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

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

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

US orders non-emergency embassy staff to leave Venezuela

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

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

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

Ready to meet Trump anytime over government shutdown: Nancy Pelosi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/gunman-kills-five-at-us-bank-police-192336">A gunman killed five people </a>in a bank in central Florida on Wednesday and then called police to inform them of the shooting before he eventually surrendered, local authorities said.

The shooting occurred at the SunTrust Bank in Sebring, a town of about 10,000 people 95 miles (153 km) south of Orlando, around 12:30 pm ET, Sebring Police Chief Karl Hoglund said at a news conference.

The 21-year-old suspect, identified as Zephen Xaver, called 911 dispatchers and said he had shot five people inside the bank, according to authorities.

When police entered the bank, the gunman had barricaded himself inside but eventually surrendered, the Sebring Police Department said in a statement posted on Facebook.

Police did not offer any details about a possible motive.

"Today has been a tragic day in our community," Hoglund said. "We've suffered significant loss at the hands of a senseless criminal doing a senseless crime."

No information has been released about the victims, who were the only people in the bank at the time of the shooting, police said.

A spokeswoman for the bank, Sue Mallino, said, "We are working closely with officials and seeking to take care of everyone affected at our Sebring, Florida branch."

A spokeswoman for Stevens-Henager College in Utah said Xaver was an online student from September to December before he voluntarily withdrew.

Xaver lived for a time in northwest Indiana, local news in Indiana reported, citing social media accounts associated with the same name.

Xaver was hired in November to work at Avon Park Correctional Institution, a Florida Department of Corrections prison, before he resigned earlier this month, FloridaToday.com reported, citing state officials.

Avon Park did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A gunman killed five people in a bank in central Florida on Wednesday and then called police to inform them of the shooting before he eventually surrendered, local authorities said.

A gunman killed five people in a bank in central Florida on Wednesday and then called police to inform them of the shooting before he eventually surrendered, local authorities said. The shooting occurred at the SunTrust Bank in Sebring, a town of about 10,000 people 95 miles (153 km) south of Orlando, around 12:30 pm ET, Sebring Police Chief Karl Hoglund said at a news conference. The 21-year-old suspect, identified as Zephen Xaver, called 911 dispatchers and said he had shot five people inside the bank, according to authorities. When police entered the bank, the gunman had barricaded himself inside but eventually surrendered, the Sebring Police Department said in a statement posted on Facebook. Police did not offer any details about a possible motive. "Today has been a tragic day in our community," Hoglund said. "We've suffered significant loss at the hands of a senseless criminal doing a senseless crime." No information has been released about the victims, who were the only people in the bank at the time of the shooting, police said. A spokeswoman for the bank, Sue Mallino, said, "We are working closely with officials and seeking to take care of everyone affected at our Sebring, Florida branch." A spokeswoman for Stevens-Henager College in Utah said Xaver was an online student from September to December before he voluntarily withdrew. Xaver lived for a time in northwest Indiana, local news in Indiana reported, citing social media accounts associated with the same name. Xaver was hired in November to work at Avon Park Correctional Institution, a Florida Department of Corrections prison, before he resigned earlier this month, FloridaToday.com reported, citing state officials. Avon Park did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Gunman surrenders after killing five in central Florida bank: Police

Australia on Thursday demanded China handle the case of detained author Yang Hengjun "transparently and fairly," amid a growing row about the fate of the Chinese-Australian.

Yang -- a novelist, democracy advocate and former Chinese diplomat -- was detained shortly after he made a rare return to China from the United States last week.

Chinese authorities have not publicly said why he was detained, or whether he is facing charges.

"Our embassy in Beijing will meet with Chinese authorities this morning to seek further clarification of the nature of this detention," Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said in a statement.

"We will continue to make representations to China to ensure that this matter is dealt with transparently and fairly," she added.

Once described as China's "most influential political blogger", Yang became an Australian citizen in 2000, but is currently based at New York's Columbia University.

His criticism of the Chinese government and support for democracy has in the past made him a target of Beijing's state security apparatus.

He went missing during a 2011 trip to China, but resurfaced days later, describing his disappearance as a "misunderstanding".

But his current detention comes at a moment of high tension between Western countries and an increasingly muscular Beijing, prompting fears that he may be the victim of a dragnet by Chinese security services targeting foreigners.

The recent arrest of a senior executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei at Vancouver airport has been followed by the high profile arrests of two Canadians.

"It only heightens the feeling that visiting China is unsafe and that the security services may increasingly be going after people for what they say outside of China," said respected China watcher Bill Bishop.

Relations between China and Australia have been strained by Canberra's decision to ban Chinese telecom giant Huawei from participating in its 5G wireless network over security fears and as the two countries have vied more openly for influence in the Pacific.

This latest dispute over Yang is sure to be high on an already difficult agenda when Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne visits Beijing later Thursday.

Yang had worked in the ministry of foreign affairs in Hainan province, but later left for Hong Kong in 1992, before writing a series of politically tinged spy novels. He became Australian in 2000.

Yang's friends first sounded concern when the 53-year-old failed to make a connecting flight from Guangzhou to Shanghai on January 19.&nbsp;

Australian media reported he had been travelling with family members, including his wife, who has since posted cryptic and emotional message on her Weibo page from Beijing.

In Australia there is mounting anger that China failed to quickly notify the authorities of his detention and fears that an already difficult relationship may be further damaged.

"You can't sugarcoat this, this is an Australian citizen, who has been detained in China" said Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten.

"It is very concerning, I can't pretend otherwise" he added, criticising the slow response from the Chinese authorities.

"This is not the way relations between our two countries should be conducted, at all."&nbsp;

Former Australian prime minister and expert on China Kevin Rudd turned to Twitter to insist that Yang is an Australian citizen "just like the rest of us with equal rights and protections".

Under a 2000 consular agreement between the two countries, China had to notify Australia of Yang's detention within three calendar days and allow consular visits, unless the detainee waives that right.

The issue may be further complicated by China's refusal to recognise dual nationality and allegations of Chinese "hostage diplomacy".

Writers' advocacy group PEN accused China of overt repression: "it's obvious that Yang would not have been seized if it weren't for his previous critical writings."

Australia on Thursday demanded China handle the case of detained author Yang Hengjun "transparently and fairly," amid a growing row about the fate of the Chinese-Australian.

Australia on Thursday demanded China handle the case of detained author Yang Hengjun "transparently and fairly," amid a growing row about the fate of the Chinese-Australian. Yang -- a novelist, democracy advocate and former Chinese diplomat -- was detained shortly after he made a rare return to China from the United States last week. Chinese authorities have not publicly said why he was detained, or whether he is facing charges. "Our embassy in Beijing will meet with Chinese authorities this morning to seek further clarification of the nature of this detention," Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said in a statement. "We will continue to make representations to China to ensure that this matter is dealt with transparently and fairly," she added. Once described as China's "most influential political blogger", Yang became an Australian citizen in 2000, but is currently based at New York's Columbia University. His criticism of the Chinese government and support for democracy has in the past made him a target of Beijing's state security apparatus. He went missing during a 2011 trip to China, but resurfaced days later, describing his disappearance as a "misunderstanding". But his current detention comes at a moment of high tension between Western countries and an increasingly muscular Beijing, prompting fears that he may be the victim of a dragnet by Chinese security services targeting foreigners. The recent arrest of a senior executive of Chinese telecom giant Huawei at Vancouver airport has been followed by the high profile arrests of two Canadians. "It only heightens the feeling that visiting China is unsafe and that the security services may increasingly be going after people for what they say outside of China," said respected China watcher Bill Bishop. Relations between China and Australia have been strained by Canberra's decision to ban Chinese telecom giant Huawei from participating in its 5G wireless network over security fears and as the two countries have vied more openly for influence in the Pacific. This latest dispute over Yang is sure to be high on an already difficult agenda when Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne visits Beijing later Thursday. Yang had worked in the ministry of foreign affairs in Hainan province, but later left for Hong Kong in 1992, before writing a series of politically tinged spy novels. He became Australian in 2000. Yang's friends first sounded concern when the 53-year-old failed to make a connecting flight from Guangzhou to Shanghai on January 19. Australian media reported he had been travelling with family members, including his wife, who has since posted cryptic and emotional message on her Weibo page from Beijing. In Australia there is mounting anger that China failed to quickly notify the authorities of his detention and fears that an already difficult relationship may be further damaged. "You can't sugarcoat this, this is an Australian citizen, who has been detained in China" said Australian opposition leader Bill Shorten. "It is very concerning, I can't pretend otherwise" he added, criticising the slow response from the Chinese authorities. "This is not the way relations between our two countries should be conducted, at all." Former Australian prime minister and expert on China Kevin Rudd turned to Twitter to insist that Yang is an Australian citizen "just like the rest of us with equal rights and protections". Under a 2000 consular agreement between the two countries, China had to notify Australia of Yang's detention within three calendar days and allow consular visits, unless the detainee waives that right. The issue may be further complicated by China's refusal to recognise dual nationality and allegations of Chinese "hostage diplomacy". Writers' advocacy group PEN accused China of overt repression: "it's obvious that Yang would not have been seized if it weren't for his previous critical writings."

Australia demands China treat detained national 'fairly'

In less than a month, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-regional-powers-recognise-maduro-opponent-as-venezuela-leader-192345">Juan </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-regional-powers-recognise-maduro-opponent-as-venezuela-leader-192345">Guaido</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-regional-powers-recognise-maduro-opponent-as-venezuela-leader-192345"> </a>has gone from a virtual unknown in Venezuelan politics to the country's most-watched figure, assuming the presidency of the opposition-controlled congress and briefly being detained by the secret police.

On Wednesday, the skinny 35-year-old from the South American country's hardscrabble Caribbean coast thrust himself onto the international stage with the boldest challenge to socialist President Nicolas Maduro's rule in years: he declared himself interim president, a move swiftly recognized by the United States, Canada and many Latin American countries.

His rapid ascent has raised hopes that he could fill a leadership vacuum in Venezuela's notoriously divided opposition, which has failed in several attempts to oust Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez. Many of its most prominent figures have been jailed, exiled or barred from seeking public office.

The salsa-loving baseball fan has animated the opposition's upper-class base and won over many working-class Venezuelans fed up with the country's hyperinflationary economic collapse, who have taken to the streets demanding Maduro step down.

Yet Guaido still needs the backing of the armed forces to achieve his goal of forcing new elections.

"Today in Venezuela we are living under a dictatorship, and we need to put on enough pressure to take control," Guaido, the grandson of National Guard and Navy officers, said in an interview with Reuters this week.

He has proposed an amnesty for members of the military, but said members of the Maduro government who committed human rights violations should be punished.

"I do not intend to heal the wounds of 20 years, but nor do I intend to hide them."

Guaido took the helm of the National Assembly on January 5 with a call for the armed forces to recognize Maduro as a "usurper" after his May 2018 re-election vote, widely viewed as fraudulent.

The eldest of six children from a working-class family in the coastal state of Vargas, Guaido survived a devastating 1999 mudslide that posed one of the earliest tests to Chavez's 14-year rule.

He went on to study engineering, but became involved in politics while at university and received a master's in public administration from George Washington University in the United States. He is married with a 1-year-old daughter.

For some years, the focus of the opposition - both of Guaido and his mentor, Leopoldo Lopez, the well-known head of the Popular Will party, currently under house arrest - has been ousting Maduro from power.

Representing Vargas for Popular Will, Guaido assumed the parliament's leadership as part of a power-sharing agreement between Venezuela's main opposition parties. He has said little about what policies he would pursue as president, but Popular Will describe themselves as center-left social democrats.

Guaido was dragged out of his car on the highway and detained by intelligence agents last week, but was swiftly released. Government officials said the officers responsible would be punished.

His whereabouts on Wednesday evening were unknown.

Guaido has said he is not afraid of being arrested, boosting his popularity among Venezuelans tired with Maduro.

"I am giving Guaido my vote of confidence," said Jose Luis Galindo, a Caracas firefighter wearing a gas mask around his neck at a protest against Maduro on Wednesday.

"It is time to escape from this anarchy we have lived through for more than 20 years. I am here for my children's future, and I will stay for as long as it takes."

In less than a month, Juan Guaido has gone from a virtual unknown in Venezuelan politics to the country's most-watched figure, assuming the presidency of the opposition-controlled congress and briefly being detained by the secret police.

In less than a month, Juan Guaido has gone from a virtual unknown in Venezuelan politics to the country's most-watched figure, assuming the presidency of the opposition-controlled congress and briefly being detained by the secret police. On Wednesday, the skinny 35-year-old from the South American country's hardscrabble Caribbean coast thrust himself onto the international stage with the boldest challenge to socialist President Nicolas Maduro's rule in years: he declared himself interim president, a move swiftly recognized by the United States, Canada and many Latin American countries. His rapid ascent has raised hopes that he could fill a leadership vacuum in Venezuela's notoriously divided opposition, which has failed in several attempts to oust Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez. Many of its most prominent figures have been jailed, exiled or barred from seeking public office. The salsa-loving baseball fan has animated the opposition's upper-class base and won over many working-class Venezuelans fed up with the country's hyperinflationary economic collapse, who have taken to the streets demanding Maduro step down. Yet Guaido still needs the backing of the armed forces to achieve his goal of forcing new elections. "Today in Venezuela we are living under a dictatorship, and we need to put on enough pressure to take control," Guaido, the grandson of National Guard and Navy officers, said in an interview with Reuters this week. He has proposed an amnesty for members of the military, but said members of the Maduro government who committed human rights violations should be punished. "I do not intend to heal the wounds of 20 years, but nor do I intend to hide them." Guaido took the helm of the National Assembly on January 5 with a call for the armed forces to recognize Maduro as a "usurper" after his May 2018 re-election vote, widely viewed as fraudulent. The eldest of six children from a working-class family in the coastal state of Vargas, Guaido survived a devastating 1999 mudslide that posed one of the earliest tests to Chavez's 14-year rule. He went on to study engineering, but became involved in politics while at university and received a master's in public administration from George Washington University in the United States. He is married with a 1-year-old daughter. For some years, the focus of the opposition - both of Guaido and his mentor, Leopoldo Lopez, the well-known head of the Popular Will party, currently under house arrest - has been ousting Maduro from power. Representing Vargas for Popular Will, Guaido assumed the parliament's leadership as part of a power-sharing agreement between Venezuela's main opposition parties. He has said little about what policies he would pursue as president, but Popular Will describe themselves as center-left social democrats. Guaido was dragged out of his car on the highway and detained by intelligence agents last week, but was swiftly released. Government officials said the officers responsible would be punished. His whereabouts on Wednesday evening were unknown. Guaido has said he is not afraid of being arrested, boosting his popularity among Venezuelans tired with Maduro. "I am giving Guaido my vote of confidence," said Jose Luis Galindo, a Caracas firefighter wearing a gas mask around his neck at a protest against Maduro on Wednesday. "It is time to escape from this anarchy we have lived through for more than 20 years. I am here for my children's future, and I will stay for as long as it takes."

In a month, Venezuela's Guaido emerged from obscurity to challenge Maduro

The United States and major South American nations recognised Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim leader Wednesday while the EU called for free elections to restore democracy, leaving <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/maduro-lacks-authority-to-snap-ties-expel-diplomats-us-192341">President Nicolas Maduro</a> increasingly isolated.

