials echoed comments by Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, who said on Wednesday that "any wrong words and deeds must pay the due price."

The official commentary also took aim at the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, recently signed into law by Trump.

The act requires the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/more-secrets-of-chinas-xinjiang-camps-leaked-to-foreign-media-264363">US&nbsp;State Department</a> to certify at least annually that Hong Kong retains enough autonomy to justify favourable US&nbsp;trading terms and threatens sanctions for human rights violations

A front-page editorial in the overseas edition of the People's Daily framed the bill as a US&nbsp;attempt to use Hong Kong to contain China, calling such a move "idiotic nonsense".

"The Chinese government will in no way allow anyone to act wilfully in Hong Kong, and must take effective measures to prevent, contain and counteract external forces from interfering in Hong Kong affairs."

Hong Kong has been wracked by nearly six months of often violent protests, with demonstrators demanding greater democratic freedoms in the Chinese city.

Chinese official media excoriated the United States and called for harsh reprisals in editorials on Thursday after the US House of Representatives passed legislation requiring a stronger response to Beijing's treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority.

Chinese official media excoriated the United States and called for harsh reprisals in editorials on Thursday after the US House of Representatives passed legislation requiring a stronger response to Beijing's treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority. The commentaries follow warnings from China on Wednesday that the legislation could affect bilateral cooperation, including a near-term deal to end the two countries' trade war. A front-page editorial in the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper said the passage of the US legislation "harbours evil intent and is extremely sinister". "Underestimating the determination and will of the Chinese people is doomed to fail," it said. By a vote of 407 to 1, the US House of Representatives on Tuesday approved the Uighur bill, which would require the Trump administration to toughen its response to China's crackdown in Xinjiang, a region in China's far west. The bill still has to be approved by the Republican-controlled Senate before being sent to US President Donald Trump to sign into law. Watch: US House ramps up China tensions with passing Uighur Bill The White House has yet to say whether Trump would sign or veto the bill, which contains a provision allowing the president to waive sanctions if he determines that to be in the national interest. UN experts and activists say China has detained possibly one million Uighurs in mass detention camps in Xinjiang. China says the camps are part of an anti-terror crackdown and are providing vocational training. It denies any mistreatment of Uighurs. The English-language China Daily called the bill a "stab in the back, given Beijing's efforts to stabilise the already turbulent China-US relationship". "It seems an odds-on bet that more (sanctions) can be expected if the latest approval for State Department meddling goes into the statute books," it said. The English-language edition of the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid published by the People's Daily, said China should be prepared for a "long-term battle with the US" The editorials echoed comments by Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, who said on Wednesday that "any wrong words and deeds must pay the due price." The official commentary also took aim at the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, recently signed into law by Trump. The act requires the US State Department to certify at least annually that Hong Kong retains enough autonomy to justify favourable US trading terms and threatens sanctions for human rights violations A front-page editorial in the overseas edition of the People's Daily framed the bill as a US attempt to use Hong Kong to contain China, calling such a move "idiotic nonsense". "The Chinese government will in no way allow anyone to act wilfully in Hong Kong, and must take effective measures to prevent, contain and counteract external forces from interfering in Hong Kong affairs." Hong Kong has been wracked by nearly six months of often violent protests, with demonstrators demanding greater democratic freedoms in the Chinese city.

Chinese media blasts US for Uighur bill, calls for action

Three constitutional&nbsp;scholars&nbsp;on Wednesday bolstered Democrats' case for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-willing-to-compromise-us-security-impeachment-hearing-chair-266274">impeaching Donald&nbsp;Trump</a>&nbsp;by saying the president's actions seeking foreign interference in US elections were clear grounds for removal, as the inquiry kicked into high gear in&nbsp;Congress.

But reflecting the Washington political divide, a fourth expert strongly dissented, saying there was "woefully inadequate" evidence that&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;committed&nbsp;high&nbsp;crimes&nbsp;and misdemeanours necessary for removal.

Democrats have made a forceful case that&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;should be impeached for trying to leverage a White House meeting and military aid to pressure Ukraine for dirt on an election rival.

In a&nbsp;theatrical hearing of the House Judiciary Committee,&nbsp;now tasked with weighing impeachment charges against the president -- lawmakers listened to damning testimony from constitutional law professors.

"On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House, President&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;has&nbsp;committed&nbsp;impeachable&nbsp;high&nbsp;crimes&nbsp;and misdemeanours by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency," Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman told the hearing.

"We three are unanimous" in that view, jurisprudence professor Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina stated, referring to himself and fellow witnesses Feldman and Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan.

The trio was invited by Democrats to testify.

Americans tuning in to the eight-hour live broadcast witnessed clashes between Democrats and Republican&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;loyalists on the panel, who repeatedly forced procedural votes to stall the process.

The new phase of impeachment began a day after a congressional report on the high-stakes inquiry detailed "overwhelming" evidence of abuse of power and obstruction by the president.

The report mapped out a months-long scheme by&nbsp;Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, senior diplomats and White House staffers to pressure Ukraine's president into investigating Joe Biden, the current favourite to win the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election.

Trump&nbsp;"was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal, political gain," said Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler.

Watch: Democrats release impeachment report on Donald Trump

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-democrats-release-impeachment-report-on-donald-trump-266213/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

'Proof, not presumptions'&nbsp;

Trump's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-us-public-opinion-has-evolved-on-impeachment-of-trump-266209">alleged political&nbsp;crimes</a>, including bribery and obstruction of justice and&nbsp;Congress, "are worse than the misconduct of any prior president," Gerhardt said.

"If what we're talking about is not&nbsp;impeachable, then nothing is&nbsp;impeachable."

Feldman added that if&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;is not held to account for his offences "we live under a dictatorship."

White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham hit back in a statement, saying that "the only thing the three liberal professors established at chairman Nadler's hearing was their political bias against the president."

"It did nothing to change the fact that, despite weeks of hearings in this sham process, the president did nothing wrong," Grisham said.

The fourth academic who testified, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley -- the only expert invited by Republicans -- argued there was "no evidence" that&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;acted with corrupt intent.

He warned that partisan "rage" was compromising the inquiry.

"Impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions," he said, adding that Democrats were rushing the process so quickly that they were not hearing from key players in the Ukraine scandal.

Turley and Republicans did not, however, mention the White House's stonewalling. Despite Democratic requests, 12 current or former administration officials have refused to testify.

'Impeachable&nbsp;offence'

The president himself, in London for a NATO summit, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-panel-impeachment-report-to-be-released-tuesday-adam-schiff-266202">lambasted his opponents</a> for proceeding with impeachment hearings.

"What they are doing is a very bad thing for our country,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said. "It's a joke."

Karlan asserted that&nbsp;Trump's alleged effort to withhold military aid until Ukraine&nbsp;committed&nbsp;to investigating Biden was grounds for removal -- even though Kiev never conducted the probe.

"Soliciting itself is the&nbsp;impeachable&nbsp;offence," she said.

But Karlan found herself in hot water when she invoked&nbsp;Trump's 13-year-old son Barron when differentiating between monarchical and presidential power.

"While the president can name his son 'Barron,' he can't make him a baron," Karlan said.&nbsp;

The remark drew stiff blowback from First Lady Melania&nbsp;Trump, and Karlan apologized.

The House Intelligence Committee report is expected to form the basis&nbsp;for the&nbsp;Judiciary Committee to draw up formal charges -- articles of impeachment -- that could include bribery, abuse of power, obstruction and contempt of&nbsp;Congress.

Democrats reportedly aim to have the articles presented for a vote to the entire House of Representatives by late December.

If the House impeaches&nbsp;Trump, he would then stand trial for removal in the Republican-controlled Senate, where he is likely to be exonerated.

The Senate meanwhile released its 2020 schedule, and the entire month of January is blocked off, signalling preparations for a trial.

Three constitutional scholars on Wednesday bolstered Democrats' case for impeaching Donald Trump by saying the president's actions seeking foreign interference in US elections were clear grounds for removal, as the inquiry kicked into high gear in Congress.

Three constitutional scholars on Wednesday bolstered Democrats' case for impeaching Donald Trump by saying the president's actions seeking foreign interference in US elections were clear grounds for removal, as the inquiry kicked into high gear in Congress. But reflecting the Washington political divide, a fourth expert strongly dissented, saying there was "woefully inadequate" evidence that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanours necessary for removal. Democrats have made a forceful case that Trump should be impeached for trying to leverage a White House meeting and military aid to pressure Ukraine for dirt on an election rival. In a theatrical hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, now tasked with weighing impeachment charges against the president -- lawmakers listened to damning testimony from constitutional law professors. "On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanours by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency," Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman told the hearing. "We three are unanimous" in that view, jurisprudence professor Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina stated, referring to himself and fellow witnesses Feldman and Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan. The trio was invited by Democrats to testify. Americans tuning in to the eight-hour live broadcast witnessed clashes between Democrats and Republican Trump loyalists on the panel, who repeatedly forced procedural votes to stall the process. The new phase of impeachment began a day after a congressional report on the high-stakes inquiry detailed "overwhelming" evidence of abuse of power and obstruction by the president. The report mapped out a months-long scheme by Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, senior diplomats and White House staffers to pressure Ukraine's president into investigating Joe Biden, the current favourite to win the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election. Trump "was willing to compromise our security and his office for personal, political gain," said Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler. Watch: Democrats release impeachment report on Donald Trump 'Proof, not presumptions' Trump's alleged political crimes, including bribery and obstruction of justice and Congress, "are worse than the misconduct of any prior president," Gerhardt said. "If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable." Feldman added that if Trump is not held to account for his offences "we live under a dictatorship." White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham hit back in a statement, saying that "the only thing the three liberal professors established at chairman Nadler's hearing was their political bias against the president." "It did nothing to change the fact that, despite weeks of hearings in this sham process, the president did nothing wrong," Grisham said. The fourth academic who testified, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley -- the only expert invited by Republicans -- argued there was "no evidence" that Trump acted with corrupt intent. He warned that partisan "rage" was compromising the inquiry. "Impeachments have to be based on proof, not presumptions," he said, adding that Democrats were rushing the process so quickly that they were not hearing from key players in the Ukraine scandal. Turley and Republicans did not, however, mention the White House's stonewalling. Despite Democratic requests, 12 current or former administration officials have refused to testify. 'Impeachable offence' The president himself, in London for a NATO summit, lambasted his opponents for proceeding with impeachment hearings. "What they are doing is a very bad thing for our country," Trump said. "It's a joke." Karlan asserted that Trump's alleged effort to withhold military aid until Ukraine committed to investigating Biden was grounds for removal -- even though Kiev never conducted the probe. "Soliciting itself is the impeachable offence," she said. But Karlan found herself in hot water when she invoked Trump's 13-year-old son Barron when differentiating between monarchical and presidential power. "While the president can name his son 'Barron,' he can't make him a baron," Karlan said. The remark drew stiff blowback from First Lady Melania Trump, and Karlan apologized. The House Intelligence Committee report is expected to form the basis for the Judiciary Committee to draw up formal charges -- articles of impeachment -- that could include bribery, abuse of power, obstruction and contempt of Congress. Democrats reportedly aim to have the articles presented for a vote to the entire House of Representatives by late December. If the House impeaches Trump, he would then stand trial for removal in the Republican-controlled Senate, where he is likely to be exonerated. The Senate meanwhile released its 2020 schedule, and the entire month of January is blocked off, signalling preparations for a trial.

