Turkish President <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-will-not-be-intimidated-by-trump-threats-over-kurdish-militia-foreign-ministry-190207">Recep Tayyip Erdogan</a> said Tuesday that Ankara would set up a "security zone" in northern Syria suggested by US President Donald Trump.

Erdogan said he held a "quite positive" telephone conversation with Trump late on Monday during which he reaffirmed that "a 20-mile (30 kilometres) security zone along the Syrian border... will be set up by us."

Turkey has welcomed the planned withdrawal of some 2,000 US troops from Syria but the future of US-backed Kurdish militia forces regarded as terrorists by Ankara has poisoned Ankara-Washington ties.&nbsp;

Trump on Sunday tweeted that the United States would "devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds", a threat that drew angry retorts from the government in Ankara.

Erdogan on Tuesday said Trump's tweet "saddened me and my friends", but added that the two leaders reached an agreement during Monday's phone conversation.&nbsp;

"We have reached an agreement of understanding that is of historic importance," he said.

Erdogan said Turkey would solve issues with a "spirit of alliance" with Trump as long as his country's sensitivities were taken into account.

US support for the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) during the Syria conflict has been a major source of friction between the NATO allies. The US regards the YPG as an effective ground force in the fight against Islamic State (IS) jihadists.

Ankara has however threatened to launch a cross-border operation to eradicate Syrian Kurdish fighters it sees as an offshoot of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

The PKK is blacklisted by Turkey as well as by the United States.&nbsp;

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday that Ankara would set up a "security zone" in northern Syria suggested by US President Donald Trump. Erdogan said he held a "quite positive" telephone conversation with Trump late on Monday during which he reaffirmed that "a 20-mile (30 kilometres) security zone along the Syrian border.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday that Ankara would set up a "security zone" in northern Syria suggested by US President Donald Trump. Erdogan said he held a "quite positive" telephone conversation with Trump late on Monday during which he reaffirmed that "a 20-mile (30 kilometres) security zone along the Syrian border... will be set up by us." Turkey has welcomed the planned withdrawal of some 2,000 US troops from Syria but the future of US-backed Kurdish militia forces regarded as terrorists by Ankara has poisoned Ankara-Washington ties. Trump on Sunday tweeted that the United States would "devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurds", a threat that drew angry retorts from the government in Ankara. Erdogan on Tuesday said Trump's tweet "saddened me and my friends", but added that the two leaders reached an agreement during Monday's phone conversation. "We have reached an agreement of understanding that is of historic importance," he said. Erdogan said Turkey would solve issues with a "spirit of alliance" with Trump as long as his country's sensitivities were taken into account. US support for the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) during the Syria conflict has been a major source of friction between the NATO allies. The US regards the YPG as an effective ground force in the fight against Islamic State (IS) jihadists. Ankara has however threatened to launch a cross-border operation to eradicate Syrian Kurdish fighters it sees as an offshoot of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The PKK is blacklisted by Turkey as well as by the United States.

Erdogan says Turkey will set up Syria 'security zone' as suggested by Trump

By Chris Edelson

If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next?

Would the courts step in? What is Congress’ role?

As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power in two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress.

Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent.

The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency.

If President Trump does declare an emergency, the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of the passive spectator?

Gaining congressional approval

Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorisation. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions.

This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labour strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a pre-existing statute on the books weighed against Truman.

When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible.

Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted.

Congress’s role

Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes.

Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law.

The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in U.S. waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute.

Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute.

Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action.

For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress.

In 1942, President Franklin D Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal.

Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. If President Trump declares a national emergency at the border, it is far from clear that courts would strike it down.

By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress.

Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. If the president moves ahead with a controversial plan to declare a national emergency as a way to free up money for construction of a border wall, all eyes should be on Congress.

(Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-trump-declares-a-national-emergency-could-congress-or-the-courts-reverse-it-109752">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By Chris Edelson If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next?

By Chris Edelson If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next? Would the courts step in? What is Congress’ role? As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power in two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress. Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent. The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency. If President Trump does declare an emergency, the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of the passive spectator? Gaining congressional approval Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorisation. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions. This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labour strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a pre-existing statute on the books weighed against Truman. When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible. Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted. Congress’s role Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes. Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law. The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in U.S. waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute. Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute. Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action. For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress. In 1942, President Franklin D Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal. Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. If President Trump declares a national emergency at the border, it is far from clear that courts would strike it down. By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress. Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. If the president moves ahead with a controversial plan to declare a national emergency as a way to free up money for construction of a border wall, all eyes should be on Congress. (Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs) (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)

US-Mexico wall: If Trump declares a national emergency, could Congress or the courts reverse it?

A winter storm that dumped heavy snow on the US Midwest, causing at least five roadway deaths, stranding some motorists in Missouri and cancelling dozens of flights, marched east toward Washington on Saturday.

The weather system, which started as rain from Mexico but has since turned into snow, is forecast to affect a 1,800-mile (2,900 km) swath of the United States from Colorado to the Mid-Atlantic.

The storm hit Kansas and Missouri on Friday and pummeled those states again on Saturday as it extended into parts of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, said US&nbsp;Weather Prediction Center meteorologist Andrew Orrison.

In Kansas City, snow dusted the field at Arrowhead Stadium during Saturday's National Football League playoff game between the hometown Chiefs and Indianapolis Colts.

"There's snow time like Showtime," the Chiefs said on Twitter, sharing video of the team's quarterback Patrick Mahomes arriving at the stadium in the snow.