Major regional players Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Argentina all gave their backing to Guaido's self-proclamation as acting president, which he made in front of crowd of tens of thousands of supporters in the capital Caracas.

Cuba, however, sprang to the defence of its socialist ally, expressing "solidarity" with Maduro while Mexico extended lukewarm support to him.

The avalanche of support for Guaido dramatically raised the stakes in Venezuela, an oil-rich nation that has become deeply impoverished under Maduro.

Maduro has clung to power through the support of the Venezuelan military, and he is an ally of Russia, which last month sent two nuclear-capable bombers to the country to participate in a military drill.

Just minutes after Guaido's declaration, US President Donald Trump recognised him as interim leader, and declared his National Assembly was "the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people".

"The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law," Trump said.

The US said it stood ready to use "all options" if Maduro tries to quash the opposition, in what was an implied threat of military force.

Maduro responded by saying he was cutting off diplomatic ties with Washington, as his riot police clashed with opposition supporters in Caracas.

"Get Out! Leave Venezuela. Here we have dignity, damn it," Maduro said, giving US diplomats 72 hours to depart.

But Guaido tweeted in response that, under him, Venezuela wants countries "to maintain their diplomatic presence in our country".

And the US State Department said "former president Maduro" did not have the authority to sever relations.

Broadening support

Tweeting from the Swiss ski resort of Davos, where he and other leaders were attending the World Economic Forum, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro said: "Brazil recognises Mr. Juan Guaido as Venezuela's interim president."

He added that "Brazil will support politically and economically the process of transition so that democracy and social peace return to Venezuela".

Bolsonaro, a far-right former paratrooper who has set about forging close ties with the Trump administration since taking power at the beginning of January, has repeatedly vowed to challenge Maduro in any way he can.

He initially said he was open to discussing Brazil hosting a US military base, before changing his mind when the idea sparked objections from his military brass.

Colombian President Ivan Duque, another US ally also at Davos, told reporters his country was behind Guaido and will "accompany this process of transition to democracy so that the Venezuelan people free themselves of their dictatorship".

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland expressed her country's "full support" for Guaido, adding: "It's an important day for Venezuela and I'm grateful for the solidarity of the Lima Group in speaking out on this."

Eleven members of the 14-nation Lima Group -- Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru -- later issued a joint statement endorsing Guaido as interim president.

The three holdouts included Mexico, which has maintained a principle of non-intervention under leftist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, as well as Guyana and Saint Lucia.

The United States is not a member but supports the group, which has taken an increasingly strident stance against Maduro, whom it sees as anti-democratic.&nbsp;

The European Union did not join the countries lining up behind Guaido but called for "free and credible elections".

"The EU strongly calls for the start of an immediate political process leading to free and credible elections, in conformity with the constitutional order," the bloc's diplomatic chief Federica Mogherini said in a statement.

The bloc and its member states "remain ready to support the restoration of democracy and rule of law in Venezuela through a credible peaceful political process in line with the Venezuelan constitution", she added.

And EU Council President Donald Tusk tweeted that "I hope that all of Europe will unite in support of democratic forces in Venezuela".

He added: "Unlike Maduro, the parliamentary assembly, including Juan Guaido have a democratic mandate from Venezuelan citizens."

The United States and major South American nations recognised Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim leader Wednesday while the EU called for free elections to restore democracy, leaving President Nicolas Maduro increasingly isolated.

The United States and major South American nations recognised Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim leader Wednesday while the EU called for free elections to restore democracy, leaving President Nicolas Maduro increasingly isolated. Major regional players Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Argentina all gave their backing to Guaido's self-proclamation as acting president, which he made in front of crowd of tens of thousands of supporters in the capital Caracas. Cuba, however, sprang to the defence of its socialist ally, expressing "solidarity" with Maduro while Mexico extended lukewarm support to him. The avalanche of support for Guaido dramatically raised the stakes in Venezuela, an oil-rich nation that has become deeply impoverished under Maduro. Maduro has clung to power through the support of the Venezuelan military, and he is an ally of Russia, which last month sent two nuclear-capable bombers to the country to participate in a military drill. Just minutes after Guaido's declaration, US President Donald Trump recognised him as interim leader, and declared his National Assembly was "the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people". "The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law," Trump said. The US said it stood ready to use "all options" if Maduro tries to quash the opposition, in what was an implied threat of military force. Maduro responded by saying he was cutting off diplomatic ties with Washington, as his riot police clashed with opposition supporters in Caracas. "Get Out! Leave Venezuela. Here we have dignity, damn it," Maduro said, giving US diplomats 72 hours to depart. But Guaido tweeted in response that, under him, Venezuela wants countries "to maintain their diplomatic presence in our country". And the US State Department said "former president Maduro" did not have the authority to sever relations. Broadening support Tweeting from the Swiss ski resort of Davos, where he and other leaders were attending the World Economic Forum, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro said: "Brazil recognises Mr. Juan Guaido as Venezuela's interim president." He added that "Brazil will support politically and economically the process of transition so that democracy and social peace return to Venezuela". Bolsonaro, a far-right former paratrooper who has set about forging close ties with the Trump administration since taking power at the beginning of January, has repeatedly vowed to challenge Maduro in any way he can. He initially said he was open to discussing Brazil hosting a US military base, before changing his mind when the idea sparked objections from his military brass. Colombian President Ivan Duque, another US ally also at Davos, told reporters his country was behind Guaido and will "accompany this process of transition to democracy so that the Venezuelan people free themselves of their dictatorship". Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland expressed her country's "full support" for Guaido, adding: "It's an important day for Venezuela and I'm grateful for the solidarity of the Lima Group in speaking out on this." Eleven members of the 14-nation Lima Group -- Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru -- later issued a joint statement endorsing Guaido as interim president. The three holdouts included Mexico, which has maintained a principle of non-intervention under leftist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, as well as Guyana and Saint Lucia. The United States is not a member but supports the group, which has taken an increasingly strident stance against Maduro, whom it sees as anti-democratic. The European Union did not join the countries lining up behind Guaido but called for "free and credible elections". "The EU strongly calls for the start of an immediate political process leading to free and credible elections, in conformity with the constitutional order," the bloc's diplomatic chief Federica Mogherini said in a statement. The bloc and its member states "remain ready to support the restoration of democracy and rule of law in Venezuela through a credible peaceful political process in line with the Venezuelan constitution", she added. And EU Council President Donald Tusk tweeted that "I hope that all of Europe will unite in support of democratic forces in Venezuela". He added: "Unlike Maduro, the parliamentary assembly, including Juan Guaido have a democratic mandate from Venezuelan citizens."

US, regional powers say they recognise President Maduro's opponent as leader of Venezuela

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/13-dead-in-two-days-of-venezuela-unrest-rights-group-192340">Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro</a> has no authority to sever relations with the United States, the State Department said Wednesday, hitting back after the leftist leader gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country.

"The United States does not recognize the Maduro regime as the government of Venezuela," a statement said.

"Accordingly the United States does not consider former president Nicolas Maduro to have the legal authority to break diplomatic relations with the United States or to declare our diplomats persona non grata."

The statement added that Washington, which backed opposition-led legislature head Juan Guaido's decision to proclaim himself "acting president," welcomed the new leader's decision to maintain diplomatic relations with all countries.&nbsp;

"The United States stands with interim President Juan Guaido, the democratically elected National Assembly, and the people of Venezuela as they peacefully restore constitutional order to their country. &nbsp;

"We stand ready to support interim President Guaido as he establishes a transitional government and carries out his constitutional duties as interim President, including determining the status of diplomatic representatives in the United States and other countries."

It closed with a call for the Venezuelan military, whose support is crucial for Maduro to maintain his hold on power, "to continue protecting the welfare and well-being of all Venezuelan citizens, as well as US and other foreign citizens in Venezuela."

"The United States will take appropriate actions to hold accountable anyone who endangers the safety and security of our mission and its personnel," the statement warned.

Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro has no authority to sever relations with the United States, the State Department said Wednesday, hitting back after the leftist leader gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country.

Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro has no authority to sever relations with the United States, the State Department said Wednesday, hitting back after the leftist leader gave American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country. "The United States does not recognize the Maduro regime as the government of Venezuela," a statement said. "Accordingly the United States does not consider former president Nicolas Maduro to have the legal authority to break diplomatic relations with the United States or to declare our diplomats persona non grata." The statement added that Washington, which backed opposition-led legislature head Juan Guaido's decision to proclaim himself "acting president," welcomed the new leader's decision to maintain diplomatic relations with all countries. "The United States stands with interim President Juan Guaido, the democratically elected National Assembly, and the people of Venezuela as they peacefully restore constitutional order to their country. "We stand ready to support interim President Guaido as he establishes a transitional government and carries out his constitutional duties as interim President, including determining the status of diplomatic representatives in the United States and other countries." It closed with a call for the Venezuelan military, whose support is crucial for Maduro to maintain his hold on power, "to continue protecting the welfare and well-being of all Venezuelan citizens, as well as US and other foreign citizens in Venezuela." "The United States will take appropriate actions to hold accountable anyone who endangers the safety and security of our mission and its personnel," the statement warned.

Maduro gives American diplomats 72 hours to leave, US says he doesn't have the authority

A gunman killed at least five people Thursday at a bank in Sebring, Florida in the southern United States, police said.

"We have at least five victims, people who were senselessly murdered," Police Chief Karl Hoglund told a news conference.

The alleged shooter, identified as a 21-year-old resident of Sebring, has been taken into custody, Hoglund said.

Their motive was not immediately clear, and the investigation into the shooting is ongoing.

The US is plagued by frequent mass shootings and other gun violence that killed nearly 40,000 people in the US in 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But despite the scale of the problem, legislative efforts to address it have largely deadlocked for years at the federal level due to opposition to stricter firearm laws from National Rifle Association lobby and its supporters.

A gunman killed at least five people Thursday at a bank in Sebring, Florida in the southern United States, police said. "We have at least five victims, people who were senselessly murdered," Police Chief Karl Hoglund told a news conference.

A gunman killed at least five people Thursday at a bank in Sebring, Florida in the southern United States, police said. "We have at least five victims, people who were senselessly murdered," Police Chief Karl Hoglund told a news conference. The alleged shooter, identified as a 21-year-old resident of Sebring, has been taken into custody, Hoglund said. Their motive was not immediately clear, and the investigation into the shooting is ongoing. The US is plagued by frequent mass shootings and other gun violence that killed nearly 40,000 people in the US in 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But despite the scale of the problem, legislative efforts to address it have largely deadlocked for years at the federal level due to opposition to stricter firearm laws from National Rifle Association lobby and its supporters.

Gunman kills five at US bank: Police

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde on Thursday reiterated that the major risk facing the global economy was the trade tension between China and the United States, reported Reuters.

She said it could precipitate the slowdown of the Chinese economy.

"A slowdown of China is fine. It's legitimate," Lagarde told delegates at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "But if the slowdown was fast, it would constitute a real issue," she said.

Lagarde said this at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde on Thursday reiterated that the major risk facing the global economy was the trade tension between China and the United States, reported Reuters.

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde on Thursday reiterated that the major risk facing the global economy was the trade tension between China and the United States, reported Reuters. She said it could precipitate the slowdown of the Chinese economy. "A slowdown of China is fine. It's legitimate," Lagarde told delegates at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "But if the slowdown was fast, it would constitute a real issue," she said. Lagarde said this at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. (With inputs from Reuters)

China-US trade tension a major risk to global growth: IMF chief

Google disclosed in a quarterly filing on Tuesday that it spent a company-record $21.2 million on lobbying the US government in 2018, topping its previous high of $18.22 million in 2012, as the search engine operator fights wide-ranging scrutiny into its practices.

In its filing to Congress on Tuesday, Facebook&nbsp;disclosed that it also spent more on government lobbying in 2018 than it ever had before at $12.62 million.

That was up from $11.51 million a year ago, according to tracking by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Google's spent $18.04 million on lobbying in 2017, according to the centre's data.

Google and Facebook declined to comment beyond their filings.

US lawmakers and regulators have weighed new privacy and antitrust rules to rein in the power of large internet service providers such as Google, Facebook and Amazon. Regulatory backlash in the United States, as well as Europe and Asia, is near the top of the list of concerns for technology investors, according to financial analysts.

Microsoft Corp spent $9.52 million on lobbying in 2018, according to its disclosure on Tuesday, up from $8.5 million in 2017 but below it's $10.5 million tabs in 2013.

Apple Inc spent $6.62 million last year, compared to its record of $7.15 million in 2017, according to centre data going back to 1998.

Apple and Microsoft did not respond to requests to comment. A filing from Amazon was expected later on Tuesday.

Google disclosed that new discussion topics with regulators in the fourth quarter included its search technology, criminal justice reform and international tax reform. The company is perennially among the top spenders on lobbying in Washington along with a few cable operators, defence contractors and healthcare firms.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai, who testified in December before a US House of Representatives panel for the first time, has said the company backs the idea of national privacy legislation. But he has contested accusations of the company having a political bias in its search results and of stifling competition.

Susan Molinari, Google's top US public policy official, stepped down to take on an advisory role this month.

Facebook said discussing "election integrity" with national security officials was among its new lobbying areas in the fourth quarter. The filing said the company continued to lobby the Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating its data security practices.

Google disclosed in a quarterly filing on Tuesday that it spent a company-record $21.2 million on lobbying the US government in 2018, topping its previous high of $18.

Google disclosed in a quarterly filing on Tuesday that it spent a company-record $21.2 million on lobbying the US government in 2018, topping its previous high of $18.22 million in 2012, as the search engine operator fights wide-ranging scrutiny into its practices. In its filing to Congress on Tuesday, Facebook disclosed that it also spent more on government lobbying in 2018 than it ever had before at $12.62 million. That was up from $11.51 million a year ago, according to tracking by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Google's spent $18.04 million on lobbying in 2017, according to the centre's data. Google and Facebook declined to comment beyond their filings. US lawmakers and regulators have weighed new privacy and antitrust rules to rein in the power of large internet service providers such as Google, Facebook and Amazon. Regulatory backlash in the United States, as well as Europe and Asia, is near the top of the list of concerns for technology investors, according to financial analysts. Microsoft Corp spent $9.52 million on lobbying in 2018, according to its disclosure on Tuesday, up from $8.5 million in 2017 but below it's $10.5 million tabs in 2013. Apple Inc spent $6.62 million last year, compared to its record of $7.15 million in 2017, according to centre data going back to 1998. Apple and Microsoft did not respond to requests to comment. A filing from Amazon was expected later on Tuesday. Google disclosed that new discussion topics with regulators in the fourth quarter included its search technology, criminal justice reform and international tax reform. The company is perennially among the top spenders on lobbying in Washington along with a few cable operators, defence contractors and healthcare firms. Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai, who testified in December before a US House of Representatives panel for the first time, has said the company backs the idea of national privacy legislation. But he has contested accusations of the company having a political bias in its search results and of stifling competition. Susan Molinari, Google's top US public policy official, stepped down to take on an advisory role this month. Facebook said discussing "election integrity" with national security officials was among its new lobbying areas in the fourth quarter. The filing said the company continued to lobby the Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating its data security practices.