Trump committed impeachable crimes: Constitutional scholars to US Congress

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-to-rejoin-doha-talks-with-taliban-after-kabul-visit-state-department-266270">The United States</a> is weighing sending up to&nbsp;14,000&nbsp;more&nbsp;troops&nbsp;to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

The mulled deployment would include "dozens"&nbsp;more&nbsp;ships and double the number of&nbsp;troops&nbsp;added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, the Journal said, citing unnamed US officials.

It said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month.

A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on the&nbsp;report&nbsp;to AFP.

The move would come after a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran.

Washington has already ratcheted up its military presence in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/mending-gulf-fences-could-weaken-support-for-us-sanctions-against-iran-264123">the Gulf</a> and expanded economic sanctions on the country, elevating tensions across the region.&nbsp;

In mid-November the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat.

In October Defence Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000&nbsp;new&nbsp;troops.

Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes.

Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region.

"There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security.

But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region.

"We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said.

"So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away."

"Clearly <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-willing-to-compromise-us-security-impeachment-hearing-chair-266274">the United States</a> has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

The United States is weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

The United States is weighing sending up to 14,000 more troops to the Middle East in the face of a perceived threat from Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The mulled deployment would include "dozens" more ships and double the number of troops added to the US force in the region since the beginning of this year, the Journal said, citing unnamed US officials. It said President Donald Trump could make a decision on the troop boost as early as this month. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on the report to AFP. The move would come after a series of attacks on shipping vessels and a drone and missile attack on Saudi oil installations in September blamed on Iran. Washington has already ratcheted up its military presence in the Gulf and expanded economic sanctions on the country, elevating tensions across the region. In mid-November the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz in a show of force aimed at reassuring allies worried about the Iran threat. In October Defence Secretary Mark Esper announced that two fighter squadrons and additional missile defence batteries were being sent to Saudi Arabia, for a total of about 3,000 new troops. Earlier Wednesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the country was willing to return to the negotiating table over its nuclear program if the United States first drops sanctions, which have hampered the country's economy and may have contributed to recent domestic turmoil sparked by fuel price hikes. Speaking at a defence conference in Manama, Bahrain on November 23, General Kenneth McKenzie, commander of US Central Command, said the US does not have all the resources it needs to cover the Middle East region. "There is a lot of water to cover. Simply put, we don't have sufficient resources to be where we want to be in the right numbers all the time," he told the annual Manama Dialogue on regional security. But McKenzie rebuffed criticism that Washington has been disengaging from the region. "We have a carrier in the theatre, we've reinforced Saudi Arabia," he said. "So I'm not sure I would agree with the narrative of abandonment or a narrative of walking away." "Clearly the United States has different global priorities and this is probably not the highest global priority, but I think it remains a very important thing for the United States," he added.

United States planning to send 14,000 troops to Middle East: Report

Iran's supreme leader has agreed that people killed in nationwide unrest last month who had no role in fomenting it should be treated as "martyrs" with their families compensated.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was responding to a report on the protests made by Iran's Supreme National Security Council, his official website said Wednesday.

He ordered that its recommendations "be implemented as soon as possible".

Demonstrations erupted in Iran on November 15 against a surprise <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/protests-erupt-in-iran-over-fuel-price-hike-262533">hike in petrol prices</a> by as much as 200 per cent.

Iran has yet to give overall figures for the number of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-disputes-exaggerated-protest-death-tolls-265440">people killed or arrested</a> when security forces moved in to quell the unrest that saw buildings torched and shops looted.

London-based human rights group Amnesty International said on Monday that at least 208 people had died.

But Iran has dismissed the high death tolls reported by foreign sources as "utter lies".

Khamenei agreed to the recommendation that "normal citizens with no role in the recent protests and riots who died in the clashes" be treated as "martyrs" with their families eligible for support from the Martyrs and Veterans Foundation.

Iran usually grants the title of a martyr to soldiers killed on duty and the foundation is tasked with providing their families with financial benefits and better housing, employment and education opportunities.

Khamenei said that families whose loved ones "lost their lives in any way during the demonstrations" would be "paid their blood money as restitution".

Blood money is an Islamic legal term for financial compensation payable by law to the families of murder victims.

Even the families of those "killed while armed and in clashes with security forces" would not be held accountable for their loved ones' actions&nbsp;but would be shown "Islamic clemency" and "compensated proportionally", Khamenei's statement said.

Iran has blamed the violence that broke out during the protests on "thugs" backed by its foes the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It has also accused exiled royalists and the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), an exiled former rebel group which it considers a "terrorist" cult, of being behind the violence.

Israel and the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-not-mulling-14000-more-troops-for-middle-east-pentagon-266317">United States</a> have seized on the protests as evidence Tehran's authority is "tottering" in the face of the crippling US sanctions President Donald Trump reimposed last year.

Iran's supreme leader has agreed that people killed in nationwide unrest last month who had no role in fomenting it should be treated as "martyrs" with their families compensated.

Iran's supreme leader has agreed that people killed in nationwide unrest last month who had no role in fomenting it should be treated as "martyrs" with their families compensated. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was responding to a report on the protests made by Iran's Supreme National Security Council, his official website said Wednesday. He ordered that its recommendations "be implemented as soon as possible". Demonstrations erupted in Iran on November 15 against a surprise hike in petrol prices by as much as 200 per cent. Iran has yet to give overall figures for the number of people killed or arrested when security forces moved in to quell the unrest that saw buildings torched and shops looted. London-based human rights group Amnesty International said on Monday that at least 208 people had died. But Iran has dismissed the high death tolls reported by foreign sources as "utter lies". Khamenei agreed to the recommendation that "normal citizens with no role in the recent protests and riots who died in the clashes" be treated as "martyrs" with their families eligible for support from the Martyrs and Veterans Foundation. Iran usually grants the title of a martyr to soldiers killed on duty and the foundation is tasked with providing their families with financial benefits and better housing, employment and education opportunities. Khamenei said that families whose loved ones "lost their lives in any way during the demonstrations" would be "paid their blood money as restitution". Blood money is an Islamic legal term for financial compensation payable by law to the families of murder victims. Even the families of those "killed while armed and in clashes with security forces" would not be held accountable for their loved ones' actions but would be shown "Islamic clemency" and "compensated proportionally", Khamenei's statement said. Iran has blamed the violence that broke out during the protests on "thugs" backed by its foes the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. It has also accused exiled royalists and the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), an exiled former rebel group which it considers a "terrorist" cult, of being behind the violence. Israel and the United States have seized on the protests as evidence Tehran's authority is "tottering" in the face of the crippling US sanctions President Donald Trump reimposed last year.

Khamenei orders Iran unrest victims treated as 'martyrs'

Beijing and Washington are "maintaining close communication" over a much-anticipated <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-trump-china-says-no-time-limit-on-trade-deal-with-us-266194">phase one trade deal</a>, China's commerce ministry said Thursday, reiterating that tariffs must be reduced&nbsp;as part of any&nbsp;agreement.

Hopes had risen that the two sides were close to reaching a mini deal, but comments from President Trump and recent US legislation backing Hong Kong pro-democracy protests and China's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-approves-uighur-bill-demanding-sanctions-on-senior-chinese-officials-266033">Uighur minority</a> had appeared to throw the talks off track.&nbsp;

China's commerce ministry spokesman Gao Feng said at a press briefing Thursday that the two sides were "maintaining close communication."

He added, however, that "if the two sides are to reach a phase one deal, tariffs should be reduced accordingly."

On Tuesday, US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-calls-macrons-criticism-of-nato-very-very-nasty-before-summit-266035">Donald Trump</a> appeared to dash hopes for a deal this month by suggesting he would be happy waiting until after the 2020 presidential election before signing off on one.

China echoed those comments Wednesday by saying they "will not set any time limit" on signing an agreement.

But markets rebounded Thursday on a Bloomberg News report saying US negotiators expected a deal to be completed before a new round of US tariffs on China is due to hit on December 15.

Bloomberg quoted unnamed sources as saying Trump's comments on waiting until after the 2020 election should not have been taken as a sign the talks had stalled.

The world's two biggest economies have been locked in a bruising trade conflict for more than a year, hitting each other with tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of goods.

Beijing and Washington are "maintaining close communication" over a much-anticipated phase one trade deal, China's commerce ministry said Thursday, reiterating that tariffs must be reduced as part of any agreement.

Beijing and Washington are "maintaining close communication" over a much-anticipated phase one trade deal, China's commerce ministry said Thursday, reiterating that tariffs must be reduced as part of any agreement. Hopes had risen that the two sides were close to reaching a mini deal, but comments from President Trump and recent US legislation backing Hong Kong pro-democracy protests and China's Uighur minority had appeared to throw the talks off track. China's commerce ministry spokesman Gao Feng said at a press briefing Thursday that the two sides were "maintaining close communication." He added, however, that "if the two sides are to reach a phase one deal, tariffs should be reduced accordingly." On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump appeared to dash hopes for a deal this month by suggesting he would be happy waiting until after the 2020 presidential election before signing off on one. China echoed those comments Wednesday by saying they "will not set any time limit" on signing an agreement. But markets rebounded Thursday on a Bloomberg News report saying US negotiators expected a deal to be completed before a new round of US tariffs on China is due to hit on December 15. Bloomberg quoted unnamed sources as saying Trump's comments on waiting until after the 2020 election should not have been taken as a sign the talks had stalled. The world's two biggest economies have been locked in a bruising trade conflict for more than a year, hitting each other with tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of goods.

In 'close communication' with US over trade deal: China

A court in Zimbabwe on Thursday appointed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/life-and-times-of-zimbabwes-robert-mugabe-from-liberator-to-oppressor-247919">Robert Mugabe</a>'s daughter to identify assets left by the late former leader so they can be distributed to his beneficiaries, his lawyer said.

Zimbabweans are keen to know how much wealth Mugabe accrued during his 37 years in power. Many assume that he and his family amassed a vast fortune - perhaps as much as $1 billion, according to a leaked US&nbsp;diplomatic cable from 2001.

The Master of High Court in Harare appointed Bona Chikore executor of her father's estate, the Mugabe family lawyer Terrence Hussein told reporters, adding that this had been agreed by family members.

Hussein said Mugabe's wife Grace and Bona attended Thursday's meeting at the court but sons Robert Jr and Bellarmine Chatunga were away. They, however, gave written consent that their sister should be appointed executor.

For many years, Mugabe and Grace were widely reported by Zimbabwean and foreign media to have deposited money and bought properties abroad, including in Asia, where they spent most of their annual family holidays. The family has denied this.

But a legal dispute that spilled into the public in 2014 over a $5 million villa in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/business-activity-in-hong-kong-shrinks-the-most-in-21-years-pmi-266073">Hong Kong</a> suggested Mugabe's family had been buying overseas property. The government said it owned the house.

Hussein said journalists and United States and Britain, who were critical of Mugabe, should prove that he had properties abroad so they could be registered with the court.

"This is the good thing about saying falsehoods, those falsehoods will be exposed. Where are the properties?" Hussein said when asked about reports that Mugabe had properties abroad.

Hussein told Reuters on Tuesday that the process of establishing Mugabe's assets would take some time, casting doubt on a state media report that the former leader left $10 million and some properties in the capital.

A court in Zimbabwe on Thursday appointed Robert Mugabe's daughter to identify assets left by the late former leader so they can be distributed to his beneficiaries, his lawyer said.

A court in Zimbabwe on Thursday appointed Robert Mugabe's daughter to identify assets left by the late former leader so they can be distributed to his beneficiaries, his lawyer said. Zimbabweans are keen to know how much wealth Mugabe accrued during his 37 years in power. Many assume that he and his family amassed a vast fortune - perhaps as much as $1 billion, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable from 2001. The Master of High Court in Harare appointed Bona Chikore executor of her father's estate, the Mugabe family lawyer Terrence Hussein told reporters, adding that this had been agreed by family members. Hussein said Mugabe's wife Grace and Bona attended Thursday's meeting at the court but sons Robert Jr and Bellarmine Chatunga were away. They, however, gave written consent that their sister should be appointed executor. For many years, Mugabe and Grace were widely reported by Zimbabwean and foreign media to have deposited money and bought properties abroad, including in Asia, where they spent most of their annual family holidays. The family has denied this. But a legal dispute that spilled into the public in 2014 over a $5 million villa in Hong Kong suggested Mugabe's family had been buying overseas property. The government said it owned the house. Hussein said journalists and United States and Britain, who were critical of Mugabe, should prove that he had properties abroad so they could be registered with the court. "This is the good thing about saying falsehoods, those falsehoods will be exposed. Where are the properties?" Hussein said when asked about reports that Mugabe had properties abroad. Hussein told Reuters on Tuesday that the process of establishing Mugabe's assets would take some time, casting doubt on a state media report that the former leader left $10 million and some properties in the capital.

Zimbabwe court appoints Mugabe daughter to identify his assets

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US". Shaheen's statement comes in the backdrop of US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Afghanistan.

Khalilzad arrived in the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Wednesday to discuss ways to end the war in Afghanistan and discuss ceasefire and peace deal with President Ashraf Ghani.

The US state department said that Khalilzad will be flying to Qatar to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-to-rejoin-doha-talks-with-taliban-after-kabul-visit-state-department-266270">meet Taliban negotiators</a>, news agency Reuters reported.

"The two sides will rejoin the discussion on how to reduce violence," said a State Department spokeswoman.

Shaheen told WION's Anas Mallick that their position on the agreement remains the same.&nbsp;

"The agreement is already in place and finalised. Both the sides have talked about and finalized it in the ninth rounds of talks and had also finalised the mechanism of its implementation. We stand by the agreement," Shaheen said adding that talks are expected to resume next week but no specific date has been decided yet.&nbsp;

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US".

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US". Shaheen's statement comes in the backdrop of US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Afghanistan. Khalilzad arrived in the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Wednesday to discuss ways to end the war in Afghanistan and discuss ceasefire and peace deal with President Ashraf Ghani. The US state department said that Khalilzad will be flying to Qatar to meet Taliban negotiators, news agency Reuters reported. "The two sides will rejoin the discussion on how to reduce violence," said a State Department spokeswoman. Shaheen told WION's Anas Mallick that their position on the agreement remains the same. "The agreement is already in place and finalised. Both the sides have talked about and finalized it in the ninth rounds of talks and had also finalised the mechanism of its implementation. We stand by the agreement," Shaheen said adding that talks are expected to resume next week but no specific date has been decided yet.

No specific date fixed for resumption of talks with US: Taliban political office spokesperson tells WION

By Martin Farr

Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership.

For reasons of practicality and protocol, elections are usually scheduled to avoid summits, or the visits of foreign leaders. But nothing is normal any more and 2019’s rushed general election features the first visit of a US president to Watford, an unprepossessing commuter town north of London. Donald Trump flew into the UK on December 2 for a two-day visit to attend a meeting of NATO leaders marking the 70th anniversary of the alliance.

One of the many curiosities of our age is that this most unpopular US president for the British should come so often. Another is that Boris Johnson, a US-born, Atlanticist prime minister, earnestly wishes the leader of the free world was not in the UK. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn, a very-far-from Atlanticist leader of the opposition, is delighted that he should be.

Using the special relationship 
 
The Foreign Office may be the second most prestigious office of state, but in elections, foreign secretaries or their shadows from the opposition seldom find themselves much called on. Defence has had an impact though, such as in 1983 and 1987 when Labour was portrayed as too pacifistic, and in 2005, when the party wished they had been so.

Those episodes revolved around the special relationship between the US and UK – and prime ministers have not been averse to the blandishments of presidents on pre-election visits to the US, such as Harold Macmillan in 1959, and David Cameron in 2015.

Presidents have been prepared to assist in other ways, as I’ve been examining in my research on the historical relationships between US presidents and British premiers. Ronald Reagan’s humiliation of Labour leader Neil Kinnock in 1987 calculatedly bolstered the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. But there has never been a presidential visit during a general election before now.

Part of the appeal of the Leave campaign in the EU referendum was Britain going out into the world and making more of its historic ties with what Winston Churchill called “English-speaking peoples”. This overlooked the fact that every American president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s has wanted Britain to lead in Europe because it enhanced US interests to have its closest ally at the centre of what became the world’s largest trading bloc. The exception, as ever, is President Trump.

The special relationship has weakened in the topsy-turvy political world since 2015 – the year Corbyn became Labour leader, Trump announced his presidential candidacy and the British parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum on EU membership. In April 2016 Barack Obama – the most popular recent American president for the British public – visited the UK at the invitation of the prime minister, David Cameron, to assist with the increasingly panicked Remain campaign.

At the personal request of Cameron, Obama told the world that in the event of Brexit, Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for a trade deal. His intervention backfired, reinforcing the Leave narrative of a remote and condescending elite – and Remain never recovered.

Always keen to present himself in opposition to Obama, Trump has pushed his own anti-establishment narrative, which extended to condemnation of transnational institutions including NATO and the EU. In offering the promise of a free trade agreement to the UK, Trump has presented himself as a champion of self-government and so of Brexit, responsibility for which he characteristically ascribed to himself.

As if that were not a sufficient transgression of diplomatic norms, Trump also suggested in 2016 that Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, should be appointed British ambassador to the US.

More seriously, his relationship with Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was quite unlike that of any other president and prime minister, as I’ve examined in forthcoming research. Standing alongside May in 2018 and 2019, Trump embarrassed her, and breaking with any sense of protocol or propriety, also praised the person clearly positioning himself to replace her – who, shortly thereafter, did just that.

US presidents have attended NATO summits in the UK before – Jimmy Carter in 1977, George HW Bush in 1990, and Obama in 2014. But Trump’s attitudes towards NATO were originally the principal source of British consternation at his election.

It wasn’t known then that he wasn’t a man of settled policies. In three years he has moved from being NATO’s most prominent critic, to its staunchest defender in the face of criticism of the alliance by the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

A liability for Johnson

It would never have been necessary with any other president, but on this December visit Trump has done as requested – he has observed convention and said he would “stay out of the election”. Except that, insofar as he flagrantly contradicted something he said the last time he was in the UK in the express interest of the prime minister, he has not stayed out of British politics.

Significantly, the impact of Trump’s visit to the UK is on a domestic policy area that is, by contrast, always central to elections: the National Health Service. In a campaign characterised on all sides by millions of this, billions of that, and trillions of the other, Labour has persistently claimed there will be a US-imposed increase in the NHS drugs bill of £500m a week. NHS staff duly joined the now-traditional public protests that mark a Trump visit.

If Trump was ever an asset for Johnson, he’s now deemed a liability. The president sees something of himself in man he’s called “Britain Trump”, not least perhaps their at times disarming physical resemblance. But given British public attitudes to Trump, it’s prudent for Johnson to maintain distance during the last week of a tight election. Trump’s toxicity has the potential to poison Johnson’s hitherto effective campaign.

So after much speculation as to whether they would meet – itself extraordinary – Johnson and Trump did, but, equally extraordinarily, there were no photographs of the host and his guest at that meeting at Number 10 or at a Buckingham Palace reception. The two were eventually photographed together arriving at The Grove, the venue for the NATO leaders summit in Watford.

By contrast, Corbyn has wanted nothing more than the chance to be photographed challenging Trump on the NHS – though it emerged they did not meet at the palace. But not on NATO. On which they agree. A voter could be forgiven for being confused. 
 
(Martin Farr is Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-goes-to-watford-what-happens-when-us-presidents-enter-british-elections-127651">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Martin Farr Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership.

By Martin Farr Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership. For reasons of practicality and protocol, elections are usually scheduled to avoid summits, or the visits of foreign leaders. But nothing is normal any more and 2019’s rushed general election features the first visit of a US president to Watford, an unprepossessing commuter town north of London. Donald Trump flew into the UK on December 2 for a two-day visit to attend a meeting of NATO leaders marking the 70th anniversary of the alliance. One of the many curiosities of our age is that this most unpopular US president for the British should come so often. Another is that Boris Johnson, a US-born, Atlanticist prime minister, earnestly wishes the leader of the free world was not in the UK. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn, a very-far-from Atlanticist leader of the opposition, is delighted that he should be. Using the special relationship The Foreign Office may be the second most prestigious office of state, but in elections, foreign secretaries or their shadows from the opposition seldom find themselves much called on. Defence has had an impact though, such as in 1983 and 1987 when Labour was portrayed as too pacifistic, and in 2005, when the party wished they had been so. Those episodes revolved around the special relationship between the US and UK – and prime ministers have not been averse to the blandishments of presidents on pre-election visits to the US, such as Harold Macmillan in 1959, and David Cameron in 2015. Presidents have been prepared to assist in other ways, as I’ve been examining in my research on the historical relationships between US presidents and British premiers. Ronald Reagan’s humiliation of Labour leader Neil Kinnock in 1987 calculatedly bolstered the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. But there has never been a presidential visit during a general election before now. Part of the appeal of the Leave campaign in the EU referendum was Britain going out into the world and making more of its historic ties with what Winston Churchill called “English-speaking peoples”. This overlooked the fact that every American president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s has wanted Britain to lead in Europe because it enhanced US interests to have its closest ally at the centre of what became the world’s largest trading bloc. The exception, as ever, is President Trump. The special relationship has weakened in the topsy-turvy political world since 2015 – the year Corbyn became Labour leader, Trump announced his presidential candidacy and the British parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum on EU membership. In April 2016 Barack Obama – the most popular recent American president for the British public – visited the UK at the invitation of the prime minister, David Cameron, to assist with the increasingly panicked Remain campaign. At the personal request of Cameron, Obama told the world that in the event of Brexit, Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for a trade deal. His intervention backfired, reinforcing the Leave narrative of a remote and condescending elite – and Remain never recovered. Always keen to present himself in opposition to Obama, Trump has pushed his own anti-establishment narrative, which extended to condemnation of transnational institutions including NATO and the EU. In offering the promise of a free trade agreement to the UK, Trump has presented himself as a champion of self-government and so of Brexit, responsibility for which he characteristically ascribed to himself. As if that were not a sufficient transgression of diplomatic norms, Trump also suggested in 2016 that Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, should be appointed British ambassador to the US. More seriously, his relationship with Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was quite unlike that of any other president and prime minister, as I’ve examined in forthcoming research. Standing alongside May in 2018 and 2019, Trump embarrassed her, and breaking with any sense of protocol or propriety, also praised the person clearly positioning himself to replace her – who, shortly thereafter, did just that. US presidents have attended NATO summits in the UK before – Jimmy Carter in 1977, George HW Bush in 1990, and Obama in 2014. But Trump’s attitudes towards NATO were originally the principal source of British consternation at his election. It wasn’t known then that he wasn’t a man of settled policies. In three years he has moved from being NATO’s most prominent critic, to its staunchest defender in the face of criticism of the alliance by the French president, Emmanuel Macron. A liability for Johnson It would never have been necessary with any other president, but on this December visit Trump has done as requested – he has observed convention and said he would “stay out of the election”. Except that, insofar as he flagrantly contradicted something he said the last time he was in the UK in the express interest of the prime minister, he has not stayed out of British politics. Significantly, the impact of Trump’s visit to the UK is on a domestic policy area that is, by contrast, always central to elections: the National Health Service. In a campaign characterised on all sides by millions of this, billions of that, and trillions of the other, Labour has persistently claimed there will be a US-imposed increase in the NHS drugs bill of £500m a week. NHS staff duly joined the now-traditional public protests that mark a Trump visit. If Trump was ever an asset for Johnson, he’s now deemed a liability. The president sees something of himself in man he’s called “Britain Trump”, not least perhaps their at times disarming physical resemblance. But given British public attitudes to Trump, it’s prudent for Johnson to maintain distance during the last week of a tight election. Trump’s toxicity has the potential to poison Johnson’s hitherto effective campaign. So after much speculation as to whether they would meet – itself extraordinary – Johnson and Trump did, but, equally extraordinarily, there were no photographs of the host and his guest at that meeting at Number 10 or at a Buckingham Palace reception. The two were eventually photographed together arriving at The Grove, the venue for the NATO leaders summit in Watford. By contrast, Corbyn has wanted nothing more than the chance to be photographed challenging Trump on the NHS – though it emerged they did not meet at the palace. But not on NATO. On which they agree. A voter could be forgiven for being confused. (Martin Farr is Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What happens when US presidents enter British elections

A senior Pentagon official said on Wednesday that there were indications that Iran could potentially carry out aggressive actions in the future, amid simmering tensions between Iran and the United States.