Google, Facebook spend big on US lobbying amid policy battles

US Vice President Mike Pence issued a video message of support to Venezuelans on Tuesday to encourage <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-military-group-rises-against-maduro-arrested-191964">those who are protesting against President Nicolas Maduro</a> and underline US backing for opposition leader Juan Guaido.

Venezuela's opposition on Wednesday plans to hold marches nationwide as part of an annual event that marks the fall of a military government in 1958. Government critics are increasingly comparing Maduro to dictator Marcos Perez, who was pushed from power that year.

In a taped video message in English with a few Spanish words and phrases mixed in, Pence, who has lashed out at Maduro before, declared him a "dictator" who has no rightful claim to power.

"On behalf of President Donald Trump and all the American people, let me express the unwavering support of the United States as you, the people of Venezuela, raise your voices in a call for freedom," Pence said after offering a greeting of "hola," which means "hello" in Spanish.

"Nicolas Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power. He has never won the presidency in a free and fair election, and has maintained his grip of power by imprisoning anyone who dares to oppose him."

Pence declared US support again for Guaido, with whom he spoke by phone earlier this month, and the National Assembly, which he leads, as the "last vestige of democracy." Pence said Washington supported Guaido's decision to assert the body's powers, declare Maduro a "usurper" and push for a transitional government to be established.

"As you make your voices heard tomorrow, on behalf of the American people, we say to all the good people of Venezuela: estamos con ustedes," Pence said, following up with the translation in English: "We are with you, we stand with you, and we will stay with you until democracy is restored and you reclaim your birthright of libertad."

Maduro was inaugurated on January 10 amid worldwide criticism that his leadership was illegitimate after a 2018 election that was widely viewed as fraudulent.

In response to Pence's comments, Maduro accused him of trying to force a coup and said he had ordered a revision of Venezuela's diplomatic relations with the United States.

"Never before has a high-level official said that the opposition should overthrow the government," Maduro told a news conference. The US embassy in Caracas did not respond to a request to comment.

Pence has largely taken the lead within the Trump administration in condemning Maduro. He called the inauguration a sham and made clear the United States did not recognise the election result.

US Vice President Mike Pence issued a video message of support to Venezuelans on Tuesday to encourage those who are protesting against President Nicolas Maduro and underline US backing for opposition leader Juan Guaido.

US Vice President Mike Pence issued a video message of support to Venezuelans on Tuesday to encourage those who are protesting against President Nicolas Maduro and underline US backing for opposition leader Juan Guaido. Venezuela's opposition on Wednesday plans to hold marches nationwide as part of an annual event that marks the fall of a military government in 1958. Government critics are increasingly comparing Maduro to dictator Marcos Perez, who was pushed from power that year. In a taped video message in English with a few Spanish words and phrases mixed in, Pence, who has lashed out at Maduro before, declared him a "dictator" who has no rightful claim to power. "On behalf of President Donald Trump and all the American people, let me express the unwavering support of the United States as you, the people of Venezuela, raise your voices in a call for freedom," Pence said after offering a greeting of "hola," which means "hello" in Spanish. "Nicolas Maduro is a dictator with no legitimate claim to power. He has never won the presidency in a free and fair election, and has maintained his grip of power by imprisoning anyone who dares to oppose him." Pence declared US support again for Guaido, with whom he spoke by phone earlier this month, and the National Assembly, which he leads, as the "last vestige of democracy." Pence said Washington supported Guaido's decision to assert the body's powers, declare Maduro a "usurper" and push for a transitional government to be established. "As you make your voices heard tomorrow, on behalf of the American people, we say to all the good people of Venezuela: estamos con ustedes," Pence said, following up with the translation in English: "We are with you, we stand with you, and we will stay with you until democracy is restored and you reclaim your birthright of libertad." Maduro was inaugurated on January 10 amid worldwide criticism that his leadership was illegitimate after a 2018 election that was widely viewed as fraudulent. In response to Pence's comments, Maduro accused him of trying to force a coup and said he had ordered a revision of Venezuela's diplomatic relations with the United States. "Never before has a high-level official said that the opposition should overthrow the government," Maduro told a news conference. The US embassy in Caracas did not respond to a request to comment. Pence has largely taken the lead within the Trump administration in condemning Maduro. He called the inauguration a sham and made clear the United States did not recognise the election result.

Hola, I'm Mike Pence: US VP encourages Venezuelans to protest against President Maduro

Moscow on Wednesday insisted the range of a missile system that has prompted Washington to say it will withdraw from a key Cold War arms treaty is allowed under the agreement.

Russian artillery chief Mikhail Matveevsky told a briefing that the 9M729 missile's maximum range is 480 kilometres (300 miles).

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty bans missiles with a range above 500 kilometres.

Russia has long denied it violates the treaty but Wednesday's briefing was the first time it has offered details of the missiles in question.&nbsp;

"The distance was confirmed during strategic command and staff exercises" in 2017, Matveevsky told an audience of journalists and military attaches.&nbsp;

The United States and Russia agreed to the INF treaty in 1987.

Last month Washington gave Russia a 60-day deadline -- which ends on February 2 -- to dismantle the missiles it claims breach the agreement or the US would begin the six-month process of formally withdrawing from the deal.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Moscow is ready to work with Washington to save the agreement, after bilateral talks in Geneva on the INF this month failed to resolve the impasse.&nbsp;

Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to develop nuclear missiles banned under the INF treaty if it is scrapped.&nbsp;

He said in December he was open to the idea of other countries joining the deal or to starting talks on a new agreement.

Moscow on Wednesday insisted the range of a missile system that has prompted Washington to say it will withdraw from a key Cold War arms treaty is allowed under the agreement.

Moscow on Wednesday insisted the range of a missile system that has prompted Washington to say it will withdraw from a key Cold War arms treaty is allowed under the agreement. Russian artillery chief Mikhail Matveevsky told a briefing that the 9M729 missile's maximum range is 480 kilometres (300 miles). The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty bans missiles with a range above 500 kilometres. Russia has long denied it violates the treaty but Wednesday's briefing was the first time it has offered details of the missiles in question. "The distance was confirmed during strategic command and staff exercises" in 2017, Matveevsky told an audience of journalists and military attaches. The United States and Russia agreed to the INF treaty in 1987. Last month Washington gave Russia a 60-day deadline -- which ends on February 2 -- to dismantle the missiles it claims breach the agreement or the US would begin the six-month process of formally withdrawing from the deal. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Moscow is ready to work with Washington to save the agreement, after bilateral talks in Geneva on the INF this month failed to resolve the impasse. Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to develop nuclear missiles banned under the INF treaty if it is scrapped. He said in December he was open to the idea of other countries joining the deal or to starting talks on a new agreement.

Russia says range of disputed missile is allowed under INF treaty

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/without-a-wall-our-country-can-never-have-national-security-says-trump-as-government-shutdown-enters-second-month-192081">United States</a> has rejected Beijing's offer to hold preparatory talks in Washington ahead of next week's high-level trade delegation, according to media reports.

The reports by The Financial Times and CNBC sent US stocks sharply lower, reviving fears that efforts to resolve the US-China trade war could fail.&nbsp;

Citing a lack of progress on some of the thorniest issues in the trade&nbsp;dispute -- including allegedly forced technology transfers and structural reforms to China's economy -- Washington cancelled plans for a face-to-face preparatory meeting this week, according to The Times.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is due to travel to the United States next week as the two sides work to resolve their disagreements by March 1, when a 90-day truce is due to expire, allowing US import duties on Chinese goods to increase sharply.

The US Treasury Department and Office of the US Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Chinese economy last year posted its slowest annual growth in nearly three decades, according to official figures published Monday in Beijing.

The trade war has weighed heavily on the outlook for the world's second-largest economy.

Already lower due to downgraded global economic forecasts, Wall Street fell even further after the reports were published, with the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average down 1.6 per cent shortly before 2000 GMT.

Soy and corn futures also fell on fears Beijing was less likely to resume imports.

The United States has rejected Beijing's offer to hold preparatory talks in Washington ahead of next week's high-level trade delegation, according to media reports.

The United States has rejected Beijing's offer to hold preparatory talks in Washington ahead of next week's high-level trade delegation, according to media reports. The reports by The Financial Times and CNBC sent US stocks sharply lower, reviving fears that efforts to resolve the US-China trade war could fail. Citing a lack of progress on some of the thorniest issues in the trade dispute -- including allegedly forced technology transfers and structural reforms to China's economy -- Washington cancelled plans for a face-to-face preparatory meeting this week, according to The Times. Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is due to travel to the United States next week as the two sides work to resolve their disagreements by March 1, when a 90-day truce is due to expire, allowing US import duties on Chinese goods to increase sharply. The US Treasury Department and Office of the US Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Chinese economy last year posted its slowest annual growth in nearly three decades, according to official figures published Monday in Beijing. The trade war has weighed heavily on the outlook for the world's second-largest economy. Already lower due to downgraded global economic forecasts, Wall Street fell even further after the reports were published, with the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average down 1.6 per cent shortly before 2000 GMT. Soy and corn futures also fell on fears Beijing was less likely to resume imports.

US rejects advance trade meeting with China: Reports

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

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

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

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

A strong 6.1-magnitude<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/factbox-earthquakes-and-tsunamis-indonesia-168479"> earthquake struck off the Indonesian</a> coast early Tuesday, but no tsunami warning was issued and there were no immediate reports of damage.

The quake hit at a depth of 31 kilometres (19 miles) off Sumba island, some 150 kilometres west southwest of the city of Waingapu, according to the United States Geological Survey.

It was followed by a weaker quake in the same area with an initial reading of 5.2 magnitude, according to Indonesia's disaster agency.

There were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.

Indonesia is still reeling from a deadly tsunami at the end of December triggered by an erupting volcano in the middle of the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra islands that killed more than 400 people.

The vast Southeast Asian archipelago is one of the most disaster-hit nations on Earth due to its position straddling the so-called Pacific Ring of Fire, where tectonic plates collide.

The tsunami was Indonesia's third major natural disaster in six months, following a series of powerful earthquakes on the island of Lombok in July and August and a quake-tsunami in September that killed around 2,200 people in Palu on Sulawesi island, with thousands more missing and presumed dead.&nbsp;

A strong 6.1-magnitude earthquake struck off the Indonesian coast early Tuesday, but no tsunami warning was issued and there were no immediate reports of damage.

A strong 6.1-magnitude earthquake struck off the Indonesian coast early Tuesday, but no tsunami warning was issued and there were no immediate reports of damage. The quake hit at a depth of 31 kilometres (19 miles) off Sumba island, some 150 kilometres west southwest of the city of Waingapu, according to the United States Geological Survey. It was followed by a weaker quake in the same area with an initial reading of 5.2 magnitude, according to Indonesia's disaster agency. There were no immediate reports of damage or casualties. Indonesia is still reeling from a deadly tsunami at the end of December triggered by an erupting volcano in the middle of the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra islands that killed more than 400 people. The vast Southeast Asian archipelago is one of the most disaster-hit nations on Earth due to its position straddling the so-called Pacific Ring of Fire, where tectonic plates collide. The tsunami was Indonesia's third major natural disaster in six months, following a series of powerful earthquakes on the island of Lombok in July and August and a quake-tsunami in September that killed around 2,200 people in Palu on Sulawesi island, with thousands more missing and presumed dead.

Strong 6.1-magnitude earthquake strikes Indonesia coast

Japan has started the process of importing Iranian oil, which was suspended due to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-give-iran-oil-sanctions-waiver-to-eight-countries-including-india-south-korea-japan-report-175107">US sanctions</a>, the governor of Iran's central bank said on Monday.

The resumption of oil imports comes after Tokyo was granted a waiver from US sanctions that went into effect in November. Iran is the fourth-largest oil producer among the members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"After China, South Korea, India and Turkey, Japan also started the process of importing Iranian oil," Abdolnaser Hemmati was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA.

Iran's oil exports have fallen sharply since US President Donald Trump said in May 2018 the United States would withdraw from a pact curtailing Iran's disputed nuclear programme and reimpose sanctions on Tehran.

However, exemptions have been granted to Iran's biggest oil clients - Japan, China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy, Greece and Turkey - which allow them to import some oil for another 180 days.

Iranian oil accounted for 5.3 per cent of Japan's total crude imports in 2018.

Japan has started the process of importing Iranian oil, which was suspended due to US sanctions, the governor of Iran's central bank said on Monday. The resumption of oil imports comes after Tokyo was granted a waiver from US sanctions that went into effect in November.

Japan has started the process of importing Iranian oil, which was suspended due to US sanctions, the governor of Iran's central bank said on Monday. The resumption of oil imports comes after Tokyo was granted a waiver from US sanctions that went into effect in November. Iran is the fourth-largest oil producer among the members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. "After China, South Korea, India and Turkey, Japan also started the process of importing Iranian oil," Abdolnaser Hemmati was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA. Iran's oil exports have fallen sharply since US President Donald Trump said in May 2018 the United States would withdraw from a pact curtailing Iran's disputed nuclear programme and reimpose sanctions on Tehran. However, exemptions have been granted to Iran's biggest oil clients - Japan, China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy, Greece and Turkey - which allow them to import some oil for another 180 days. Iranian oil accounted for 5.3 per cent of Japan's total crude imports in 2018.

Iran says Japan has started process of importing Iranian oil

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-on-afghanistan-arrives-in-pakistan-for-talks-191047&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjpiZ731fbfAhWPUd4KHWZ0A5IQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1M92pH1gWfzbOOYHqDqGeX">Pakistan</a> may view a weak and destabilised Afghanistan as preferable to a strong and unified one, according to a Congressional report which also highlights India's lack of desire to pursue deeper defense cooperation with Kabul.

The report "Afghanistan: Background and US Policy in Brief" prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) comes amidst intensification of efforts by the Trump administration to hold peace talks with the Taliban by seeking the help of Pakistan.

US special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad Thursday held talks with Pakistan's Foreign Secretary in Islamabad after extensive discussions in Kabul as part of his efforts to arrange the first-ever direct talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

Khalilzad arrived in Pakistan to seek Islamabad's help to convince the Taliban to return to the negotiating table to end the 17-year-long Afghan war.

"Pakistan may view a weak and destabilised Afghanistan as preferable to a strong, unified Afghan state (particularly one led by a Pashtun-dominated government in Kabul; Pakistan has a large Pashtun minority)," the CRS said in its report for lawmakers on Thursday.

However, it said that at least some Pakistani leaders had stated that instability in Afghanistan could rebind to Pakistan's detriment; Pakistan has struggled with indigenous Islamist militants of its own.

"Afghanistan-Pakistan relations are further complicated by the large Afghan refugee population in Pakistan and a long-standing border dispute over which violence has broken out on several occasions," said the report.

"Pakistan sees Afghanistan as potentially providing strategic depth against India, but may also anticipate that improved relations with Afghanistan's leadership could limit India's influence in Afghanistan," said the report, a copy of which was made available to PTI.

India's interest in Afghanistan stems largely from India's broader regional rivalry with Pakistan, which impedes Indian efforts to establish stronger and more direct commercial and political relations with Central Asia, it said.