John Rood, the Pentagon’s No. 3 official, told reporters that the United States was concerned about potential Iranian behaviour but did not provide details about what information he was basing that concern on or any timeline.

Tensions in the Gulf have risen since attacks on oil tankers this summer, including off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, and a major assault on energy facilities in Saudi Arabia. Washington has blamed Iran, which has denied being behind the attacks on global energy infrastructure.

A senior Pentagon official said on Wednesday that there were indications that Iran could potentially carry out aggressive actions in the future, amid simmering tensions between Iran and the United States.

A senior Pentagon official said on Wednesday that there were indications that Iran could potentially carry out aggressive actions in the future, amid simmering tensions between Iran and the United States. John Rood, the Pentagon’s No. 3 official, told reporters that the United States was concerned about potential Iranian behaviour but did not provide details about what information he was basing that concern on or any timeline. Tensions in the Gulf have risen since attacks on oil tankers this summer, including off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, and a major assault on energy facilities in Saudi Arabia. Washington has blamed Iran, which has denied being behind the attacks on global energy infrastructure.

Indications Iranian 'aggression' could occur: Pentagon official

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was filmed at a Buckingham Palace reception on Tuesday evening describing how surprised US&nbsp;President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-trump-china-says-no-time-limit-on-trade-deal-with-us-266194">Donald Trump</a>'s team appeared to be by his performance at a press conference.

Earlier on Tuesday Trump had addressed issues ranging from NATO to North Korea and trade to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-row-according-to-call-records-nunes-had-frequent-contact-with-giuliani-266054">impeachment</a> proceedings at two long question-and-answer sessions with reporters, first alongside <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cool-it-france-and-germany-to-tell-trump-at-nato-talks-266086">NATO</a> Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and then with French President Emmanuel Macron.

At one, he described earlier comments by Macron as "very nasty".

The later conversation at the reception between Trudeau, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte was recorded on video and snippets were audible. Queen Elizabeth's daughter Princess Anne was also there.

"Is that why you were late?" Johnson asked Macron.

"...It was like a 40-minute press conference," Trudeau said. "Yeah, yeah, yeah! Forty minutes."

Other words were exchanged but could not be heard, before Trudeau added: "I just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor."

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was filmed at a Buckingham Palace reception on Tuesday evening describing how surprised US President Donald Trump's team appeared to be by his performance at a press conference.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was filmed at a Buckingham Palace reception on Tuesday evening describing how surprised US President Donald Trump's team appeared to be by his performance at a press conference. Earlier on Tuesday Trump had addressed issues ranging from NATO to North Korea and trade to impeachment proceedings at two long question-and-answer sessions with reporters, first alongside NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and then with French President Emmanuel Macron. At one, he described earlier comments by Macron as "very nasty". The later conversation at the reception between Trudeau, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Macron and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte was recorded on video and snippets were audible. Queen Elizabeth's daughter Princess Anne was also there. "Is that why you were late?" Johnson asked Macron. "...It was like a 40-minute press conference," Trudeau said. "Yeah, yeah, yeah! Forty minutes." Other words were exchanged but could not be heard, before Trudeau added: "I just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor."

Trudeau says 'jaws drop to the floor' during Trump remarks

A US&nbsp;House Intelligence Committee report laying out the Democratic case for President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-row-according-to-call-records-nunes-had-frequent-contact-with-giuliani-266054">Donald Trump's impeachment</a> will be publicly released on Tuesday, the panel's chairman said in a television interview.

"We’re putting the finishing touches on the report, which will be released tomorrow,” Democrat Adam Schiff said on MSNBC on Monday night.

The Democratic-controlled panel is expected to vote on the report's approval on Tuesday night.

A copy of the report was made available privately to House Intelligence members on Monday night for a 24-hour review period.

Republican Representative Jim Jordan, an ardent defender of Trump, told reporters he had read portions of the report in a secure room at the Capitol but was instructed not to discuss the contents until Tuesday night.

House Republicans issued their own rebuttal report on Monday, saying <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrat-report-makes-forceful-impeachment-case-against-trump-266049">Democrats</a> had not established an impeachable offense by Trump.

Democrats have been looking into the Republican president's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden, the former US&nbsp;vice president who is seeking the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the 2020 election, and his son Hunter Biden, who was a board member of a Ukrainian energy company.

Congressional Democrats on Monday named the four witnesses who will testify this week at a public hearing in the impeachment inquiry of Trump, in what is seen as a likely precursor to the announcement of formal charges within weeks.

As opinion polls show Americans are bitterly divided over whether to impeach Trump, the Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives will feature four legal scholars discussing the constitutional grounds for removing a US&nbsp;president from office.

The impeachment inquiry has heard testimony from current and former officials that military aid was withheld from Ukraine and that a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was conditioned on investigations into the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine interference in the 2016 US&nbsp;election.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and says a July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy, in which he pressed for the probes, was "perfect." He and fellow Republicans say Democrats are seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.

Wednesday's hearing, while academic in nature, will set the stage for the Judiciary Committee to begin determining whether Trump should face formal articles of impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to supporters last week that Trump had committed "bribery" and needed to be held accountable.

The hearing witnesses, announced by the committee on Monday, are Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law and Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School.

Also watch:&nbsp;Donald Trump impeachment hearings set for Dec 4

<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/donald-trump-impeachment-hearings-set-for-dec-4-265791/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In a defiant response on Sunday night, the White House informed Democrats that Trump and his lawyers would not participate in Wednesday's hearing, citing a lack of "fundamental fairness."

Speaking to reporters as he departed the White House on Monday en route to London for a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cool-it-france-and-germany-to-tell-trump-at-nato-talks-266086">NATO summit</a>, Trump said he had declined to participate in the hearing because it was a hoax.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called the White House's decision "unfortunate" and said that allowing Trump to participate had been a priority from the outset of the impeachment probe.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone has not ruled out taking part in future proceedings if Democrats address a list of procedural complaints.

The committee, which is not expected to consider evidence against Trump until next week, has given the president until 5 p.m. (2200 GMT) on Friday to say whether he plans to mount a defense by calling witnesses and introducing evidence.

The 110-page House Republican report said the witnesses called during the impeachment inquiry had painted a picture of "unelected bureaucrats" who "fundamentally disagreed with President Trump's style, world view and decisions," and had presented no evidence that amounted to an impeachable offense.

Schiff said the Republican report "ignores voluminous evidence that the president used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival," which Schiff said was outside the law and "a violation of his oath of office."

If the House approves articles of impeachment, the Republican-controlled Senate would hold a trial to see if Trump should be removed from office. That move is unlikely, as few Senate Republicans have shown an appetite for removing the president.

But the impeachment inquiry has cast a shadow over Trump's already tumultuous presidency and sharpened a divide among Americans that is likely to intensify as election campaigning heats up in the coming weeks.

Democratic aides said a vote on possible articles of impeachment would follow quickly on the heels of an evidentiary hearing.

A US House Intelligence Committee report laying out the Democratic case for President Donald Trump's impeachment will be publicly released on Tuesday, the panel's chairman said in a television interview.

A US House Intelligence Committee report laying out the Democratic case for President Donald Trump's impeachment will be publicly released on Tuesday, the panel's chairman said in a television interview. "We’re putting the finishing touches on the report, which will be released tomorrow,” Democrat Adam Schiff said on MSNBC on Monday night. The Democratic-controlled panel is expected to vote on the report's approval on Tuesday night. A copy of the report was made available privately to House Intelligence members on Monday night for a 24-hour review period. Republican Representative Jim Jordan, an ardent defender of Trump, told reporters he had read portions of the report in a secure room at the Capitol but was instructed not to discuss the contents until Tuesday night. House Republicans issued their own rebuttal report on Monday, saying Democrats had not established an impeachable offense by Trump. Democrats have been looking into the Republican president's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden, the former US vice president who is seeking the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the 2020 election, and his son Hunter Biden, who was a board member of a Ukrainian energy company. Congressional Democrats on Monday named the four witnesses who will testify this week at a public hearing in the impeachment inquiry of Trump, in what is seen as a likely precursor to the announcement of formal charges within weeks. As opinion polls show Americans are bitterly divided over whether to impeach Trump, the Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives will feature four legal scholars discussing the constitutional grounds for removing a US president from office. The impeachment inquiry has heard testimony from current and former officials that military aid was withheld from Ukraine and that a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was conditioned on investigations into the Bidens and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine interference in the 2016 US election. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and says a July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy, in which he pressed for the probes, was "perfect." He and fellow Republicans say Democrats are seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election. Wednesday's hearing, while academic in nature, will set the stage for the Judiciary Committee to begin determining whether Trump should face formal articles of impeachment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to supporters last week that Trump had committed "bribery" and needed to be held accountable. The hearing witnesses, announced by the committee on Monday, are Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law School, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law and Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School. Also watch: Donald Trump impeachment hearings set for Dec 4 × In a defiant response on Sunday night, the White House informed Democrats that Trump and his lawyers would not participate in Wednesday's hearing, citing a lack of "fundamental fairness." Speaking to reporters as he departed the White House on Monday en route to London for a NATO summit, Trump said he had declined to participate in the hearing because it was a hoax. Representative Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called the White House's decision "unfortunate" and said that allowing Trump to participate had been a priority from the outset of the impeachment probe. White House counsel Pat Cipollone has not ruled out taking part in future proceedings if Democrats address a list of procedural complaints. The committee, which is not expected to consider evidence against Trump until next week, has given the president until 5 p.m. (2200 GMT) on Friday to say whether he plans to mount a defense by calling witnesses and introducing evidence. The 110-page House Republican report said the witnesses called during the impeachment inquiry had painted a picture of "unelected bureaucrats" who "fundamentally disagreed with President Trump's style, world view and decisions," and had presented no evidence that amounted to an impeachable offense. Schiff said the Republican report "ignores voluminous evidence that the president used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rival," which Schiff said was outside the law and "a violation of his oath of office." If the House approves articles of impeachment, the Republican-controlled Senate would hold a trial to see if Trump should be removed from office. That move is unlikely, as few Senate Republicans have shown an appetite for removing the president. But the impeachment inquiry has cast a shadow over Trump's already tumultuous presidency and sharpened a divide among Americans that is likely to intensify as election campaigning heats up in the coming weeks. Democratic aides said a vote on possible articles of impeachment would follow quickly on the heels of an evidentiary hearing.