The report said that India has been the largest regional contributor to Afghan reconstruction, but New Delhi has not shown an inclination to pursue a deeper defense relationship with Kabul.

The Afghans themselves appear divided on the wisdom of cultivating stronger ties with India, it observed.

The report concludes <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/karnataka-bjp-mlas-to-take-call-on-returning-to-state-after-congress-legislature-party-meeting-190946&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjfksOd1vbfAhUEEnIKHdPBCFcQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0YZkIQg1g5fuRp0k4ZOlqC">Congress</a> could also seek to help shape the US approach to potential negotiations around amending the Constitution or otherwise altering the highly centralised Afghan political system, through legislation and public statements.

The core issues for Congress include its role in authorising, appropriating funds for, and overseeing US military activities, aid, and regional policy implementation, it said.

Members of Congress may also examine how the US can leverage its assets, influence, and experience in Afghanistan, as well as those of Afghanistan's neighbours and international organisations to encourage more equal, inclusive and effective governance, the report said.

The CRS is an independent and bipartisan research wing of the US Congress. It prepares reports on various issues of relevance for the US lawmakers to make an informative decision. These are not official views of the US Congress.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Pakistan may view a weak and destabilised Afghanistan as preferable to a strong and unified one, according to a Congressional report which also highlights India's lack of desire to pursue deeper defense cooperation with Kabul.

Pakistan may view a weak and destabilised Afghanistan as preferable to a strong and unified one, according to a Congressional report which also highlights India's lack of desire to pursue deeper defense cooperation with Kabul. The report "Afghanistan: Background and US Policy in Brief" prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) comes amidst intensification of efforts by the Trump administration to hold peace talks with the Taliban by seeking the help of Pakistan. US special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad Thursday held talks with Pakistan's Foreign Secretary in Islamabad after extensive discussions in Kabul as part of his efforts to arrange the first-ever direct talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. Khalilzad arrived in Pakistan to seek Islamabad's help to convince the Taliban to return to the negotiating table to end the 17-year-long Afghan war. "Pakistan may view a weak and destabilised Afghanistan as preferable to a strong, unified Afghan state (particularly one led by a Pashtun-dominated government in Kabul; Pakistan has a large Pashtun minority)," the CRS said in its report for lawmakers on Thursday. However, it said that at least some Pakistani leaders had stated that instability in Afghanistan could rebind to Pakistan's detriment; Pakistan has struggled with indigenous Islamist militants of its own. "Afghanistan-Pakistan relations are further complicated by the large Afghan refugee population in Pakistan and a long-standing border dispute over which violence has broken out on several occasions," said the report. "Pakistan sees Afghanistan as potentially providing strategic depth against India, but may also anticipate that improved relations with Afghanistan's leadership could limit India's influence in Afghanistan," said the report, a copy of which was made available to PTI. India's interest in Afghanistan stems largely from India's broader regional rivalry with Pakistan, which impedes Indian efforts to establish stronger and more direct commercial and political relations with Central Asia, it said. The report said that India has been the largest regional contributor to Afghan reconstruction, but New Delhi has not shown an inclination to pursue a deeper defense relationship with Kabul. The Afghans themselves appear divided on the wisdom of cultivating stronger ties with India, it observed. The report concludes Congress could also seek to help shape the US approach to potential negotiations around amending the Constitution or otherwise altering the highly centralised Afghan political system, through legislation and public statements. The core issues for Congress include its role in authorising, appropriating funds for, and overseeing US military activities, aid, and regional policy implementation, it said. Members of Congress may also examine how the US can leverage its assets, influence, and experience in Afghanistan, as well as those of Afghanistan's neighbours and international organisations to encourage more equal, inclusive and effective governance, the report said. The CRS is an independent and bipartisan research wing of the US Congress. It prepares reports on various issues of relevance for the US lawmakers to make an informative decision. These are not official views of the US Congress.

Pak may prefer weak, destabilised Afghanistan to strong, unified State: Report

Pentagon's missile defence review (MDR) 2019 has said the United States has discussed "potential missile defence cooperation" with India. The MDR 2019 said the discussion is part of "natural outgrowth" of India’s status as a major defence partner and "a key element of our Indo-Pacific Strategy." The talks between Washington and New Delhi happen even as "number of states in South Asia are developing an advanced and diverse range of ballistic and cruise missile capabilities," the review added.

MDR describes the policies, strategies, and capabilities that will guide the Pentagon's missile defence programs for the coming year.

The development comes months after India and Russia signed the S400 deal during President Putin's India visit last year.

The 108-page document talks about Washington's alliance in the Indo Pacific region adding that the cornerstone of "our security and diplomacy in Indo-Pacific region is our strong bilateral alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Australia, "and emerging security relationships with others such as India."

In 2018, US granted India Strategic Trade Authorisation-1 (STA-1). Both New Delhi and Washington signed the COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement).&nbsp;

India is the only South Asian country to get STA1 and third Asian country after Japan and South Korea. The status eases defence procurement from the US.

The COMCASA, is an India specific foundational legal arrangement which helps New Delhi get real-time classified information, especially on maritime development. It was signed in New Delhi during the maiden 2+2 dialogue between American and Indian Defence and foreign diplomats.

The review focused on China and Russia. On China, the review said Beijing "seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and reorder the region to its advantage."

"Offensive missiles play an increasingly prominent role in China’s military modernisation, its coercive threats, and efforts to counter US military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific." The review says China has "deployed 75-100 intercontinental ballistic missiles" and possesses 4 advanced JIN class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).&nbsp;

On Russia, it said that the country is developing "S-500 as an even more modern and technologically advanced air and missile defence system," in addition to this, Moscow "has transferred missile defence technology to China and Iran" both of which are "expanding and modernizing mobile missile defence capabilities."

Russia and China are also developing Potential Adversary Missile Defense and Antisatellite (ASAT) capabilities that could "threaten US space-based assets."

Japan and South Korea are already working with the US to build missile defence systems that are interoperable with US defences. Australia participates in a trilateral discussion on missile defence with the United States and Japan. The United States and Australia meet annually to discuss bilateral missile defence cooperation.&nbsp;

Pentagon's missile defence review (MDR) 2019 has said the United States has discussed "potential missile defence cooperation" with India. The MDR 2019 said the discussion is part of "natural outgrowth" of India’s status as a major defence partner and "a key element of our Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Pentagon's missile defence review (MDR) 2019 has said the United States has discussed "potential missile defence cooperation" with India. The MDR 2019 said the discussion is part of "natural outgrowth" of India’s status as a major defence partner and "a key element of our Indo-Pacific Strategy." The talks between Washington and New Delhi happen even as "number of states in South Asia are developing an advanced and diverse range of ballistic and cruise missile capabilities," the review added. MDR describes the policies, strategies, and capabilities that will guide the Pentagon's missile defence programs for the coming year. The development comes months after India and Russia signed the S400 deal during President Putin's India visit last year. The 108-page document talks about Washington's alliance in the Indo Pacific region adding that the cornerstone of "our security and diplomacy in Indo-Pacific region is our strong bilateral alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Australia, "and emerging security relationships with others such as India." In 2018, US granted India Strategic Trade Authorisation-1 (STA-1). Both New Delhi and Washington signed the COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement). India is the only South Asian country to get STA1 and third Asian country after Japan and South Korea. The status eases defence procurement from the US. The COMCASA, is an India specific foundational legal arrangement which helps New Delhi get real-time classified information, especially on maritime development. It was signed in New Delhi during the maiden 2+2 dialogue between American and Indian Defence and foreign diplomats. The review focused on China and Russia. On China, the review said Beijing "seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and reorder the region to its advantage." "Offensive missiles play an increasingly prominent role in China’s military modernisation, its coercive threats, and efforts to counter US military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific." The review says China has "deployed 75-100 intercontinental ballistic missiles" and possesses 4 advanced JIN class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). On Russia, it said that the country is developing "S-500 as an even more modern and technologically advanced air and missile defence system," in addition to this, Moscow "has transferred missile defence technology to China and Iran" both of which are "expanding and modernizing mobile missile defence capabilities." Russia and China are also developing Potential Adversary Missile Defense and Antisatellite (ASAT) capabilities that could "threaten US space-based assets." Japan and South Korea are already working with the US to build missile defence systems that are interoperable with US defences. Australia participates in a trilateral discussion on missile defence with the United States and Japan. The United States and Australia meet annually to discuss bilateral missile defence cooperation.

US discussed missile defence cooperation with India: Pentagon

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/opinions/why-there-will-be-no-winners-from-the-us-china-trade-war-191220&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwibl46ClfffAhUFQH0KHX_NBDUQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3otA3INlmP6sCB8rwcjZGA">China</a>'s economy grew at its slowest pace in almost three decades in 2018, analysts in an AFP poll said, as the government struggles to contain ballooning debt and a bruising trade war with the United States.

And in a sign of the battle Beijing faces in getting things back on track, the survey of 13 economists also forecast expansion in the last three months to be at its weakest since the global financial crisis 10 years ago.

The figures are the latest in a long-running trend that has prompted officials to vow they will not let the economy "fall off a cliff" and announce support measures including tax cuts and making it easier for banks to lend.

The full-year figure of 6.6 per cent would be the worst since 1990 when the economy was hit by outrage over the Tiananmen Square crackdown a year earlier.

The October-December rate of 6.4 per cent marks the slowest quarter since 2009 and indicates China faces a tough year ahead.

"Economic momentum is clearly slowing," said Raymond Yeung, an economist at ANZ bank.

Economists in China and abroad have long suspected data is massaged upward, often noting that full-year gross domestic product hits Beijing's pre-set targets with suspicious regularity.

A widely respected global business think tank, the US-based Conference Board, says its methodology indicates growth of 4.1 per cent growth for the year.

Relations with a top trading partner the United States deteriorated sharply last year after <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-record-long-government-shutdown-could-be-resolved-in-15-minutes-189918&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiu1YmflfffAhWLqY8KHb1HB_cQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2WItk1bJRC5Ldh7JuLUsA-">President Donald Trump</a> hit roughly half of the Chinese imports with new tariffs in an attempt to force trade concessions from Beijing.

The trade war with the US is on hold for now after President Xi Jinping and Donald Trump agreed to a three-month ceasefire while the two sides try to find a resolution.

China's top negotiator is heading to Washington for talks this month ahead of a March deadline to avoid further tariff hikes, while a report said the US is considering lifting some levies in return for reforms by Beijing.

While analysts say the standoff has dented confidence — leaving the stock markets battered and the yuan weakened — they attribute most the downturn to government policies to tackle growing debt, financial risk, and pollution.

Stimulus measures 
&nbsp; 
The 2018 growth forecast is above the official target of around 6.5 per cent but down from the 6.8 per cent chalked up in the year before — after officials on Friday revised down the 2017 figure.&nbsp;

The National Bureau of Statistics will release its official results on Monday.

After halting some major infrastructure<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-clears-rs-4242-crore-it-filing-project-selects-infosys-as-developer-190802&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi62J6xlfffAhXKQY8KHVusBC8QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1Ah_DbpMf6YyZ__4swefIq"> project</a>s such as subway lines and motorways in the first half of the year to keep a lid on debt, policymakers gradually eased up and encouraged more infrastructure spending in the autumn.

"The squeeze on shadow financing activity took a particularly heavy toll on infrastructure investment," economists at Fitch Ratings wrote in a report, referring to off-the-books loans.

Analysts say the credit tightening also made loans harder to come by for some would-be car buyers, which contributed to annual car sales falling for the first time in more than 20 years.

It is one of a raft of recent economic indicators that point to a deepening slowdown. Imports and exports fell in December while the manufacturing sector contracted for the first time in more than two years.

Chinese officials have announced tax cuts, fee reductions, and cutting red tape, among other measures to stimulate the economy.

"We propose to keep the Chinese economy operating in a reasonable range, which means that we allow the economic growth rate to have certain fluctuations," Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told academics and businessmen this week.

"But it cannot have major ups and major downs, and it cannot 'fall off a cliff'," he said.

'Sword of Damocles'&nbsp;

Li vowed to help private businesses and "take advantage of our massive domestic <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/pound-stands-firm-after-may-loss-asian-equity-markets-rise-190681&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjRldD4lfffAhVIqI8KHRw5B-QQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3ixutNsCQbGuNL0Q91UIzE">market</a>".

With officials intent on not further inflating the debt bubble, and the export picture dimming, it has reinforced the need for China to rely on its legion of consumers to grow its economy.

"We see a fast deceleration on investment and also retail sales, which weigh on the growth slowdown," said Liu Ligang, chief China economist at Citigroup.

"The financial deleveraging made it really hard for the private sectors to get funding," he said.

Exports still drive a significant chunk of China's economy and Washington's targeting of cars, machinery, electronics, consumer appliances, and other products have led some firms to shift production out of the country.

Most exporters sped up their shipments across the Pacific to beat the tariff deadlines, with exports to the US holding up until November.&nbsp;

"The trade war with the US should be regarded as a ... Sword of Damocles for the Chinese economy, but its impact is only really visible in the very last months of 2018," said Bjorn Giesbergen, senior economist at Rabobank.

China's economy grew at its slowest pace in almost three decades in 2018, analysts in an AFP poll said, as the government struggles to contain ballooning debt and a bruising trade war with the United States.

China's economy grew at its slowest pace in almost three decades in 2018, analysts in an AFP poll said, as the government struggles to contain ballooning debt and a bruising trade war with the United States. And in a sign of the battle Beijing faces in getting things back on track, the survey of 13 economists also forecast expansion in the last three months to be at its weakest since the global financial crisis 10 years ago. The figures are the latest in a long-running trend that has prompted officials to vow they will not let the economy "fall off a cliff" and announce support measures including tax cuts and making it easier for banks to lend. The full-year figure of 6.6 per cent would be the worst since 1990 when the economy was hit by outrage over the Tiananmen Square crackdown a year earlier. The October-December rate of 6.4 per cent marks the slowest quarter since 2009 and indicates China faces a tough year ahead. "Economic momentum is clearly slowing," said Raymond Yeung, an economist at ANZ bank. Economists in China and abroad have long suspected data is massaged upward, often noting that full-year gross domestic product hits Beijing's pre-set targets with suspicious regularity. A widely respected global business think tank, the US-based Conference Board, says its methodology indicates growth of 4.1 per cent growth for the year. Relations with a top trading partner the United States deteriorated sharply last year after President Donald Trump hit roughly half of the Chinese imports with new tariffs in an attempt to force trade concessions from Beijing. The trade war with the US is on hold for now after President Xi Jinping and Donald Trump agreed to a three-month ceasefire while the two sides try to find a resolution. China's top negotiator is heading to Washington for talks this month ahead of a March deadline to avoid further tariff hikes, while a report said the US is considering lifting some levies in return for reforms by Beijing. While analysts say the standoff has dented confidence — leaving the stock markets battered and the yuan weakened — they attribute most the downturn to government policies to tackle growing debt, financial risk, and pollution. Stimulus measures The 2018 growth forecast is above the official target of around 6.5 per cent but down from the 6.8 per cent chalked up in the year before — after officials on Friday revised down the 2017 figure. The National Bureau of Statistics will release its official results on Monday. After halting some major infrastructure projects such as subway lines and motorways in the first half of the year to keep a lid on debt, policymakers gradually eased up and encouraged more infrastructure spending in the autumn. "The squeeze on shadow financing activity took a particularly heavy toll on infrastructure investment," economists at Fitch Ratings wrote in a report, referring to off-the-books loans. Analysts say the credit tightening also made loans harder to come by for some would-be car buyers, which contributed to annual car sales falling for the first time in more than 20 years. It is one of a raft of recent economic indicators that point to a deepening slowdown. Imports and exports fell in December while the manufacturing sector contracted for the first time in more than two years. Chinese officials have announced tax cuts, fee reductions, and cutting red tape, among other measures to stimulate the economy. "We propose to keep the Chinese economy operating in a reasonable range, which means that we allow the economic growth rate to have certain fluctuations," Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told academics and businessmen this week. "But it cannot have major ups and major downs, and it cannot 'fall off a cliff'," he said. 'Sword of Damocles' Li vowed to help private businesses and "take advantage of our massive domestic market". With officials intent on not further inflating the debt bubble, and the export picture dimming, it has reinforced the need for China to rely on its legion of consumers to grow its economy. "We see a fast deceleration on investment and also retail sales, which weigh on the growth slowdown," said Liu Ligang, chief China economist at Citigroup. "The financial deleveraging made it really hard for the private sectors to get funding," he said. Exports still drive a significant chunk of China's economy and Washington's targeting of cars, machinery, electronics, consumer appliances, and other products have led some firms to shift production out of the country. Most exporters sped up their shipments across the Pacific to beat the tariff deadlines, with exports to the US holding up until November. "The trade war with the US should be regarded as a ... Sword of Damocles for the Chinese economy, but its impact is only really visible in the very last months of 2018," said Bjorn Giesbergen, senior economist at Rabobank.