US House panel impeachment report to be released Tuesday: Adam Schiff

President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said on Wednesday&nbsp;he&nbsp;discussed with British Prime Minister Boris&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;the&nbsp;NATO&nbsp;military alliance and&nbsp;trade&nbsp;at a meeting a day earlier.

"Enjoyed&nbsp;my meeting with Prime Minister Boris&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;of the&nbsp;United Kingdom at 10 Downing Street last night. Talked about numerous subjects including&nbsp;NATO&nbsp;and&nbsp;Trade," the&nbsp;U.S. leader said on Twitter.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he discussed with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson the NATO military alliance and trade at a meeting a day earlier. "Enjoyed my meeting with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom at 10 Downing Street last night.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he discussed with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson the NATO military alliance and trade at a meeting a day earlier. "Enjoyed my meeting with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom at 10 Downing Street last night. Talked about numerous subjects including NATO and Trade," the U.S. leader said on Twitter.

Enjoyed discussing NATO and trade with UK PM Johnson: Trump

The United States and&nbsp;China&nbsp;are moving&nbsp;closer&nbsp;to agreeing on the amount of tariffs to be rolled back in a&nbsp;phase-one&nbsp;trade&nbsp;deal,&nbsp;Bloomberg&nbsp;reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump on Tuesday had said a&nbsp;trade&nbsp;agreement with&nbsp;China&nbsp;might have to wait until after the US&nbsp;presidential election in November 2020, denting hopes of a resolution soon to a dispute that has weighed on the world economy.

The United States and China are moving closer to agreeing on the amount of tariffs to be rolled back in a phase-one trade deal, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

The United States and China are moving closer to agreeing on the amount of tariffs to be rolled back in a phase-one trade deal, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing sources. US President Donald Trump on Tuesday had said a trade agreement with China might have to wait until after the US presidential election in November 2020, denting hopes of a resolution soon to a dispute that has weighed on the world economy.

US and China move closer to phase-one trade deal: Sources

President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rouhani-says-enemy-conspiracy-defeated-in-protest-hit-iran-263405">Hassan Rouhani</a> said on Wednesday that Iran is still ready for nuclear talks on condition the United States first lifts "unlawful" sanctions.

"If they are prepared to put aside the sanctions, we are ready to talk and negotiate, even at the level of heads of the 5+1 countries," Rouhani said in remarks aired live on state television.

Rouhani has long demanded the lifting of US sanctions for Iran's return to talks under the auspices of the so-called P5+1 that reached a 2015 nuclear deal, the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.

Watch: Hassan Rouhani's stern warning to US

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-usa-direct-hassan-rouhanis-stern-warning-to-us-252072/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"We are under sanctions. This situation... is&nbsp;(because of) incitement by the Zionists and the region's reactionary," he said, referring to Israel and Saudi Arabia.

"This situation... is a cruel act by the White House. We have no choice but to resist and persevere against those imposers of sanctions.

"At the same time, we have not closed the window for negotiations," Rouhani said.

"I tell the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-finds-new-oil-field-with-53-billion-barrels-of-crude-hassan-rouhani-261158">nation of Iran</a> that any time America is prepared to lift and put aside&nbsp;its wrong, cruel, unlawful, incorrect, terrorist sanctions, immediately the heads of 5+1 can meet and we have no problem."

The landmark 2015 deal gave Iran relief from economic sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

It has been at risk of falling apart since US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from it in May last year and reimposed sanctions on Iran.

Known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it was agreed between Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.

Twelve months on from the US pullout, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-cannot-allow-insecurity-in-the-face-of-protests-rouhani-262786">Iran began reducing its commitments</a> to the deal hoping to win concessions from those still party to the accord.

Its latest step back came last month, when engineers began feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into mothballed enrichment centrifuges at the underground Fordow plant south of Tehran.

President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that Iran is still ready for nuclear talks on condition the United States first lifts "unlawful" sanctions. "If they are prepared to put aside the sanctions, we are ready to talk and negotiate, even at the level of heads of the 5+1 countries," Rouhani said in remarks aired live on state television.

President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that Iran is still ready for nuclear talks on condition the United States first lifts "unlawful" sanctions. "If they are prepared to put aside the sanctions, we are ready to talk and negotiate, even at the level of heads of the 5+1 countries," Rouhani said in remarks aired live on state television. Rouhani has long demanded the lifting of US sanctions for Iran's return to talks under the auspices of the so-called P5+1 that reached a 2015 nuclear deal, the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Watch: Hassan Rouhani's stern warning to US "We are under sanctions. This situation... is (because of) incitement by the Zionists and the region's reactionary," he said, referring to Israel and Saudi Arabia. "This situation... is a cruel act by the White House. We have no choice but to resist and persevere against those imposers of sanctions. "At the same time, we have not closed the window for negotiations," Rouhani said. "I tell the nation of Iran that any time America is prepared to lift and put aside its wrong, cruel, unlawful, incorrect, terrorist sanctions, immediately the heads of 5+1 can meet and we have no problem." The landmark 2015 deal gave Iran relief from economic sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear programme. It has been at risk of falling apart since US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from it in May last year and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it was agreed between Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany. Twelve months on from the US pullout, Iran began reducing its commitments to the deal hoping to win concessions from those still party to the accord. Its latest step back came last month, when engineers began feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into mothballed enrichment centrifuges at the underground Fordow plant south of Tehran.

Ready for talks if United States lifts sanctions: Iran

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/billionaire-michael-bloomberg-formally-announces-us-presidential-candidacy-264255">President Donald Trump's</a> campaign said Monday it was banning journalists from Bloomberg News from its electoral events, claiming "bias" by the media group owned by presidential rival Michael Bloomberg.

Brad Parscale, the Trump 2020 campaign manager, said the decision was made after Bloomberg News announced it would not investigate the company boss or&nbsp;his Democrat competitors.

"As President Trump's campaign, we are accustomed to unfair reporting practices, but most news organizations don't announce their biases so publicly," Parscale said in a statement.

The Trump campaign will no longer credential representatives of Bloomberg News for rallies or other campaign events, and will decide "whether to engage with individual reporters or answer inquiries from Bloomberg News on a case-by-case basis," Parscale added.

Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait said in response: "The accusation of bias couldn't be further from the truth. We have covered Donald Trump fairly and in an unbiased way since he became a candidate in 2015 and will continue to do so despite the restrictions imposed by the Trump campaign."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Mini Mike Bloomberg has instructed his third rate news organization not to investigate him or any Democrat, but to go after President Trump, only. The Failing New York Times thinks that is O.K., because their hatred &amp; bias is so great they can’t even see straight. It’s not O.K.!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1201639937268948992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Trump took to Twitter to blast "Mini Mike" Bloomberg for the news organisation's coverage decision.

"Mini Mike Bloomberg has instructed his third rate news organization not to investigate him or any Democrat, but to go after President Trump, only," the president wrote.

"The Failing New York Times thinks that is OK because their hatred &amp; bias is so great they can't even see straight. It's not OK!" he added in a swipe at the newspaper after its executive editor condemned the Trump campaign's decision.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/potential-presidential-candidate-michael-bloomberg-spends-record-amount-for-tv-ads-264108">Michael Bloomberg's</a> decision to seek the Democratic presidential nomination prompted the news agency, one of the world's biggest, to spell out guidelines last week on how it would handle any conflicts of interest.

The media group said it would not investigate Bloomberg's family or foundations, nor his Democratic rivals, but would publish or summarize investigative pieces on all Democratic candidates.

"There is no point in trying to claim that covering this presidential campaign will be easy," Micklethwait said in a memo to staff last week, citing the company's policy of not writing about itself or direct competitors.

Micklethwait said the journalists would cover the campaign's news "in much the same way as we have done before," with the exception that articles will explicitly state that Bloomberg News's owner is a candidate.

President Donald Trump's campaign said Monday it was banning journalists from Bloomberg News from its electoral events, claiming "bias" by the media group owned by presidential rival Michael Bloomberg.

President Donald Trump's campaign said Monday it was banning journalists from Bloomberg News from its electoral events, claiming "bias" by the media group owned by presidential rival Michael Bloomberg. Brad Parscale, the Trump 2020 campaign manager, said the decision was made after Bloomberg News announced it would not investigate the company boss or his Democrat competitors. "As President Trump's campaign, we are accustomed to unfair reporting practices, but most news organizations don't announce their biases so publicly," Parscale said in a statement. The Trump campaign will no longer credential representatives of Bloomberg News for rallies or other campaign events, and will decide "whether to engage with individual reporters or answer inquiries from Bloomberg News on a case-by-case basis," Parscale added. Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait said in response: "The accusation of bias couldn't be further from the truth. We have covered Donald Trump fairly and in an unbiased way since he became a candidate in 2015 and will continue to do so despite the restrictions imposed by the Trump campaign." Mini Mike Bloomberg has instructed his third rate news organization not to investigate him or any Democrat, but to go after President Trump, only. The Failing New York Times thinks that is O.K., because their hatred & bias is so great they can’t even see straight. It’s not O.K.! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2019 × Trump took to Twitter to blast "Mini Mike" Bloomberg for the news organisation's coverage decision. "Mini Mike Bloomberg has instructed his third rate news organization not to investigate him or any Democrat, but to go after President Trump, only," the president wrote. "The Failing New York Times thinks that is OK because their hatred & bias is so great they can't even see straight. It's not OK!" he added in a swipe at the newspaper after its executive editor condemned the Trump campaign's decision. Michael Bloomberg's decision to seek the Democratic presidential nomination prompted the news agency, one of the world's biggest, to spell out guidelines last week on how it would handle any conflicts of interest. The media group said it would not investigate Bloomberg's family or foundations, nor his Democratic rivals, but would publish or summarize investigative pieces on all Democratic candidates. "There is no point in trying to claim that covering this presidential campaign will be easy," Micklethwait said in a memo to staff last week, citing the company's policy of not writing about itself or direct competitors. Micklethwait said the journalists would cover the campaign's news "in much the same way as we have done before," with the exception that articles will explicitly state that Bloomberg News's owner is a candidate.

US elections 2020: Trump campaign bars Bloomberg News, alleging 'bias'

President Donald Trump's administration said Monday it has released $100&nbsp;million&nbsp;in military <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lebanons-hariri-says-he-does-not-want-be-pm-264904">assistance to&nbsp;Lebanon</a>&nbsp;that had been quietly frozen for months amid US complaints about the clout of Hezbollah.

A State Department official and a congressional aide, both speaking&nbsp;on&nbsp;condition of anonymity, said that the assistance has been unblocked by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

"The money is good to go," the State Department official said.

The Trump administration has been tight-lipped&nbsp;on&nbsp;the reason for the hold-up in support for&nbsp;Lebanon&nbsp;but has been pressing the government to distance itself from Hezbollah, the Shiite militant movement close to Iran.

Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who included Hezbollah members in his cabinet, resigned a month ago in the face of major street protests.

The State Department official said there had been "some disagreements about the efficacy of US&nbsp;aid" to the Lebanese Armed Forces.

But the official defended the military as a "national institution" in a country long divided&nbsp;on&nbsp;confessional lines, and praised its "high level of capability" in fighting extremists such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State movement.

"It defends&nbsp;Lebanon's borders; it is an excellent partner to the United States in counterterrorism and fighting Sunni jihadi Islamists," the official said.

"They have responded in recent weeks,&nbsp;I think in impressive fashion,&nbsp;in terms of protecting demonstrators from violence, demonstrating, I think, the fact that they are a national institution," he said.

Watch: Hezbollah accuses the US of interference in Lebanon

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/lebanon-protest-hezbollah-accuses-the-us-of-interference-in-lebanon-264155/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Criticism of Hezbollah

But the official said that detractors pointed to "isolated incidents" in which the military has kept its distance from Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the United States.

The militant group has fought Israel for decades, including through a guerrilla campaign to end the Jewish state's occupation of southern&nbsp;Lebanon.

Hezbollah still maintains a formidable arms stockpile with support of Iran and by some experts' measures is more powerful than the Lebanese army.

David Hale, the number-three official of the State Department, last month confirmed the delay in the&nbsp;aid&nbsp;when he was questioned under oath by Congress in the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Asked about the&nbsp;freeze&nbsp;in&nbsp;aid&nbsp;to Ukraine, a key element of the impeachment question, Hale said that he learned in June that assistance was&nbsp;on&nbsp;hold to both Ukraine and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/lebanon-protesters-continue-in-defiance-despite-hezbollah-attack-264509">Lebanon&nbsp;"without any explanation"</a>.

Two senior Democrats, in a recent letter to the White House, said that hold affected $105&nbsp;million&nbsp;in&nbsp;aid&nbsp;to&nbsp;Lebanon&nbsp;including military vehicles, weapons and ammunition.

Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Ted Deutch, head of its Middle East subcommittee, wrote that&nbsp;Lebanon&nbsp;needed support to face "imminent threats."

"I'm pleased to see this critical&nbsp;aid&nbsp;finally resuming. Our assistance is crucial to help&nbsp;Lebanon&nbsp;counter Iran-backed Hezbollah and other groups threatening the region," Deutch wrote&nbsp;on&nbsp;Twitter.

There has been no allegation that Trump stopped the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/protesters-see-real-independence-coming-as-lebanon-turns-76-263919">Lebanon&nbsp;assistance</a> for personal political gain, the central allegation in his delay of $400&nbsp;million&nbsp;in military&nbsp;aid&nbsp;to Ukraine.

President Donald Trump's administration said Monday it has released $100 million in military assistance to Lebanon that had been quietly frozen for months amid US complaints about the clout of Hezbollah.

President Donald Trump's administration said Monday it has released $100 million in military assistance to Lebanon that had been quietly frozen for months amid US complaints about the clout of Hezbollah. A State Department official and a congressional aide, both speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the assistance has been unblocked by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. "The money is good to go," the State Department official said. The Trump administration has been tight-lipped on the reason for the hold-up in support for Lebanon but has been pressing the government to distance itself from Hezbollah, the Shiite militant movement close to Iran. Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who included Hezbollah members in his cabinet, resigned a month ago in the face of major street protests. The State Department official said there had been "some disagreements about the efficacy of US aid" to the Lebanese Armed Forces. But the official defended the military as a "national institution" in a country long divided on confessional lines, and praised its "high level of capability" in fighting extremists such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State movement. "It defends Lebanon's borders; it is an excellent partner to the United States in counterterrorism and fighting Sunni jihadi Islamists," the official said. "They have responded in recent weeks, I think in impressive fashion, in terms of protecting demonstrators from violence, demonstrating, I think, the fact that they are a national institution," he said. Watch: Hezbollah accuses the US of interference in Lebanon Criticism of Hezbollah But the official said that detractors pointed to "isolated incidents" in which the military has kept its distance from Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the United States. The militant group has fought Israel for decades, including through a guerrilla campaign to end the Jewish state's occupation of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah still maintains a formidable arms stockpile with support of Iran and by some experts' measures is more powerful than the Lebanese army. David Hale, the number-three official of the State Department, last month confirmed the delay in the aid when he was questioned under oath by Congress in the impeachment inquiry into Trump. Asked about the freeze in aid to Ukraine, a key element of the impeachment question, Hale said that he learned in June that assistance was on hold to both Ukraine and Lebanon "without any explanation". Two senior Democrats, in a recent letter to the White House, said that hold affected $105 million in aid to Lebanon including military vehicles, weapons and ammunition. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Ted Deutch, head of its Middle East subcommittee, wrote that Lebanon needed support to face "imminent threats." "I'm pleased to see this critical aid finally resuming. Our assistance is crucial to help Lebanon counter Iran-backed Hezbollah and other groups threatening the region," Deutch wrote on Twitter. There has been no allegation that Trump stopped the Lebanon assistance for personal political gain, the central allegation in his delay of $400 million in military aid to Ukraine.

United States ends freeze on Lebanon aid worth $100 million

The United States&nbsp;on&nbsp;Monday threatened to impose&nbsp;tariffs&nbsp;of up to&nbsp;100 per cent on&nbsp;$2.4 billion on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/dont-mix-digital-taxes-and-wine-tariffs-france-urges-trump-238861">French&nbsp;goods</a>&nbsp;in retaliation for a&nbsp;digital&nbsp;services&nbsp;tax&nbsp;it says is discriminatory.

French&nbsp;sparkling wine, yogurt and Roquefort cheese are&nbsp;on&nbsp;the list of&nbsp;goods&nbsp;that could be targeted as soon as mid-January after a report from the&nbsp;US&nbsp;Trade Representative's office found the&nbsp;digital&nbsp;tax&nbsp;penalises American tech companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon.

The decision "sends a clear signal that the United States will take action against&nbsp;digital&nbsp;tax&nbsp;regimes that discriminate or otherwise impose undue burdens&nbsp;on&nbsp;US&nbsp;companies,"&nbsp;US&nbsp;Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement.

Lighthizer also warned that Washington was considering widening the investigation to look into similar taxes in Austria, Italy, and Turkey.

"The USTR is focused&nbsp;on&nbsp;countering the growing protectionism of EU member states, which unfairly targets&nbsp;US&nbsp;companies, whether through&nbsp;digital&nbsp;services taxes or other efforts that target leading&nbsp;US&nbsp;digital&nbsp;services companies," he said.

Watch: Trump says US to hit France with 'substantial action for digital tax'

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-says-us-to-hit-france-with-substantial-action-for-digital-tax-238756/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The announcement came just hours before President Donald Trump is due to meet his&nbsp;French&nbsp;counterpart Emmanuel Macron&nbsp;on&nbsp;the sidelines of the NATO summit in London&nbsp;on&nbsp;Tuesday.

The&nbsp;French&nbsp;tax, enacted earlier this year, imposes a three per cent levy&nbsp;on&nbsp;the revenues earned by technology firms in France, which often come from online advertising and other&nbsp;digital&nbsp;services.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;tax&nbsp;affects companies with at least 750 million euros ($830 million) in annual global revenue&nbsp;on&nbsp;their&nbsp;digital&nbsp;activities.

The&nbsp;French&nbsp;tax&nbsp;targets revenue instead of profits, which are often reported by tech giants in low-tax&nbsp;jurisdictions like Ireland in a practice that has enraged governments.&nbsp;

The USTR report "concluded that France's&nbsp;Digital&nbsp;Services&nbsp;Tax&nbsp;(DST) discriminates against&nbsp;US&nbsp;companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international&nbsp;tax&nbsp;policy, and is unusually burdensome for affected&nbsp;US&nbsp;companies."

After the&nbsp;tax&nbsp;was enacted, Trump in July vowed "substantial" retaliation for the&nbsp;French&nbsp;measure.&nbsp;

The USTR has scheduled public hearings&nbsp;on&nbsp;the proposal to imposes "duties of up to&nbsp;100 per cent on&nbsp;certain&nbsp;French&nbsp;products," and the possibility of "imposing fees or restrictions&nbsp;on&nbsp;French&nbsp;services."

The last date to submit comments&nbsp;on&nbsp;the proposed actions is January 14, and "USTR expects to proceed expeditiously thereafter."

Roquefort, not Bordeaux

The list of&nbsp;French&nbsp;products subject to potential duties includes cosmetics, porcelain, soap, handbags, butter, and several kinds of cheeses, including Roquefort, Edam and Gruyere.

However, despite <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/frances-macron-discussed-need-for-broad-digital-tax-deal-with-trump-elysee-238773">Trump's repeated threats to retaliate against&nbsp;French&nbsp;wines</a>, only sparkling wine made the tariff list.

Industry groups welcomed the report, with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation saying in a statement that France's&nbsp;tax&nbsp;is "narrowly and inappropriately targeted to raise revenue only from the largest companies in a small set of industries, many of them American."

While applauding the USTR investigation, the Information Technology Industry Council's vice president of policy Jennifer McCloskey said the group would prefer to avoid "a strong trade response."

"We respectfully urge the United States, France, and all participating governments&nbsp;to focus&nbsp;on&nbsp;a successful and lasting&nbsp;tax&nbsp;policy resolution" at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), she said in a statement.

So far, efforts to find a global solution to the dispute&nbsp;over&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-slams-macron-over-digital-tax-on-us-tech-giants-threatens-reciprocal-action-against-french-wine-238733">digital&nbsp;taxes</a> have not been successful.

Last month, G20 ministers meeting in Washington opened talks&nbsp;on&nbsp;an international system to&nbsp;tax&nbsp;global tech giants that the OECD hopes would take effect by June.

In an interview Monday prior to the USTR announcement,&nbsp;French&nbsp;Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire accused Washington of losing interest in such a deal.

"Having demanded an international solution from the OECD, it (Washington) now isn't sure it wants one," Le Maire told France Inter radio.

"We can see that the United States is shifting into reverse."

Public outrage has grown&nbsp;over&nbsp;the practice of profit shifting, which critics say deprives governments of their fair share of&nbsp;tax&nbsp;revenue.

The United States on Monday threatened to impose tariffs of up to 100 per cent on $2.4 billion on French goods in retaliation for a digital services tax it says is discriminatory.

The United States on Monday threatened to impose tariffs of up to 100 per cent on $2.4 billion on French goods in retaliation for a digital services tax it says is discriminatory. French sparkling wine, yogurt and Roquefort cheese are on the list of goods that could be targeted as soon as mid-January after a report from the US Trade Representative's office found the digital tax penalises American tech companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon. The decision "sends a clear signal that the United States will take action against digital tax regimes that discriminate or otherwise impose undue burdens on US companies," US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement. Lighthizer also warned that Washington was considering widening the investigation to look into similar taxes in Austria, Italy, and Turkey. "The USTR is focused on countering the growing protectionism of EU member states, which unfairly targets US companies, whether through digital services taxes or other efforts that target leading US digital services companies," he said. Watch: Trump says US to hit France with 'substantial action for digital tax' The announcement came just hours before President Donald Trump is due to meet his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the NATO summit in London on Tuesday. The French tax, enacted earlier this year, imposes a three per cent levy on the revenues earned by technology firms in France, which often come from online advertising and other digital services. The tax affects companies with at least 750 million euros ($830 million) in annual global revenue on their digital activities. The French tax targets revenue instead of profits, which are often reported by tech giants in low-tax jurisdictions like Ireland in a practice that has enraged governments. The USTR report "concluded that France's Digital Services Tax (DST) discriminates against US companies, is inconsistent with prevailing principles of international tax policy, and is unusually burdensome for affected US companies." After the tax was enacted, Trump in July vowed "substantial" retaliation for the French measure. The USTR has scheduled public hearings on the proposal to imposes "duties of up to 100 per cent on certain French products," and the possibility of "imposing fees or restrictions on French services." The last date to submit comments on the proposed actions is January 14, and "USTR expects to proceed expeditiously thereafter." Roquefort, not Bordeaux The list of French products subject to potential duties includes cosmetics, porcelain, soap, handbags, butter, and several kinds of cheeses, including Roquefort, Edam and Gruyere. However, despite Trump's repeated threats to retaliate against French wines, only sparkling wine made the tariff list. Industry groups welcomed the report, with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation saying in a statement that France's tax is "narrowly and inappropriately targeted to raise revenue only from the largest companies in a small set of industries, many of them American." While applauding the USTR investigation, the Information Technology Industry Council's vice president of policy Jennifer McCloskey said the group would prefer to avoid "a strong trade response." "We respectfully urge the United States, France, and all participating governments to focus on a successful and lasting tax policy resolution" at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), she said in a statement. So far, efforts to find a global solution to the dispute over digital taxes have not been successful. Last month, G20 ministers meeting in Washington opened talks on an international system to tax global tech giants that the OECD hopes would take effect by June. In an interview Monday prior to the USTR announcement, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire accused Washington of losing interest in such a deal. "Having demanded an international solution from the OECD, it (Washington) now isn't sure it wants one," Le Maire told France Inter radio. "We can see that the United States is shifting into reverse." Public outrage has grown over the practice of profit shifting, which critics say deprives governments of their fair share of tax revenue.