China growth hit slowest pace in decades in 2018: Report

North Korea's top envoy involved in talks with the United States arrived in Beijing on Thursday and is thought to be en route to <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/a-winter-storm-hit-washington-190140&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwitoKz9kPTfAhXadCsKHeAcCXAQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1xJ3KpvFDSi7EW4rBYnLcm">Washington</a>, South Korean news agency Yonhap said on Thursday.

The US and South Korean media previously quoted unidentified sources as saying US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and North Korean official Kim Yong Chol were expected to meet in the US capital on Friday to discuss a second summit between President Donald Trump and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/us-north-korea-to-hold-talks-this-week-seeking-interim-deal-report-190515&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwip-7LbkPTfAhWHAYgKHdU7ARsQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3BxMKHM9HVUdgihgpdPMpy">North Korea</a>n leader Kim Jong Un.

Kim arrived at Beijing airport on Thursday on an Air Koryo flight from Pyongyang and was met by North Korea's ambassador to China, Yonhap said. He is expected to board a flight to Washington in the evening, the news agency said.

Pompeo had planned to meet his North Korean counterpart to discuss a second summit last November, but the meeting was postponed.

Kim Yong Chol was last in Washington in June, when he delivered a letter from Kim Jong Un to Trump that opened the way for an unprecedented meeting between the leaders of the two countries in Singapore on June 12.

CNN quoted a source familiar with US-North Korea talks as saying that Kim Yong Chol would be carrying a new letter from Kim Jong-un&nbsp;to Trump in Washington.

Chinese and South Korean envoys on Korean peninsula affairs are meeting in Seoul on Thursday, the South's <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/want-to-work-together-with-us-on-trade-china-foreign-ministry-188776&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi4rYudkfTfAhULBIgKHewGDTgQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1YMl-zgXv3QtocxeD1p_zH">foreign ministry </a>said. Kong Xuanyou and Lee Do-Hoon are expected to discuss ways to achieve complete denuclearisation and peace on the peninsula, as well as an expected second summit of US and North Korean leaders.

In Singapore last year, Kim Jong Un pledged to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, but there has been little significant progress since.

Contact was resumed after the North Korean leader delivered a New Year speech in which he said he was willing to meet Trump "at any time," South Korea's ambassador to the United States, Cho Yoon-Je, told reporters last week.

North Korea's top envoy involved in talks with the United States arrived in Beijing on Thursday and is thought to be en route to Washington, South Korean news agency Yonhap said on Thursday.

North Korea's top envoy involved in talks with the United States arrived in Beijing on Thursday and is thought to be en route to Washington, South Korean news agency Yonhap said on Thursday. The US and South Korean media previously quoted unidentified sources as saying US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and North Korean official Kim Yong Chol were expected to meet in the US capital on Friday to discuss a second summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Kim arrived at Beijing airport on Thursday on an Air Koryo flight from Pyongyang and was met by North Korea's ambassador to China, Yonhap said. He is expected to board a flight to Washington in the evening, the news agency said. Pompeo had planned to meet his North Korean counterpart to discuss a second summit last November, but the meeting was postponed. Kim Yong Chol was last in Washington in June, when he delivered a letter from Kim Jong Un to Trump that opened the way for an unprecedented meeting between the leaders of the two countries in Singapore on June 12. CNN quoted a source familiar with US-North Korea talks as saying that Kim Yong Chol would be carrying a new letter from Kim Jong-un to Trump in Washington. Chinese and South Korean envoys on Korean peninsula affairs are meeting in Seoul on Thursday, the South's foreign ministry said. Kong Xuanyou and Lee Do-Hoon are expected to discuss ways to achieve complete denuclearisation and peace on the peninsula, as well as an expected second summit of US and North Korean leaders. In Singapore last year, Kim Jong Un pledged to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, but there has been little significant progress since. Contact was resumed after the North Korean leader delivered a New Year speech in which he said he was willing to meet Trump "at any time," South Korea's ambassador to the United States, Cho Yoon-Je, told reporters last week.

Pompeo's North Korea counterpart arrives in Beijing for talks: Report

Several hundred protesters marched in three cities in southern and eastern <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/at-least-8-killed-two-wounded-in-afghanistans-mine-collapse-191019">Afghanistan</a> to call for a ceasefire and an end to the 17-year war Thursday, the latest action of a movement launched in May 2018.

In Kandahar, the southern cradle of the Taliban, and in the eastern cities of Khost and Jalalabad, they marched holding placards saying: "No War", "We want ceasefire" and "We want Peace".

The peace marches began in May 2018 when a handful of civilians travelled 700 kilometres (430 miles) from Lashkar Gah, in the southern province of Helmand, to end their journey in June in the capital Kabul, joined along the way by hundreds of other marchers.&nbsp;

Since then, many others have been organised, including a wheelchair peace march by amputees between the western city of Herat and Kabul in August.

"Afghans want an absolute ceasefire as soon as possible. The government had agreed a one-year ceasefire and the Taliban must accept their demand," Bismillah Watandost, a member of the People for Peace Movement, told AFP.

"We call on the Taliban to come to the peace talks with the Afghan government and have mercy on the Afghan people. Our men, women, children and widows want peace. We are tired of war," said Haji Farhad, a protestor in Jalalabad.

Diplomatic efforts are being stepped up to try to end the long-running conflict.&nbsp;

The US envoy in Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad is currently in Pakistan for talks after a regional tour that took him to China, the United Arab Emirates, India and Afghanistan.

Khalilzad, a former US ambassador to Kabul, said in the Afghan capital Wednesday he hopes for fresh talks with the Taliban "very soon", after meetings with them in late 2018 in Doha and Abu Dhabi.&nbsp;

The United States is not alone in its diplomatic overtures to the Taliban. Russia and Iran have also held meetings with the militants in recent months and China has also invited them for discussions.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan are participating in the US peace efforts.

Several hundred protesters marched in three cities in southern and eastern Afghanistan to call for a ceasefire and an end to the 17-year war Thursday, the latest action of a movement launched in May 2018.

Several hundred protesters marched in three cities in southern and eastern Afghanistan to call for a ceasefire and an end to the 17-year war Thursday, the latest action of a movement launched in May 2018. In Kandahar, the southern cradle of the Taliban, and in the eastern cities of Khost and Jalalabad, they marched holding placards saying: "No War", "We want ceasefire" and "We want Peace". The peace marches began in May 2018 when a handful of civilians travelled 700 kilometres (430 miles) from Lashkar Gah, in the southern province of Helmand, to end their journey in June in the capital Kabul, joined along the way by hundreds of other marchers. Since then, many others have been organised, including a wheelchair peace march by amputees between the western city of Herat and Kabul in August. "Afghans want an absolute ceasefire as soon as possible. The government had agreed a one-year ceasefire and the Taliban must accept their demand," Bismillah Watandost, a member of the People for Peace Movement, told AFP. "We call on the Taliban to come to the peace talks with the Afghan government and have mercy on the Afghan people. Our men, women, children and widows want peace. We are tired of war," said Haji Farhad, a protestor in Jalalabad. Diplomatic efforts are being stepped up to try to end the long-running conflict. The US envoy in Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad is currently in Pakistan for talks after a regional tour that took him to China, the United Arab Emirates, India and Afghanistan. Khalilzad, a former US ambassador to Kabul, said in the Afghan capital Wednesday he hopes for fresh talks with the Taliban "very soon", after meetings with them in late 2018 in Doha and Abu Dhabi. The United States is not alone in its diplomatic overtures to the Taliban. Russia and Iran have also held meetings with the militants in recent months and China has also invited them for discussions. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan are participating in the US peace efforts.

Afghanistan protestors march for peace

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced bills on Wednesday that would ban the sale of US chips or other components to<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-sacks-employee-arrested-in-poland-over-spying-charges-189887&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiIir7g_PPfAhXEEHIKHc1qDPMQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0lukG9fwjPWbxjwiZluhge"> Huawei Technologies Co Ltd</a>, ZTE Corp or other Chinese telecommunications companies that violate US sanctions or export control laws.

The proposed law was introduced shortly before the Wall Street Journal reported federal prosecutors were investigating allegations that Huawei stole trade secrets from T-Mobile US Inc and other US businesses.

The Journal said that an indictment could be coming soon on allegations that Huawei stole T-Mobile technology, called Tappy, which mimicked human fingers and was used to test smartphones.

Huawei said in a statement the company and T-Mobile settled their disputes in 2017 following a US jury verdict that found "neither damage, unjust enrichment nor willful and malicious conduct by Huawei in T-Mobile's trade secret claim".

The legislation is the latest in a long list of actions taken to fight what some in the Trump administration call China's cheating through intellectual property theft, illegal corporate subsidies, and rules hampering US corporations that want to sell their goods in China.

In November, the US Department of Justice unveiled an initiative to investigate China’s trade practices with the goal of bringing trade secret theft cases.

At that time, Washington had announced an indictment against Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co Ltd for stealing trade secrets from US semiconductor company Micron Technology relating to research and development of memory storage devices.

Jinhua, which has denied any wrongdoing, was put on a list of entities that cannot buy goods from US firms.

On Capitol Hill, Senator Tom Cotton and Representative Mike Gallagher, both Republicans, along with Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Ruben Gallego, both Democrats, introduced the bills that would require the president to ban the export of US components to any Chinese telecommunications company that violates US sanctions or export control laws.

The bills specifically cite ZTE and Huawei, both of which are viewed with suspicion in the United States because of fears that their switches and other gear could be used to spy on Americans. Both have also been accused of failing to respect US sanctions on Iran.

"Huawei is effectively an intelligence-gathering arm of the Chinese Communist Party whose founder and CEO was an engineer for the People's Liberation Army," Cotton wrote in a statement. "If Chinese telecom companies like Huawei violate our sanctions or export control laws, they should receive nothing less than the death penalty - which this denial order would provide."

The proposed law and investigation are two of several challenges that Huawei, the world's biggest telecommunications equipment maker, faces in the US market.

In addition to allegations of sanctions-busting and intellectual property theft, Washington has been pressing allies to refrain from buying Huawei's switches and other gear because of fears they will be used by Beijing for espionage.

Huawei's founder, Ren Zhengfei, denied this week that his company was used by the Chinese government to spy.

Canada detained Ren's daughter, Meng Wanzhou, who is Huawei's chief financial officer, in December at the request of US authorities investigating an alleged scheme to use the global banking system to evade US sanctions against Iran.

For its part, ZTE agreed last year to pay a $1 billion fine to the United States that had been imposed because the company breached a US embargo on trade with Iran.

As part of the agreement, the US lifted a ban in place since April that had prevented ZTE from buying the US components it relies on heavily to make smartphones and other devices.

 
&nbsp;

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced bills on Wednesday that would ban the sale of US chips or other components to Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, ZTE Corp or other Chinese telecommunications companies that violate US sanctions or export control laws.

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced bills on Wednesday that would ban the sale of US chips or other components to Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, ZTE Corp or other Chinese telecommunications companies that violate US sanctions or export control laws. The proposed law was introduced shortly before the Wall Street Journal reported federal prosecutors were investigating allegations that Huawei stole trade secrets from T-Mobile US Inc and other US businesses. The Journal said that an indictment could be coming soon on allegations that Huawei stole T-Mobile technology, called Tappy, which mimicked human fingers and was used to test smartphones. Huawei said in a statement the company and T-Mobile settled their disputes in 2017 following a US jury verdict that found "neither damage, unjust enrichment nor willful and malicious conduct by Huawei in T-Mobile's trade secret claim". The legislation is the latest in a long list of actions taken to fight what some in the Trump administration call China's cheating through intellectual property theft, illegal corporate subsidies, and rules hampering US corporations that want to sell their goods in China. In November, the US Department of Justice unveiled an initiative to investigate China’s trade practices with the goal of bringing trade secret theft cases. At that time, Washington had announced an indictment against Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co Ltd for stealing trade secrets from US semiconductor company Micron Technology relating to research and development of memory storage devices. Jinhua, which has denied any wrongdoing, was put on a list of entities that cannot buy goods from US firms. On Capitol Hill, Senator Tom Cotton and Representative Mike Gallagher, both Republicans, along with Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Ruben Gallego, both Democrats, introduced the bills that would require the president to ban the export of US components to any Chinese telecommunications company that violates US sanctions or export control laws. The bills specifically cite ZTE and Huawei, both of which are viewed with suspicion in the United States because of fears that their switches and other gear could be used to spy on Americans. Both have also been accused of failing to respect US sanctions on Iran. "Huawei is effectively an intelligence-gathering arm of the Chinese Communist Party whose founder and CEO was an engineer for the People's Liberation Army," Cotton wrote in a statement. "If Chinese telecom companies like Huawei violate our sanctions or export control laws, they should receive nothing less than the death penalty - which this denial order would provide." The proposed law and investigation are two of several challenges that Huawei, the world's biggest telecommunications equipment maker, faces in the US market. In addition to allegations of sanctions-busting and intellectual property theft, Washington has been pressing allies to refrain from buying Huawei's switches and other gear because of fears they will be used by Beijing for espionage. Huawei's founder, Ren Zhengfei, denied this week that his company was used by the Chinese government to spy. Canada detained Ren's daughter, Meng Wanzhou, who is Huawei's chief financial officer, in December at the request of US authorities investigating an alleged scheme to use the global banking system to evade US sanctions against Iran. For its part, ZTE agreed last year to pay a $1 billion fine to the United States that had been imposed because the company breached a US embargo on trade with Iran. As part of the agreement, the US lifted a ban in place since April that had prevented ZTE from buying the US components it relies on heavily to make smartphones and other devices.