United States threatens France with 100% tariffs on goods over digital tax

A <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-supreme-court-to-hear-its-first-major-gun-case-since-2010-265748">US&nbsp;congressman</a>&nbsp;accused of misusing campaign funds to pay for lavish vacations, extramarital affairs and airline fees for a pet rabbit said Monday he plans to&nbsp;plead&nbsp;guilty&nbsp;in order to spare his children the embarrassment of a trial.

"I think it's important not to have a public trial for three reasons, and those three reasons are my kids," Duncan Hunter, a Republican, told KUSI. "It's hard enough being the kids of a public figure. I think it's time for them to live life outside the spotlight."

His decision to&nbsp;plead&nbsp;guilty&nbsp;to one count of misusing campaign funds during a court appearance scheduled Tuesday marks a reversal from his long-standing claim that the case against him and his wife was nothing but a "witch hunt."

Hunter indicated that the plea meant he would no longer be serving in Congress and said he stood ready to go to prison.

"Whatever my time in custody is, I will take that hit," Hunter said. "My only hope is that the judge does not sentence my wife to jail. I think my kids need a mom in the home."

Hunter and his wife Margaret were indicted in August 2018 over the syphoning of $250,000 in campaign funds for a litany of private expenses including tequila shots, dental bills and a plane ticket for their pet rabbit Eggburst.

Both initially denied wrongdoing but his spouse agreed to a plea deal over the summer that called for her to testify against her husband.

The indictment against Hunter had alluded to him using campaign funds to pay for several extramarital affairs.

Hunter is a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, but won <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-slaps-sanctions-on-united-states-for-passing-hong-kong-rights-bill-265730">re-election</a> to Congress in 2018 only narrowly in his heavily Republican district.

His&nbsp;guilty&nbsp;plea is expected to help the chances of the three Republican candidates vying for Hunter's seat in the 2020 elections.

A US congressman accused of misusing campaign funds to pay for lavish vacations, extramarital affairs and airline fees for a pet rabbit said Monday he plans to plead guilty in order to spare his children the embarrassment of a trial.

A US congressman accused of misusing campaign funds to pay for lavish vacations, extramarital affairs and airline fees for a pet rabbit said Monday he plans to plead guilty in order to spare his children the embarrassment of a trial. "I think it's important not to have a public trial for three reasons, and those three reasons are my kids," Duncan Hunter, a Republican, told KUSI. "It's hard enough being the kids of a public figure. I think it's time for them to live life outside the spotlight." His decision to plead guilty to one count of misusing campaign funds during a court appearance scheduled Tuesday marks a reversal from his long-standing claim that the case against him and his wife was nothing but a "witch hunt." Hunter indicated that the plea meant he would no longer be serving in Congress and said he stood ready to go to prison. "Whatever my time in custody is, I will take that hit," Hunter said. "My only hope is that the judge does not sentence my wife to jail. I think my kids need a mom in the home." Hunter and his wife Margaret were indicted in August 2018 over the syphoning of $250,000 in campaign funds for a litany of private expenses including tequila shots, dental bills and a plane ticket for their pet rabbit Eggburst. Both initially denied wrongdoing but his spouse agreed to a plea deal over the summer that called for her to testify against her husband. The indictment against Hunter had alluded to him using campaign funds to pay for several extramarital affairs. Hunter is a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, but won re-election to Congress in 2018 only narrowly in his heavily Republican district. His guilty plea is expected to help the chances of the three Republican candidates vying for Hunter's seat in the 2020 elections.

United States: Congressman Hunter to plead guilty to corruption charge

Teenagers from four big Chinese regions outshone Western contemporaries nations in a keenly watched survey of education capabilities published Tuesday, which also showed no improvement trend in developed countries over two decades.

The PISA survey is carried out every three years by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this time among its 37 member states and 42 partner countries and economies.

The latest study, which was conducted last year among 600,000 15-year-old students who all took two-hour tests, showed that students in four Chinese regions of Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang, as well as Singapore,&nbsp;topped the rankings, ahead of their Western counterparts in reading, mathematics and science.

In reading, which the OECD considers its headline indicator of education potential, the best performing OECD state was the tiny Baltic nation of Estonia, followed by Canada, Finland and Ireland.

Angel Gurria, the OECD's secretary-general, said the students from the four Chinese provinces had "outperformed by a large margin their peers from all of the other 78 participating education systems".

Moreover, the 10 per cent most socio-economically disadvantaged students in these four areas "also showed better reading skills than those of the average student in OECD countries, as well as skills similar to the 10 per cent most advantaged students in some of these countries."

He cautioned that these four provinces and municipalities in eastern China "are far from representing China as a whole." &nbsp;

Teenagers from four big Chinese regions outshone Western contemporaries nations in a keenly watched survey of education capabilities published Tuesday, which also showed no improvement trend in developed countries over two decades.

Teenagers from four big Chinese regions outshone Western contemporaries nations in a keenly watched survey of education capabilities published Tuesday, which also showed no improvement trend in developed countries over two decades. The PISA survey is carried out every three years by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this time among its 37 member states and 42 partner countries and economies. The latest study, which was conducted last year among 600,000 15-year-old students who all took two-hour tests, showed that students in four Chinese regions of Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang, as well as Singapore, topped the rankings, ahead of their Western counterparts in reading, mathematics and science. In reading, which the OECD considers its headline indicator of education potential, the best performing OECD state was the tiny Baltic nation of Estonia, followed by Canada, Finland and Ireland. Angel Gurria, the OECD's secretary-general, said the students from the four Chinese provinces had "outperformed by a large margin their peers from all of the other 78 participating education systems". Moreover, the 10 per cent most socio-economically disadvantaged students in these four areas "also showed better reading skills than those of the average student in OECD countries, as well as skills similar to the 10 per cent most advantaged students in some of these countries." He cautioned that these four provinces and municipalities in eastern China "are far from representing China as a whole."

China outshines West in survey on educational capabilities

US online sales are set to hit a new record on this week's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/between-black-friday-and-cyber-monday-pope-condemns-virus-of-consumerism-265592#excesses-of-con-265585">"Cyber&nbsp;Monday,"</a> Adobe Analytics said, as e-commerce outlets gear up to lure shoppers in the opening days of the holiday season.

Internet purchases are expected to reach $9.4 billion, a jump of nearly 19 per cent over last year's record-setting $7.9 billion take, according to a Sunday estimate from the company, which measures transactions from 80 of the 100 largest US online retailers.

US merchants have long viewed the days after the Thursday Thanksgiving holiday as a prime time to part shoppers from their money, particularly during the "Black Friday" sales following the holiday.

This year's expected record-setting shopping comes as Price Waterhouse Cooper found for the first time that a majority of people surveyed said they would rather shop online than in a brick-and-mortar store.

Shoppers spent $7.4 billion online on Friday, according to Adobe. Some 40 per cent of these purchases were made using smartphones. On Thanksgiving Day, US consumers spent $4.2 billion online.

Online sales on "Small Business Saturday" amounted to $3.6 billion, up 18 per cent over last year.

This increase was "fueled by strong gains from both large and small retailers alike," said Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe.

"The weekend between Black Friday and&nbsp;Cyber&nbsp;Monday&nbsp;is emerging as a truly lucrative period for online commerce," he added.

The hottest toys included L.O.L. Surprise dolls and items linked to the Disney blockbuster movie <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/frozen-2-review-elsa-and-anna-grow-up-and-take-charge-of-things-263883">"Frozen 2."</a> In the video game category, the top sellers were FIFA 20, Madden 20 and Nintendo Switch.

The most popular electronics were <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/apple-taking-a-deeper-look-at-map-policies-after-calling-crimea-part-of-russia-265344">Apple</a> laptops, AirPods and Samsung TVs.

Adobe expects shoppers to spend a total of $143.8 billion during the entire holiday season.

According to a study released on Sunday by the International Council of Shopping Centers,&nbsp;an estimated 160 million people flocked to stores over the Thanksgiving weekend and spent on average just over $500 each.

That's up from 151 million shoppers last year.

US online sales are set to hit a new record on this week's "Cyber Monday," Adobe Analytics said, as e-commerce outlets gear up to lure shoppers in the opening days of the holiday season.

US online sales are set to hit a new record on this week's "Cyber Monday," Adobe Analytics said, as e-commerce outlets gear up to lure shoppers in the opening days of the holiday season. Internet purchases are expected to reach $9.4 billion, a jump of nearly 19 per cent over last year's record-setting $7.9 billion take, according to a Sunday estimate from the company, which measures transactions from 80 of the 100 largest US online retailers. US merchants have long viewed the days after the Thursday Thanksgiving holiday as a prime time to part shoppers from their money, particularly during the "Black Friday" sales following the holiday. This year's expected record-setting shopping comes as Price Waterhouse Cooper found for the first time that a majority of people surveyed said they would rather shop online than in a brick-and-mortar store. Shoppers spent $7.4 billion online on Friday, according to Adobe. Some 40 per cent of these purchases were made using smartphones. On Thanksgiving Day, US consumers spent $4.2 billion online. Online sales on "Small Business Saturday" amounted to $3.6 billion, up 18 per cent over last year. This increase was "fueled by strong gains from both large and small retailers alike," said Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe. "The weekend between Black Friday and Cyber Monday is emerging as a truly lucrative period for online commerce," he added. The hottest toys included L.O.L. Surprise dolls and items linked to the Disney blockbuster movie "Frozen 2." In the video game category, the top sellers were FIFA 20, Madden 20 and Nintendo Switch. The most popular electronics were Apple laptops, AirPods and Samsung TVs. Adobe expects shoppers to spend a total of $143.8 billion during the entire holiday season. According to a study released on Sunday by the International Council of Shopping Centers, an estimated 160 million people flocked to stores over the Thanksgiving weekend and spent on average just over $500 each. That's up from 151 million shoppers last year.

'Cyber Monday' on track for record US online sales: Estimate

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on December 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks.

The following explains the basics of impeachment, what happens next, and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Why Impeachment?

The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office.

The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." 
 
High crimes and misdemeanours has historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to just indictable violations of criminal statutes.

Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: "An impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. 
&nbsp; &nbsp; 
How does it work?

Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the body`s members.

The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said.

The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings. The panel is expected to release a formal evidence report shortly after lawmakers return to Congress on Dec. 3 from their Thanksgiving recess.

The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December.

If the House approves articles of impeachment, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. Historically, the president has been allowed to have defence lawyers call witnesses and request documents.

Can the Senate refuse to hold a trial?

There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules currently in effect require a trial, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed.

Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said.

What about opening a trial and quickly ending it?

The Senate rules allow members to file, before the conclusion of the trial, motions to dismiss the charges against the president. If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end.

Clinton`s Senate impeachment trial, which did not end in a conviction, lasted five weeks. Halfway through the proceedings, a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss, which was voted down.

What's the party breakdown in Congress?

The House comprises 431 members, 233 of whom are Democrats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, in the case of all 100 senators voting, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Who becomes the President if Trump is removed?

In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on December 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks.

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on December 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks. The following explains the basics of impeachment, what happens next, and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office. Why Impeachment? The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office. The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." High crimes and misdemeanours has historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to just indictable violations of criminal statutes. Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: "An impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. How does it work? Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the body`s members. The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said. The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings. The panel is expected to release a formal evidence report shortly after lawmakers return to Congress on Dec. 3 from their Thanksgiving recess. The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December. If the House approves articles of impeachment, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. Historically, the president has been allowed to have defence lawyers call witnesses and request documents. Can the Senate refuse to hold a trial? There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules currently in effect require a trial, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed. Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said. What about opening a trial and quickly ending it? The Senate rules allow members to file, before the conclusion of the trial, motions to dismiss the charges against the president. If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end. Clinton`s Senate impeachment trial, which did not end in a conviction, lasted five weeks. Halfway through the proceedings, a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss, which was voted down. What's the party breakdown in Congress? The House comprises 431 members, 233 of whom are Democrats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support. In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat. The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, in the case of all 100 senators voting, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. Who becomes the President if Trump is removed? In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How does the impeachment of a US President work?

A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the US&nbsp;Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments starting at 10 a.m.&nbsp;in a legal challenge backed by the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby group to a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns outside the confines of the most-populous US&nbsp;city.

It is the first major gun case to come before the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-on-restrictive-abortion-law-253858">Supreme Court</a> since 2010.

New York City's regulation was amended in July to remove the restrictions at issue in the case, but the Supreme Court opted to proceed with the arguments anyway. The justices have said they will consider during the arguments the city's contention that the change in the regulation has made the matter moot.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/armed-with-new-power-democrats-push-for-stricter-us-gun-laws-196435">Gun control advocates</a> have expressed concern that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could use the legal battle over a now-loosened gun control regulation unique to one city to issue a ruling widening gun rights nationwide.

Such a ruling could jeopardize a variety of firearms restrictions passed in recent years by state and local governments across the country, including expanded background checks and confiscations of weapons from individuals who a court has deemed dangerous, according to these advocates.

The dispute centers on New York City's handgun "premises" licenses that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of shooting ranges within the city, and to hunting areas elsewhere in the state during designated hunting seasons.

Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the NRA - a national lobby group closely aligned with President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-impeachment-congressional-panel-to-begin-drawing-up-charges-against-us-president-265633">Donald Trump</a> and other Republicans - argued that the regulation violated the US&nbsp;Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 after they were told by authorities they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or bring their guns to a home elsewhere in the state. The Manhattan-based 2nd US&nbsp;Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the regulation advanced the city's interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment.

Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in thwarting passage of new federal laws.

City officials argued that controlling guns in public takes on particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents or thefts is heightened.

The regulation dated back to 2001 when New York police tightened handgun transport rules because officers had observed license holders improperly traveling with loaded firearms or with their firearms far from any authorized range.

The city argued that the rule did not prevent training as there are plenty of ranges at which to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms at competitions farther afield. The rule also did not prevent homeowners from keeping a separate handgun at a second home outside the city.

The Supreme Court had avoided taking up a major firearms case since 2010, when it extended to state and local regulations a 2008 ruling that recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The challengers have said that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment makes clear that the right extends beyond the home. They also are asking the Supreme Court to require lower courts to more strictly review gun curbs, with an eye toward striking them down.

The court's ruling is due by the end of June.

A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the US Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term.

A legal fight over a New York City handgun ordinance that could give the US Supreme Court's conservative majority a chance to expand gun rights goes before the nine justices on Monday in one of the most closely watched cases of their current term. The court is scheduled to hear arguments starting at 10 a.m. in a legal challenge backed by the influential National Rifle Association gun rights lobby group to a regulation that had prevented licensed owners from taking their handguns outside the confines of the most-populous US city. It is the first major gun case to come before the Supreme Court since 2010. New York City's regulation was amended in July to remove the restrictions at issue in the case, but the Supreme Court opted to proceed with the arguments anyway. The justices have said they will consider during the arguments the city's contention that the change in the regulation has made the matter moot. Gun control advocates have expressed concern that the court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, could use the legal battle over a now-loosened gun control regulation unique to one city to issue a ruling widening gun rights nationwide. Such a ruling could jeopardize a variety of firearms restrictions passed in recent years by state and local governments across the country, including expanded background checks and confiscations of weapons from individuals who a court has deemed dangerous, according to these advocates. The dispute centers on New York City's handgun "premises" licenses that allowed holders to transport their firearms only to a handful of shooting ranges within the city, and to hunting areas elsewhere in the state during designated hunting seasons. Three local handgun owners and the New York state affiliate of the NRA - a national lobby group closely aligned with President Donald Trump and other Republicans - argued that the regulation violated the US Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 after they were told by authorities they could not participate in a shooting competition in New Jersey or bring their guns to a home elsewhere in the state. The Manhattan-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the regulation advanced the city's interest in protecting public safety and did not violate the Second Amendment. Gun control is a contentious issue in the United States, which has experienced numerous mass shootings. Since 2013, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted more than 300 gun control laws, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Republican opposition in Congress has been instrumental in thwarting passage of new federal laws. City officials argued that controlling guns in public takes on particular urgency in the most densely populated urban center in the United States, where the potential for violence, accidents or thefts is heightened. The regulation dated back to 2001 when New York police tightened handgun transport rules because officers had observed license holders improperly traveling with loaded firearms or with their firearms far from any authorized range. The city argued that the rule did not prevent training as there are plenty of ranges at which to practice within the city, and individuals could rent firearms at competitions farther afield. The rule also did not prevent homeowners from keeping a separate handgun at a second home outside the city. The Supreme Court had avoided taking up a major firearms case since 2010, when it extended to state and local regulations a 2008 ruling that recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. The challengers have said that the history and tradition of the Second Amendment makes clear that the right extends beyond the home. They also are asking the Supreme Court to require lower courts to more strictly review gun curbs, with an eye toward striking them down. The court's ruling is due by the end of June.

United States Supreme Court to hear its first major gun case since 2010

By Cian O'Driscoll

Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner.

And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat.

This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated.

The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one.

As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today.

The view from Washington

The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more."

Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”.

Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism.

The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war.

Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.”

Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.”

Victory is dead

Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic.

But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it.

For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait.

My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept.

This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames.

So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago."

What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century.

Was victory ever really alive?

There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict.

But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic.

The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815).

Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm.

This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame.

The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war.

Long live victory! 
 
So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience.

This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end.

Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson.

Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense.

Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle.

There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy.

In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.”

Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought.

The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic.

And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities.

‘Mowing the lawn’ 
The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers.

It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this.

To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory.

The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach.

Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals.

As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation.

There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness.

How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver.

My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses.

What does winning mean today? 
 
Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real.

But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring.

One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it.

The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. 
 
(Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-wars-no-longer-be-won-126068">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world.

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner. And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat. This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated. The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one. As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today. The view from Washington The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more." Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”. Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism. The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war. Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.” Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.” Victory is dead Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic. But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it. For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait. My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept. This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames. So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago." What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century. Was victory ever really alive? There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict. But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic. The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815). Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm. This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame. The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war. Long live victory! So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience. This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end. Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense. Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy. In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.” Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought. The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic. And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities. ‘Mowing the lawn’ The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers. It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this. To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory. The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach. Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals. As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation. There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness. How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver. My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses. What does winning mean today? Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real. But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring. One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it. The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. (Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can wars no longer be won?

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/volodymyr-zelensky-says-ukraine-getting-tired-of-trump-scandal-263215">Ukraine's president</a> on Monday renewed his denial of a quid pro quo with Donald Trump over military aid, despite a growing case against the US president in impeachment proceedings in Washington.

"I did not speak with US President Trump in those terms: you give me this, I give you that," Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with European publications including Germany's Der Spiegel magazine.

In remarks published in German, Zelensky said he "did not understand at all" the accusations heard at the hearings and did not "want to give an impression that we are beggars" in Ukraine.

The scandal centres around a phone conversation on July 25 in which the Republican leader is suspected of putting pressure on Ukraine to launch investigations against former Democratic vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian gas company.&nbsp;

Watch: US Ambassador Volker says he did not know Ukraine corruption probe was tied to Biden

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-ambassador-volker-says-he-did-not-know-ukraine-corruption-probe-was-tied-to-biden-263265/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The key issue is whether Trump set up a "quid pro quo",&nbsp;Latin for seeking one action in exchange for another,&nbsp;with Zelensky by holding back promised US military aid for Ukraine until the Bidens were investigated.

In the interview published on Monday, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/donald-trump-releases-record-of-friendly-first-zelensky-call-262449">Zelensky also played down expectations</a> ahead of a summit on December 9 in Paris in which he is set to meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin for the first time.

He said that an end to the conflict with Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine could not be discussed until three preliminary steps had been taken.

He said there should first be a prisoner exchange within a "reasonable time period", followed by a genuine ceasefire and the retreat of all armed forces to allow local elections to be held in the region.

"If these three issues are resolved, then we can see if everyone wants to put an end to the conflict."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-adviser-tells-lawmakers-trump-ukraine-call-raised-national-security-concerns-258751">The conflict in Ukraine</a>, which broke out in 2014 after pro-Western politicians took power in Kiev and Russia annexed Crimea, has killed more than 13,000 people.

Ukraine's president on Monday renewed his denial of a quid pro quo with Donald Trump over military aid, despite a growing case against the US president in impeachment proceedings in Washington.

Ukraine's president on Monday renewed his denial of a quid pro quo with Donald Trump over military aid, despite a growing case against the US president in impeachment proceedings in Washington. "I did not speak with US President Trump in those terms: you give me this, I give you that," Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview with European publications including Germany's Der Spiegel magazine. In remarks published in German, Zelensky said he "did not understand at all" the accusations heard at the hearings and did not "want to give an impression that we are beggars" in Ukraine. The scandal centres around a phone conversation on July 25 in which the Republican leader is suspected of putting pressure on Ukraine to launch investigations against former Democratic vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian gas company. Watch: US Ambassador Volker says he did not know Ukraine corruption probe was tied to Biden The key issue is whether Trump set up a "quid pro quo", Latin for seeking one action in exchange for another, with Zelensky by holding back promised US military aid for Ukraine until the Bidens were investigated. In the interview published on Monday, Zelensky also played down expectations ahead of a summit on December 9 in Paris in which he is set to meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin for the first time. He said that an end to the conflict with Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine could not be discussed until three preliminary steps had been taken. He said there should first be a prisoner exchange within a "reasonable time period", followed by a genuine ceasefire and the retreat of all armed forces to allow local elections to be held in the region. "If these three issues are resolved, then we can see if everyone wants to put an end to the conflict." The conflict in Ukraine, which broke out in 2014 after pro-Western politicians took power in Kiev and Russia annexed Crimea, has killed more than 13,000 people.

Ukraine president Zelensky renews denial of quid pro quo with US president Trump

united-states

United States, News on United States, stories on United States, articles on United States, United States stories at Wion, United States news, United States latest news

united states