US lawmakers introduce bills targeting China's Huawei, ZTE

By Gary Grappo

Nearly a year after his predecessor embarked on a similar mission, on January 15 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concluded a tour of the Middle East that included stops in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman. A planned stop in Kuwait was cancelled. The ostensible reason for Pompeo’s hastily scheduled tour was to explain his boss’ sudden and unexpected announcement of the US troop withdrawal from Syria.

President Donald Trump’s December decision to leave the fight in Syria shocked America’s Middle East allies. His most senior officials, including former Secretary of Defence James Mattis and others, were also caught off guard. Mattis, after subsequently failing to persuade Trump to reconsider, resigned. The president’s special envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Brett McGurk, also resigned.

Left questioning whether this was Trump’s first step toward Middle East disengagement — he also later announced that Iran can do what it wants in Syria — Arab states were once again whipsawed by an unpredictable administration. Could they no longer count on American security support, diplomatic power and considerable economic clout to maintain regional order, especially in the face of the Iranian challenge, continuing extremist activity from the likes of ISIS and al-Qaeda, and economic uncertainty? For many, the announcement might portend a period of great power competition in the region, increased Iranian adventurism and consequent instability, all of which the US had resisted since it first became embroiled in the region after World War 2. 
 
No fear: Pompea to the rescue

Enter Mike Pompeo. America’s friends needed reassurances and a way forward on the region’s many challenges. At last, America would speak from the pulpit on its broad strategy for the region, heretofore missing since Donald Trump assumed office two years ago.

On what was his biggest stage at the American University of Cairo, Pompeo delivered what may now be called the clearest statement yet of US policy in the Middle East. In essence, however, it boiled down to continuing resistance to extremism, blunting Iranian influence and not being the policy of Trump’s predecessor, Barak Obama. In 2009, President Obama had attempted to deliver his own version of an American reset of US policy, specifically as it related to Islam and Muslims, and seemingly apologised for the US role in the troubled region’s problems.

In a not-so-veiled criticism of Obama’s decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq in 2011, Pompeo declared that the Trump administration has learned much from its predecessor’s naiveté and miscues: “We learned that when America retreats, chaos often follows. When we neglect our friends, resentment builds. And when we partner with enemies, they advance.” On its face, that would appear a fair and accurate statement for any administration. Against the backdrop of Trump’s announcement proclaiming the war against ISIS effectively won and the consequent US troop withdrawal, it’s downright mystifyingly contradictory.

Indeed, ISIS has been set on its back foot, having lost more that 95 per cent of the “caliphate” it once ruled between Syria and Iraq. But US intelligence experts still assert the presence of some 2,000-3,000 ISIS fighters in the two countries and another 25,000-30,000 elsewhere around the world. One of the ostensible reasons for Mattis’ resignation was that in the career marine general’s judgment, the war against ISIS and other extremists had most definitely not yet been won.

Moreover, America’s friends, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the Syrian Kurds, who have been fighting valiantly beside the American forces for years now, must have been flummoxed to hear Pompeo’s statement on the US having been “absent too much” and his reference to “neglect (of) our friends.” How else to describe Trump’s Syria withdrawal without as much as an advance notice or pre-announcement consultation with those most affected?

Not a message for everyone

Arabs in the region would have found little to address what is most on their minds today. Pompeo neglected to state where the US stood against the alarming increasing harshness of government rule, especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Nor did he attempt to address the dearth of respect for fundamental human rights, as Obama at least attempted to do 10 years before. The US secretary seemed to lay all the ills of the Middle East at the feet of the Iranians, who certainly deserve a share of the blame for ongoing instability in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.

But Iran is only taking advantage of existing circumstances of depressed economies and lack of economic opportunity, declining rule of law, absence of governmental accountability, government repression and insecurity. Would Pompeo address those underlying challenges for which Arab governments seem to have no answers?

In effect, Pompeo seemed to say to governments — as opposed to the people — that if you keep up the fight against the extremists and back the US in resisting Iran, then there is a basis for a relationship with this administration. That only reinforces the hopelessness that plagues the psyches of many in the region, especially young people, and offers encouragement for terrorism, Iranian troublemaking and instability.

In Saudi Arabia, Pompeo reasserted America’s position that “all those involved in the murder of [Jamal] Khashoggi will be held accountable.” Yet, he had extended meetings with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, the official deemed by the CIA, his State Department and the US Senate to have ordered the execution of the Saudi journalist last October in Istanbul. He even seemed to have gone out of his way to excuse the crime, asserting that Saudi Arabia’s “leaders are going to act in their country’s interests.”

To the average person on the street, that must have sounded like a blank check for governments to behave as they wish to preserve themselves, regardless of consequences for their citizens. America is ostensibly out of the business of erecting human rights guardrails for autocrats, except when it doesn’t like them, like in the case of Iran.

More contradictions

Also mysteriously missing from Pompeo’s sojourn was much of an effort to patch up the Gulf Cooperation Council, which Saudi Arabia and MBS set asunder over a year and a half ago in a misguided effort to get neighbouring Qatar to bend to Saudi will. Forced to address it in Qatar without much effect, it doesn’t seem to have figured too prominently when the secretary met with the engineer of the boycott, MBS. The GCC had been the most effective multinational organisation in the Middle East for dealing with the region’s many challenges and a key security partner for the US. Yet the Trump administration, never one to embrace multilateralism, appears little motivated to bring the key Gulf partners together.

Aside from the Sturm und Drang against ISIS, Iran and the Obama policies, there was hardly a mention, if at all, of America’s vision for the Middle East, its approach to ongoing civil wars and humanitarian crises in Syria and Yemen, or its prescriptions for the underlying economic and human problems still afflicting the Arab world. It still has no answer for the infectious ideologies of extremism, however odious Pompeo wants Arabs to find them. Nor does the US have a plan for taming Iran’s adventurism other than using sanctions, which few others seem to want, and the threat of regime change, which no one believes practical, much less possible.

Secretary Pompeo may claim some success for his limited agenda for the trip. Middle East autocrats may also claim success, the Trump administration having again blessed them. But for the people of the Middle East who ultimately bear the region’s many difficulties, Pompeo offered nothing. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/mike-pompeo-middle-east-trip-gulf-iran-politics-news-18272/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Gary Grappo Nearly a year after his predecessor embarked on a similar mission, on January 15 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concluded a tour of the Middle East that included stops in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

By Gary Grappo Nearly a year after his predecessor embarked on a similar mission, on January 15 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concluded a tour of the Middle East that included stops in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman. A planned stop in Kuwait was cancelled. The ostensible reason for Pompeo’s hastily scheduled tour was to explain his boss’ sudden and unexpected announcement of the US troop withdrawal from Syria. President Donald Trump’s December decision to leave the fight in Syria shocked America’s Middle East allies. His most senior officials, including former Secretary of Defence James Mattis and others, were also caught off guard. Mattis, after subsequently failing to persuade Trump to reconsider, resigned. The president’s special envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Brett McGurk, also resigned. Left questioning whether this was Trump’s first step toward Middle East disengagement — he also later announced that Iran can do what it wants in Syria — Arab states were once again whipsawed by an unpredictable administration. Could they no longer count on American security support, diplomatic power and considerable economic clout to maintain regional order, especially in the face of the Iranian challenge, continuing extremist activity from the likes of ISIS and al-Qaeda, and economic uncertainty? For many, the announcement might portend a period of great power competition in the region, increased Iranian adventurism and consequent instability, all of which the US had resisted since it first became embroiled in the region after World War 2. No fear: Pompea to the rescue Enter Mike Pompeo. America’s friends needed reassurances and a way forward on the region’s many challenges. At last, America would speak from the pulpit on its broad strategy for the region, heretofore missing since Donald Trump assumed office two years ago. On what was his biggest stage at the American University of Cairo, Pompeo delivered what may now be called the clearest statement yet of US policy in the Middle East. In essence, however, it boiled down to continuing resistance to extremism, blunting Iranian influence and not being the policy of Trump’s predecessor, Barak Obama. In 2009, President Obama had attempted to deliver his own version of an American reset of US policy, specifically as it related to Islam and Muslims, and seemingly apologised for the US role in the troubled region’s problems. In a not-so-veiled criticism of Obama’s decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq in 2011, Pompeo declared that the Trump administration has learned much from its predecessor’s naiveté and miscues: “We learned that when America retreats, chaos often follows. When we neglect our friends, resentment builds. And when we partner with enemies, they advance.” On its face, that would appear a fair and accurate statement for any administration. Against the backdrop of Trump’s announcement proclaiming the war against ISIS effectively won and the consequent US troop withdrawal, it’s downright mystifyingly contradictory. Indeed, ISIS has been set on its back foot, having lost more that 95 per cent of the “caliphate” it once ruled between Syria and Iraq. But US intelligence experts still assert the presence of some 2,000-3,000 ISIS fighters in the two countries and another 25,000-30,000 elsewhere around the world. One of the ostensible reasons for Mattis’ resignation was that in the career marine general’s judgment, the war against ISIS and other extremists had most definitely not yet been won. Moreover, America’s friends, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the Syrian Kurds, who have been fighting valiantly beside the American forces for years now, must have been flummoxed to hear Pompeo’s statement on the US having been “absent too much” and his reference to “neglect (of) our friends.” How else to describe Trump’s Syria withdrawal without as much as an advance notice or pre-announcement consultation with those most affected? Not a message for everyone Arabs in the region would have found little to address what is most on their minds today. Pompeo neglected to state where the US stood against the alarming increasing harshness of government rule, especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Nor did he attempt to address the dearth of respect for fundamental human rights, as Obama at least attempted to do 10 years before. The US secretary seemed to lay all the ills of the Middle East at the feet of the Iranians, who certainly deserve a share of the blame for ongoing instability in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. But Iran is only taking advantage of existing circumstances of depressed economies and lack of economic opportunity, declining rule of law, absence of governmental accountability, government repression and insecurity. Would Pompeo address those underlying challenges for which Arab governments seem to have no answers? In effect, Pompeo seemed to say to governments — as opposed to the people — that if you keep up the fight against the extremists and back the US in resisting Iran, then there is a basis for a relationship with this administration. That only reinforces the hopelessness that plagues the psyches of many in the region, especially young people, and offers encouragement for terrorism, Iranian troublemaking and instability. In Saudi Arabia, Pompeo reasserted America’s position that “all those involved in the murder of [Jamal] Khashoggi will be held accountable.” Yet, he had extended meetings with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, the official deemed by the CIA, his State Department and the US Senate to have ordered the execution of the Saudi journalist last October in Istanbul. He even seemed to have gone out of his way to excuse the crime, asserting that Saudi Arabia’s “leaders are going to act in their country’s interests.” To the average person on the street, that must have sounded like a blank check for governments to behave as they wish to preserve themselves, regardless of consequences for their citizens. America is ostensibly out of the business of erecting human rights guardrails for autocrats, except when it doesn’t like them, like in the case of Iran. More contradictions Also mysteriously missing from Pompeo’s sojourn was much of an effort to patch up the Gulf Cooperation Council, which Saudi Arabia and MBS set asunder over a year and a half ago in a misguided effort to get neighbouring Qatar to bend to Saudi will. Forced to address it in Qatar without much effect, it doesn’t seem to have figured too prominently when the secretary met with the engineer of the boycott, MBS. The GCC had been the most effective multinational organisation in the Middle East for dealing with the region’s many challenges and a key security partner for the US. Yet the Trump administration, never one to embrace multilateralism, appears little motivated to bring the key Gulf partners together. Aside from the Sturm und Drang against ISIS, Iran and the Obama policies, there was hardly a mention, if at all, of America’s vision for the Middle East, its approach to ongoing civil wars and humanitarian crises in Syria and Yemen, or its prescriptions for the underlying economic and human problems still afflicting the Arab world. It still has no answer for the infectious ideologies of extremism, however odious Pompeo wants Arabs to find them. Nor does the US have a plan for taming Iran’s adventurism other than using sanctions, which few others seem to want, and the threat of regime change, which no one believes practical, much less possible. Secretary Pompeo may claim some success for his limited agenda for the trip. Middle East autocrats may also claim success, the Trump administration having again blessed them. But for the people of the Middle East who ultimately bear the region’s many difficulties, Pompeo offered nothing. (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Mike Pompeo attempts US reset in the Middle East

Accused Mexican drug lord <a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/el-chapo-dreamed-of-biopic-for-years-before-capture-says-trial-witness-190401">Joaquin "El Chapo" </a>Guzman once paid a $100 million bribe to former Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, an ex-Guzman associate testified on Tuesday that he previously told US&nbsp;authorities. 
&nbsp; 
Alex Cifuentes, who has described himself as Guzman`s onetime right-hand man, discussed the alleged bribe under cross-examination by Jeffrey Lichtman, one of Guzman's lawyers, in Brooklyn federal court. Asked if he told authorities in 2016 that Guzman arranged the bribe, he answered, "That's right."

Reuters could not immediately reach Pena Nieto or his former spokesman for comment. He has previously denied taking bribes.

The allegations are among the most explosive to emerge from Guzman`s trial, which began in November and has so far featured the testimony of lower-level corruption.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/mexican-drug-lord-el-chapo-faces-biggest-us-drugs-trial-175595">Guzman,</a> 61, was extradited to the United States in 2017 to face charges of trafficking cocaine, heroin and other drugs into the country as leader of the Sinaloa Cartel.

Cifuentes testified that he had told US&nbsp;prosecutors that Pena Nieto initially reached out to Guzman, asking for $250 million. Cifuentes told the prosecutors that the bribe was paid in October 2012, when Pena Nieto was president-elect, he testified.

Cifuentes also said testified that Guzman once told him he had received a message from Pena Nieto saying he did not have to live in hiding anymore.

Lichtman had promised jurors in his opening statement last November they would hear how Mexican drug kingpin Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada bribed Pena Nieto and another former president as part of a scheme to frame Guzman. He said Zambada was the real boss of the cartel.

Pena Nieto at the time called the claim "completely false and defamatory." 
US&nbsp;District Judge Brian Cogan, however, refused to allow Guzman`s lawyers to question Zambada`s brother about the alleged bribes last year.

It was unclear how Cifuentes` testimony, which appeared to implicate Guzman, could be used to defend him, though Lichtman homed in on inconsistencies in Cifuentes` memory. Cifuentes admitted that at a meeting last year, he told prosecutors he was no longer sure of the exact amounts of the bribes but did not elaborate.

Pena Nieto was president of Mexico from December 2012 until November 2018. He was once a rising star in Mexico’s long-dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI. He was the former governor of the state of Mexico, the country’s most populous, and married a glamorous telenovela actress just a couple years before winning the presidency.

But the president ended his term a much-diminished figure, pummeled by conflict-of-interest scandals, rampant crime and a lacklustre economy.

While Pena Nieto himself was barred by law from running for a second term in 2018, his centrist party suffered a historic defeat at the polls as leftist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador won in a landslide, relegating the PRI to the role of a marginal player in the new Congress.

Captured by Pena Nieto`s government in February 2014, Guzman broke out of prison for a second time some 17 months later, escaping through a mile-long tunnel dug right into in his cell.

The jailbreak humiliated the government and battered the president`s already damaged credibility, though Pena Nieto personally announced news of the kingpin`s third capture when he was again arrested in northwestern Mexico in January 2016.

Colombian-born Cifuentes is one of about a dozen witnesses who have so far testified against Guzman after striking deals with US&nbsp;prosecutors, in a trial that has provided a window into the secretive world of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the world`s most powerful drug trafficking organization.

Cifuentes earlier on Tuesday had also testified that Guzman asked an associate to pay a $10 million bribe to a general. The witness said the bribe was never paid and Guzman subsequently ordered the associate killed, though the hit was never carried out. 
&nbsp;

Accused Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman once paid a $100 million bribe to former Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, an ex-Guzman associate testified on Tuesday that he previously told US authorities.

Accused Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman once paid a $100 million bribe to former Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, an ex-Guzman associate testified on Tuesday that he previously told US authorities. Alex Cifuentes, who has described himself as Guzman`s onetime right-hand man, discussed the alleged bribe under cross-examination by Jeffrey Lichtman, one of Guzman's lawyers, in Brooklyn federal court. Asked if he told authorities in 2016 that Guzman arranged the bribe, he answered, "That's right." Reuters could not immediately reach Pena Nieto or his former spokesman for comment. He has previously denied taking bribes. The allegations are among the most explosive to emerge from Guzman`s trial, which began in November and has so far featured the testimony of lower-level corruption. Guzman, 61, was extradited to the United States in 2017 to face charges of trafficking cocaine, heroin and other drugs into the country as leader of the Sinaloa Cartel. Cifuentes testified that he had told US prosecutors that Pena Nieto initially reached out to Guzman, asking for $250 million. Cifuentes told the prosecutors that the bribe was paid in October 2012, when Pena Nieto was president-elect, he testified. Cifuentes also said testified that Guzman once told him he had received a message from Pena Nieto saying he did not have to live in hiding anymore. Lichtman had promised jurors in his opening statement last November they would hear how Mexican drug kingpin Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada bribed Pena Nieto and another former president as part of a scheme to frame Guzman. He said Zambada was the real boss of the cartel. Pena Nieto at the time called the claim "completely false and defamatory." US District Judge Brian Cogan, however, refused to allow Guzman`s lawyers to question Zambada`s brother about the alleged bribes last year. It was unclear how Cifuentes` testimony, which appeared to implicate Guzman, could be used to defend him, though Lichtman homed in on inconsistencies in Cifuentes` memory. Cifuentes admitted that at a meeting last year, he told prosecutors he was no longer sure of the exact amounts of the bribes but did not elaborate. Pena Nieto was president of Mexico from December 2012 until November 2018. He was once a rising star in Mexico’s long-dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI. He was the former governor of the state of Mexico, the country’s most populous, and married a glamorous telenovela actress just a couple years before winning the presidency. But the president ended his term a much-diminished figure, pummeled by conflict-of-interest scandals, rampant crime and a lacklustre economy. While Pena Nieto himself was barred by law from running for a second term in 2018, his centrist party suffered a historic defeat at the polls as leftist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador won in a landslide, relegating the PRI to the role of a marginal player in the new Congress. Captured by Pena Nieto`s government in February 2014, Guzman broke out of prison for a second time some 17 months later, escaping through a mile-long tunnel dug right into in his cell. The jailbreak humiliated the government and battered the president`s already damaged credibility, though Pena Nieto personally announced news of the kingpin`s third capture when he was again arrested in northwestern Mexico in January 2016. Colombian-born Cifuentes is one of about a dozen witnesses who have so far testified against Guzman after striking deals with US prosecutors, in a trial that has provided a window into the secretive world of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the world`s most powerful drug trafficking organization. Cifuentes earlier on Tuesday had also testified that Guzman asked an associate to pay a $10 million bribe to a general. The witness said the bribe was never paid and Guzman subsequently ordered the associate killed, though the hit was never carried out.

'El Chapo' paid ex-Mexican president $100 million bribe, says trial witness

US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told CBS "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" that she would file paperwork on Tuesday night to explore a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2020 election.

Colbert, during the taping of an episode that will air on Tuesday night, asked Gillibrand, who has been taking the steps to begin a presidential campaign, if she had anything she would like to announce.

"Yes," the lawmaker from New York said. " I'm filing an exploratory committee for president of the United States tonight."

The formation of an exploratory committee will allow Gillibrand, 52, who is known for spearheading efforts to change how Congress handles allegations of sexual harassment and became a prominent voice in the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/emraan-hashmi-on-metoo-allegations-against-soumik-sen-cant-play-judge-and-decide-on-a-verdict-190456&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwirqJi1wfHfAhVFp48KHb0ACoYQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0WV4D9lyNccYpSOostUEIb">#MeToo movement</a>, to begin fundraising and organizing her campaign.

"I’m going to run for president of the United States because as a young mom I’m going to fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own," Gillibrand said to applause.

She has hired several top political aides in recent weeks, fueling speculation her jump into the 2020 fray was imminent.

There is no dominant early front-runner in what is expected to be a crowded Democratic nominating race to take on<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-record-long-government-shutdown-could-be-resolved-in-15-minutes-189918&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiDtIrawfHfAhVQfysKHfYnBHoQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1H1tvfzur1scR5QJK56JhC"> President Donald Trump</a>, the likely Republican nominee.&nbsp;

Texas Democrat Julian Castro, a former San Antonio mayor and top US housing official, formally launched his White House bid on Saturday.&nbsp;

Former US Representative John Delaney has been running for more than a year. The US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts formed an exploratory committee last month and Representative Tulsi Gabbard said Friday that she will run for president.

Some in the party believe an establishment figure who can appeal to centrist voters is the way to victory. Others argue a fresh face, and particularly a diverse one, is needed to energize the party's increasingly left-leaning base.

Gillibrand was a member of the centrist and fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition while in the House of Representatives. Her positions became more liberal after she was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton in New York when Clinton became former President Barack Obama's secretary of state.&nbsp;

Gillibrand then won the seat in a special election and was re-elected to six-year terms in 2012 and 2018. She has attributed the ideology shift to representing a liberal state versus a more conservative district.

As a senator, Gillibrand was outspoken about rape in the military and campus sexual assault years before the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault first arose in 2017.

In late 2017, as she pushed for a bill changing how Congress processes and settles sexual harassment allegations made by staffers, some prominent party leaders criticized her for being the first Democratic senator to urge the resignation of Senator Al Franken, who was accused of groping and kissing women without their consent.

During the same period, Gillibrand said Hillary Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, should have resigned from the White House after his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, which led to his impeachment by the House. Some criticized the senator for attacking the Clintons, who had supported her political career.

Gillibrand backs a Medicare-for-all bill championed by Democratic Party liberals. She was the first senator to call in June 2018 for the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) amid controversy over Trump's separation of families entering the country at the US-Mexico border.

"I believe healthcare should be a right and not a privilege," Gillibrand told Colbert.

In a dig at Trump, Gillibrand said the first thing she would do if elected to the White House is "restore what's been lost" like the "integrity and compassion of this country."

"You have to start by restoring what’s been lost, restoring our leadership in the world, addressing things like global climate change and being that beacon of light and hope in the world," Gillibrand said.

Trump and Gillibrand have sparred publicly in the past. In December 2017, the president targeted her with a sexually tinged tweet, calling her a "total flunky" who had "come to my office 'begging' for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them)."

Gillibrand shot back immediately on Twitter.

"You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office," she wrote.

US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told CBS "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" that she would file paperwork on Tuesday night to explore a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2020 election.

US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told CBS "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" that she would file paperwork on Tuesday night to explore a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2020 election. Colbert, during the taping of an episode that will air on Tuesday night, asked Gillibrand, who has been taking the steps to begin a presidential campaign, if she had anything she would like to announce. "Yes," the lawmaker from New York said. " I'm filing an exploratory committee for president of the United States tonight." The formation of an exploratory committee will allow Gillibrand, 52, who is known for spearheading efforts to change how Congress handles allegations of sexual harassment and became a prominent voice in the #MeToo movement, to begin fundraising and organizing her campaign. "I’m going to run for president of the United States because as a young mom I’m going to fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own," Gillibrand said to applause. She has hired several top political aides in recent weeks, fueling speculation her jump into the 2020 fray was imminent. There is no dominant early front-runner in what is expected to be a crowded Democratic nominating race to take on President Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. Texas Democrat Julian Castro, a former San Antonio mayor and top US housing official, formally launched his White House bid on Saturday. Former US Representative John Delaney has been running for more than a year. The US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts formed an exploratory committee last month and Representative Tulsi Gabbard said Friday that she will run for president. Some in the party believe an establishment figure who can appeal to centrist voters is the way to victory. Others argue a fresh face, and particularly a diverse one, is needed to energize the party's increasingly left-leaning base. Gillibrand was a member of the centrist and fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition while in the House of Representatives. Her positions became more liberal after she was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton in New York when Clinton became former President Barack Obama's secretary of state. Gillibrand then won the seat in a special election and was re-elected to six-year terms in 2012 and 2018. She has attributed the ideology shift to representing a liberal state versus a more conservative district. As a senator, Gillibrand was outspoken about rape in the military and campus sexual assault years before the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment and assault first arose in 2017. In late 2017, as she pushed for a bill changing how Congress processes and settles sexual harassment allegations made by staffers, some prominent party leaders criticized her for being the first Democratic senator to urge the resignation of Senator Al Franken, who was accused of groping and kissing women without their consent. During the same period, Gillibrand said Hillary Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, should have resigned from the White House after his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, which led to his impeachment by the House. Some criticized the senator for attacking the Clintons, who had supported her political career. Gillibrand backs a Medicare-for-all bill championed by Democratic Party liberals. She was the first senator to call in June 2018 for the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) amid controversy over Trump's separation of families entering the country at the US-Mexico border. "I believe healthcare should be a right and not a privilege," Gillibrand told Colbert. In a dig at Trump, Gillibrand said the first thing she would do if elected to the White House is "restore what's been lost" like the "integrity and compassion of this country." "You have to start by restoring what’s been lost, restoring our leadership in the world, addressing things like global climate change and being that beacon of light and hope in the world," Gillibrand said. Trump and Gillibrand have sparred publicly in the past. In December 2017, the president targeted her with a sexually tinged tweet, calling her a "total flunky" who had "come to my office 'begging' for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them)." Gillibrand shot back immediately on Twitter. "You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office," she wrote.

Democratic US Senator Gillibrand to launch 2020 White House bid

Big Pacific storms are set to dump up to seven feet (2.1 meters) of snow in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/california-police-use-genealogy-websites-to-arrest-suspect-in-1990s-rapes-189698&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjb5bjWvPHfAhXLgI8KHaO_DNAQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1LDPW6_X1njSfGUVNduApC">California</a>'s Sierra Nevada mountains and several inches of rain elsewhere in the state, forcing evacuations in areas at risk to mudslides.

The first storm moved over Southern California on Tuesday, with rainfall of up to 3 inches (7.6 cm) expected in parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and up to 4.5 inches (11.4) in the Santa Monica Mountains, the National Weather Service (NWS) reported.

Police in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties ordered evacuations from areas damaged by last year's wildfires because of the risk heavy rain would trigger mud and debris flows on charred hillsides.

Significant road closures and travel delays were possible in the Los Angeles area given risks of flash flooding and rockslides, the NWS reported.

An even bigger storm was brewing out at sea and set to hit the coast on Wednesday, Accuweather reported.

Areas north of Santa Barbara were likely to see up to 3 inches (7.6 cm) of rain. As much as seven feet of snow was possible over 6,000 feet (1,829 meters) in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

"The big one is still out in the middle of the Pacific," said AccuWeather meteorologist John Gresiak. "It`s a very powerful storm."

The weather is a boon for California`s farmers and ski areas, given most of the state is recovering from years of drought, according to the United States Drought Monitor.&nbsp;

The wild weather is the result of moisture-laden winds from the Pacific known as "atmospheric rivers."&nbsp;

The first storm will reach the U.S. Midwest and Northeast on Thursday and Friday, gathering more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. The second storm will hit the central and eastern United States through the weekend, Gresiak said.

Big Pacific storms are set to dump up to seven feet (2.1 meters) of snow in California's Sierra Nevada mountains and several inches of rain elsewhere in the state, forcing evacuations in areas at risk to mudslides.

Big Pacific storms are set to dump up to seven feet (2.1 meters) of snow in California's Sierra Nevada mountains and several inches of rain elsewhere in the state, forcing evacuations in areas at risk to mudslides. The first storm moved over Southern California on Tuesday, with rainfall of up to 3 inches (7.6 cm) expected in parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and up to 4.5 inches (11.4) in the Santa Monica Mountains, the National Weather Service (NWS) reported. Police in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties ordered evacuations from areas damaged by last year's wildfires because of the risk heavy rain would trigger mud and debris flows on charred hillsides. Significant road closures and travel delays were possible in the Los Angeles area given risks of flash flooding and rockslides, the NWS reported. An even bigger storm was brewing out at sea and set to hit the coast on Wednesday, Accuweather reported. Areas north of Santa Barbara were likely to see up to 3 inches (7.6 cm) of rain. As much as seven feet of snow was possible over 6,000 feet (1,829 meters) in the Sierra Nevada mountains. "The big one is still out in the middle of the Pacific," said AccuWeather meteorologist John Gresiak. "It`s a very powerful storm." The weather is a boon for California`s farmers and ski areas, given most of the state is recovering from years of drought, according to the United States Drought Monitor. The wild weather is the result of moisture-laden winds from the Pacific known as "atmospheric rivers." The first storm will reach the U.S. Midwest and Northeast on Thursday and Friday, gathering more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. The second storm will hit the central and eastern United States through the weekend, Gresiak said.

California storms to dump up to 7 feet snow

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In the latest antagonism, Erdogan’s close adviser, Yasin Aktay, has spoken of the US as a “highly unreliable partner” due to its efforts to safeguard the Syrian Kurdish forces who have partnered with the US in defeating the Islamic State (IS) in Syria.

The criticism is a further illustration of the echo chambers in which diplomacy is being conducted at the moment. Far from seeking to reduce friction (the usual role of diplomacy), such statements are part of the new prickly nationalism that is everywhere in the ascendant.

The most glaring dimension of Aktay’s statement is its subjectivity. Trump’s announcement in December 2018 of the US troop withdrawal from Syria really did put America’s Syrian Kurdish allies in potential harm’s way, at the hands of the Turkish army. The recent move to safeguard that ally could be viewed, in fact, as reliability.

But of course, Atkay is speaking from within the echo chamber of Turkish politics. Within that chamber, the US has deserted its NATO ally in favour of a Syrian Kurdish militia with strong ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — a movement within Turkey designated a terrorist organisation.

His assessment discounts the fact that the threat from IS was very real. The US needed local allies on the ground in order to counter it. Indeed, it was a long time before the Turkish government decided to give the fight against the Islamic State the same priority that it gave the fight against Kurdish groups.

Yet the Turkish displeasure with its NATO ally is not all paranoia and blinkered Turkish nationalism. President Trump has been cavalier in his diplomacy within the international body. He has also been transparently shortsighted in his engagement with the Middle East.

In line with his “America First” policies, Trump was quick to single out IS as a grave threat to be addressed, largely because it had the capacity to impact America itself and American lives. Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have been far less eager to address Syria’s civil war.

From the Turkish viewpoint, this looks a lot like abandonment. The war on its southern frontier has been highly porous. It has deeply impacted Turkey in terms of terrorist atrocities, refugee flows, political destabilisation, economic impact and the very real threat of escalation from the Assad regime’s allies, Russia and Iran. None of this seems to have moved the US greatly.

Every man for himself

The result is a zero-sum environment in which all the key actors have gradually amassed leaders who see the best strategy as entrenchment and national defence. This may have been led by Russian President Vladimir Putin — the past master of such tactics — but it has been a domino effect.

President Erdogan has veered sharply in the same direction ever since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011. With the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency in November 2016, the world’s key superpower has followed suit. In the current dispute, the only real losers are likely to be the Kurds.

The Turkish government position has ossified. It cannot easily roll back on its war with the Syrian Kurdish militia now. The US position is more fluid. As President Trump as demonstrated, Washington is quite capable of dropping the Syrian Kurdish militia.

The reason the US government has so far stepped back from leaving the Syrian Kurds at the full mercy of other powers in Syria is not altruism. The Syrian Kurds merely offered the right guns for hire at the right time. But to drop them would hand valuable power to US adversaries.

In the cases of Russia and Iran, that would stick in the craw of the US administration. The irony is, as things stand, the other “adversary” who would clearly benefit is a country — Turkey — that is supposed to be an erstwhile NATO ally and a bulwark in the Middle East.

(Nathaniel Handy is a writer and academic)

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/turkey-us-relations-syrian-kurds-syria-civil-war-islamic-state-world-news-57293/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In the latest antagonism, Erdogan’s close adviser, Yasin Aktay, has spoken of the US as a “highly unreliable partner” due to its efforts to safeguard the Syrian Kurdish forces who have partnered with the US in defeating the Islamic State (IS) in Syria. The criticism is a further illustration of the echo chambers in which diplomacy is being conducted at the moment. Far from seeking to reduce friction (the usual role of diplomacy), such statements are part of the new prickly nationalism that is everywhere in the ascendant. The most glaring dimension of Aktay’s statement is its subjectivity. Trump’s announcement in December 2018 of the US troop withdrawal from Syria really did put America’s Syrian Kurdish allies in potential harm’s way, at the hands of the Turkish army. The recent move to safeguard that ally could be viewed, in fact, as reliability. But of course, Atkay is speaking from within the echo chamber of Turkish politics. Within that chamber, the US has deserted its NATO ally in favour of a Syrian Kurdish militia with strong ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — a movement within Turkey designated a terrorist organisation. His assessment discounts the fact that the threat from IS was very real. The US needed local allies on the ground in order to counter it. Indeed, it was a long time before the Turkish government decided to give the fight against the Islamic State the same priority that it gave the fight against Kurdish groups. Yet the Turkish displeasure with its NATO ally is not all paranoia and blinkered Turkish nationalism. President Trump has been cavalier in his diplomacy within the international body. He has also been transparently shortsighted in his engagement with the Middle East. In line with his “America First” policies, Trump was quick to single out IS as a grave threat to be addressed, largely because it had the capacity to impact America itself and American lives. Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have been far less eager to address Syria’s civil war. From the Turkish viewpoint, this looks a lot like abandonment. The war on its southern frontier has been highly porous. It has deeply impacted Turkey in terms of terrorist atrocities, refugee flows, political destabilisation, economic impact and the very real threat of escalation from the Assad regime’s allies, Russia and Iran. None of this seems to have moved the US greatly. Every man for himself The result is a zero-sum environment in which all the key actors have gradually amassed leaders who see the best strategy as entrenchment and national defence. This may have been led by Russian President Vladimir Putin — the past master of such tactics — but it has been a domino effect. President Erdogan has veered sharply in the same direction ever since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011. With the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency in November 2016, the world’s key superpower has followed suit. In the current dispute, the only real losers are likely to be the Kurds. The Turkish government position has ossified. It cannot easily roll back on its war with the Syrian Kurdish militia now. The US position is more fluid. As President Trump as demonstrated, Washington is quite capable of dropping the Syrian Kurdish militia. The reason the US government has so far stepped back from leaving the Syrian Kurds at the full mercy of other powers in Syria is not altruism. The Syrian Kurds merely offered the right guns for hire at the right time. But to drop them would hand valuable power to US adversaries. In the cases of Russia and Iran, that would stick in the craw of the US administration. The irony is, as things stand, the other “adversary” who would clearly benefit is a country — Turkey — that is supposed to be an erstwhile NATO ally and a bulwark in the Middle East. (Nathaniel Handy is a writer and academic) (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why the US is still losing Turkey

Several hundred Honduran <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-demands-us-probe-on-use-of-force-against-migrants-188204&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjUofG8x_HfAhWIro8KHVqDBe4QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2LCj7WHGU-g13DtHrIrDra">migrants</a> in a new US-bound caravan crossed into Guatemala on Tuesday, as<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-record-long-government-shutdown-could-be-resolved-in-15-minutes-189918&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwibirubx_HfAhUL2o8KHWfvCJ4QFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2eiwVWy8P_hAybgiaQRpi0"> US President Donald Trump</a> seized on news of the advancing group to try to build support for a wall along with his country's border with Mexico.

About 200 Hondurans presented documents in the morning to pass through the Agua Caliente border crossing separating the two Central American nations. The group included entire families and young men, plus parents carrying small children.

An additional 350 Hondurans crossed into Guatemalan territory but were being detained by migration officials checking their documents, according to pro-migrant activists travelling with them.

Some migrants ran toward the port of entry where they were met by a large group of Guatemalan police, and nearly 150 were turned away because they lacked proper documents, police said.

"Those who (lack documents) will be turned back," said Alejandra Mena, a spokeswoman for Guatemala's migration authority.

The second group of about 300 Honduran migrants walked along a highway and expected to reach the same border crossing on Tuesday night, activists said.

Earlier on Tuesday, Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Nelly Jerez told reporters that the caravan at the border numbered between 800 and 1,000 people.&nbsp;

Central American caravans heading toward the United States have inflamed the debate over US immigration policy, with Trump drawing attention to the bedraggled migrants to try to win backing for his plan to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.&nbsp;

As a partial US government shutdown reached its 25th day, Trump invoked the new caravan on Twitter to pressure US lawmakers. Democrats have resisted Trump's insistence that Congress provide $5.7 billion for wall funding.

"A big new Caravan is heading up to our Southern Border from Honduras," Trump tweeted on Tuesday. "Only a Wall, or Steel Barrier, will keep our Country safe! Stop playing political games and end the Shutdown!"

Trump has described the migrants as an invading force and sent troops to reinforce the border last year. On Monday, the Pentagon announced it would extend the deployment of about 2,350 troops to the US border through the end of September.

Television footage on Tuesday showed mainly younger migrants leaving the notoriously violent Honduran city of San Pedro Sula. Some flagged down rides to catch up with the caravan that left the same city on Monday.

"We're asking them to let us cross on our way to Mexico," said Honduran migrant Josue Hernandez ahead of the checkpoint guarded by Guatemalan police.

The group will likely face weeks of travel to get to the US border.&nbsp; 
US Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in a post on Twitter that her agency was closely monitoring the new caravan.

"To be clear - participation in a caravan does not grant you a special status or provide you special treatment," she added.

About 2,500 migrants from a previous wave of Central Americans who crossed Mexico have been camping in squalid shelters in the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

Several hundred Honduran migrants in a new US-bound caravan crossed into Guatemala on Tuesday, as US President Donald Trump seized on news of the advancing group to try to build support for a wall along with his country's border with Mexico.

Several hundred Honduran migrants in a new US-bound caravan crossed into Guatemala on Tuesday, as US President Donald Trump seized on news of the advancing group to try to build support for a wall along with his country's border with Mexico. About 200 Hondurans presented documents in the morning to pass through the Agua Caliente border crossing separating the two Central American nations. The group included entire families and young men, plus parents carrying small children. An additional 350 Hondurans crossed into Guatemalan territory but were being detained by migration officials checking their documents, according to pro-migrant activists travelling with them. Some migrants ran toward the port of entry where they were met by a large group of Guatemalan police, and nearly 150 were turned away because they lacked proper documents, police said. "Those who (lack documents) will be turned back," said Alejandra Mena, a spokeswoman for Guatemala's migration authority. The second group of about 300 Honduran migrants walked along a highway and expected to reach the same border crossing on Tuesday night, activists said. Earlier on Tuesday, Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Nelly Jerez told reporters that the caravan at the border numbered between 800 and 1,000 people. Central American caravans heading toward the United States have inflamed the debate over US immigration policy, with Trump drawing attention to the bedraggled migrants to try to win backing for his plan to build a wall on the US-Mexico border. As a partial US government shutdown reached its 25th day, Trump invoked the new caravan on Twitter to pressure US lawmakers. Democrats have resisted Trump's insistence that Congress provide $5.7 billion for wall funding. "A big new Caravan is heading up to our Southern Border from Honduras," Trump tweeted on Tuesday. "Only a Wall, or Steel Barrier, will keep our Country safe! Stop playing political games and end the Shutdown!" Trump has described the migrants as an invading force and sent troops to reinforce the border last year. On Monday, the Pentagon announced it would extend the deployment of about 2,350 troops to the US border through the end of September. Television footage on Tuesday showed mainly younger migrants leaving the notoriously violent Honduran city of San Pedro Sula. Some flagged down rides to catch up with the caravan that left the same city on Monday. "We're asking them to let us cross on our way to Mexico," said Honduran migrant Josue Hernandez ahead of the checkpoint guarded by Guatemalan police. The group will likely face weeks of travel to get to the US border. US Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in a post on Twitter that her agency was closely monitoring the new caravan. "To be clear - participation in a caravan does not grant you a special status or provide you special treatment," she added. About 2,500 migrants from a previous wave of Central Americans who crossed Mexico have been camping in squalid shelters in the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

Watch: US-bound migrant caravan crosses into Guatemala

The US&nbsp;economy is taking a larger-than-expected hit from the partial government shutdown, White House estimates showed on Tuesday, as the impasse between President Donald Trump and Democrats over a wall on the southern border dragged into its 25th day.

Trump was expected to host some members of Congress for lunch at 12:30 pm&nbsp;EST (1730 GMT) where the shutdown was sure to be discussed. A guest list was not immediately provided and the White House and congressional leaders declined requests to comment.

Neither Trump nor Democratic congressional leaders have shown signs of bending on the issue of funding the wall that he promised to build along the border with Mexico. Trump is insisting Congress shell out $5.7 billion as about 800,000 federal workers go unpaid during the partial shutdown.

The Trump administration had initially estimated the shutdown would cost the economy 0.1 percentage point in growth every two weeks that employees were without pay.

But on Tuesday, there was an updated figure -&nbsp;0.13 percentage point every week because of the impact of work left undone by 380,000 furloughed employees as well as work left aside by federal contractors, a White House official said.

The partial shutdown is the longest in US&nbsp;history and its effects have begun to reverberate across the country.

Longer lines have formed at some airports as more security screeners fail to show up for work while food and drug inspections have been curtailed and farmers, stung by recent trade spats, have been unable to receive federal aid.

Speaking on CNBC, Delta Air Lines Inc Chief Executive Officer Ed Bastian said the partial shutdown will cost the airline $25 million in lost revenue in January because fewer government contractors are travelling.

Trump ran for office in 2016 on a promise to build a wall to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking. He had toyed with the prospect of declaring a national emergency to circumvent Congress to secure the funding, but this week has backed off from that idea, which would attract a court challenge.

Democrats, who took over the US&nbsp;House of Representatives this month, have rejected the border wall but back other border security measures.

House Democrats have passed a number of bills to fund the roughly one-quarter of federal operations that have been closed, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has said the chamber will not consider legislation that Trump will not sign into law.

McConnell, who has mainly stayed out of the public fray on the shutdown, on Tuesday accused Democrats of "acrobatic contortions" to avoid negotiating on the shutdown.

Representative Hakeem Jeffries, who heads the House Democratic Caucus, said it was up to individual lawmakers to decide whether to accept invitations from the White House to discuss the issue.

“The question that I think everyone can reasonably ask - Is he inviting people to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to really try to resolve this problem or to create a photo op so he can project a false sense of bipartisanship?” Jeffries told reporters.

Democratic Representative Katherine Clark said Democrats were unified in restarting government before negotiating on border security.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The US economy is taking a larger-than-expected hit from the partial government shutdown, White House estimates showed on Tuesday, as the impasse between President Donald Trump and Democrats over a wall on the southern border dragged into its 25th day.

The US economy is taking a larger-than-expected hit from the partial government shutdown, White House estimates showed on Tuesday, as the impasse between President Donald Trump and Democrats over a wall on the southern border dragged into its 25th day. Trump was expected to host some members of Congress for lunch at 12:30 pm EST (1730 GMT) where the shutdown was sure to be discussed. A guest list was not immediately provided and the White House and congressional leaders declined requests to comment. Neither Trump nor Democratic congressional leaders have shown signs of bending on the issue of funding the wall that he promised to build along the border with Mexico. Trump is insisting Congress shell out $5.7 billion as about 800,000 federal workers go unpaid during the partial shutdown. The Trump administration had initially estimated the shutdown would cost the economy 0.1 percentage point in growth every two weeks that employees were without pay. But on Tuesday, there was an updated figure - 0.13 percentage point every week because of the impact of work left undone by 380,000 furloughed employees as well as work left aside by federal contractors, a White House official said. The partial shutdown is the longest in US history and its effects have begun to reverberate across the country. Longer lines have formed at some airports as more security screeners fail to show up for work while food and drug inspections have been curtailed and farmers, stung by recent trade spats, have been unable to receive federal aid. Speaking on CNBC, Delta Air Lines Inc Chief Executive Officer Ed Bastian said the partial shutdown will cost the airline $25 million in lost revenue in January because fewer government contractors are travelling. Trump ran for office in 2016 on a promise to build a wall to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking. He had toyed with the prospect of declaring a national emergency to circumvent Congress to secure the funding, but this week has backed off from that idea, which would attract a court challenge. Democrats, who took over the US House of Representatives this month, have rejected the border wall but back other border security measures. House Democrats have passed a number of bills to fund the roughly one-quarter of federal operations that have been closed, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has said the chamber will not consider legislation that Trump will not sign into law. McConnell, who has mainly stayed out of the public fray on the shutdown, on Tuesday accused Democrats of "acrobatic contortions" to avoid negotiating on the shutdown. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, who heads the House Democratic Caucus, said it was up to individual lawmakers to decide whether to accept invitations from the White House to discuss the issue. “The question that I think everyone can reasonably ask - Is he inviting people to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to really try to resolve this problem or to create a photo op so he can project a false sense of bipartisanship?” Jeffries told reporters. Democratic Representative Katherine Clark said Democrats were unified in restarting government before negotiating on border security.

Government shutdown taking larger-than-expected toll on US economy

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