The storm is leaving its heaviest snowfall on areas west of St&nbsp;Louis, where about a foot and a half of snow was recorded, with still more falling on Saturday, Orrison said.

At least five people died in weather-related crashes on roads in Missouri and Kansas, according to the highway patrolmen in both states.

"I think it's safe to say that every road is bad in Kansas right now!" Trooper Tod Hileman, a spokesman for the Kansas Highway Patrol, said on Twitter on Saturday.

Dozens of flights were cancelled at St Louis Lambert International Airport, which described the onslaught of snow on Twitter as one of its biggest single-day winter storms in years.

Snow is forecast for the Appalachian Mountains and the Mid-Atlantic on Saturday evening and Sunday.

"Given how cold it is across the Midwest and even in the mid-Atlantic region, certainly people who are going to be out are going to want to dress in layered clothing," Orrison said.

Washington, where many federal government offices are closed due to the US government shutdown, is expected to receive 6 to 8 inches (15 cm to 20 cm) of snow from this storm, according to the National Weather Service.

Central and northern Virginia will receive even more, with up to 10 inches of snow possible in some places. Baltimore and parts of Maryland are also bracing for a similar amount.

Philadelphia is expected to receive a few inches of snow, but areas north of there are expected to be spared, Orrison added.

A winter storm that dumped heavy snow on the US Midwest, causing at least five roadway deaths, stranding some motorists in Missouri and cancelling dozens of flights, marched east toward Washington on Saturday.

A winter storm that dumped heavy snow on the US Midwest, causing at least five roadway deaths, stranding some motorists in Missouri and cancelling dozens of flights, marched east toward Washington on Saturday. The weather system, which started as rain from Mexico but has since turned into snow, is forecast to affect a 1,800-mile (2,900 km) swath of the United States from Colorado to the Mid-Atlantic. The storm hit Kansas and Missouri on Friday and pummeled those states again on Saturday as it extended into parts of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, said US Weather Prediction Center meteorologist Andrew Orrison. In Kansas City, snow dusted the field at Arrowhead Stadium during Saturday's National Football League playoff game between the hometown Chiefs and Indianapolis Colts. "There's snow time like Showtime," the Chiefs said on Twitter, sharing video of the team's quarterback Patrick Mahomes arriving at the stadium in the snow. The storm is leaving its heaviest snowfall on areas west of St Louis, where about a foot and a half of snow was recorded, with still more falling on Saturday, Orrison said. At least five people died in weather-related crashes on roads in Missouri and Kansas, according to the highway patrolmen in both states. "I think it's safe to say that every road is bad in Kansas right now!" Trooper Tod Hileman, a spokesman for the Kansas Highway Patrol, said on Twitter on Saturday. Dozens of flights were cancelled at St Louis Lambert International Airport, which described the onslaught of snow on Twitter as one of its biggest single-day winter storms in years. Snow is forecast for the Appalachian Mountains and the Mid-Atlantic on Saturday evening and Sunday. "Given how cold it is across the Midwest and even in the mid-Atlantic region, certainly people who are going to be out are going to want to dress in layered clothing," Orrison said. Washington, where many federal government offices are closed due to the US government shutdown, is expected to receive 6 to 8 inches (15 cm to 20 cm) of snow from this storm, according to the National Weather Service. Central and northern Virginia will receive even more, with up to 10 inches of snow possible in some places. Baltimore and parts of Maryland are also bracing for a similar amount. Philadelphia is expected to receive a few inches of snow, but areas north of there are expected to be spared, Orrison added.

Snowstorm targets Washington, at least five dead in US Midwest

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday.

Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt. Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the US forces based in Afghanistan.

Emir, who was known by multiple names, facilitated high-profile attacks and supplied Islamic State fighters with weapons and materials to make explosives, Mendie said in a statement.

"His removal helps protect innocent Afghans from future Islamic State violence and weakens their presence in Nangarhar," Mendie said.

Islamic State fighters have developed a stronghold in the province on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan and have become one of the country's most dangerous militant groups.

The hardline militant group's local affiliate, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) after an old name for the region that includes Afghanistan, has been active since 2015, fighting the Taliban as well as Afghan and foreign forces.

The fight against Islamic State and other militant groups including Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at the heart of the US-led counterterrorism mission being conducted alongside the NATO-led Resolute Support operation aimed at training and advising Afghan security forces.

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday. Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt.

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday. Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt. Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the US forces based in Afghanistan. Emir, who was known by multiple names, facilitated high-profile attacks and supplied Islamic State fighters with weapons and materials to make explosives, Mendie said in a statement. "His removal helps protect innocent Afghans from future Islamic State violence and weakens their presence in Nangarhar," Mendie said. Islamic State fighters have developed a stronghold in the province on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan and have become one of the country's most dangerous militant groups. The hardline militant group's local affiliate, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) after an old name for the region that includes Afghanistan, has been active since 2015, fighting the Taliban as well as Afghan and foreign forces. The fight against Islamic State and other militant groups including Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at the heart of the US-led counterterrorism mission being conducted alongside the NATO-led Resolute Support operation aimed at training and advising Afghan security forces.

Islamic State commander killed in Afghanistan: US forces

Amid reports of United States beginning to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-led-coalition-withdrawing-equipment-from-syria-189689">pullout&nbsp;from Syria</a>, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war.&nbsp;

Just like Syria, while US lawmakers and policymakers remain divided over the pullout move with respect to Afghanistan, the man who shaped the post-Taliban Afghanistan believes this would be a good decision.

In an exclusive interview with WION, Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's former president talked about his views on Trump's policy on Afghanistan, China's growing presence around the region and India's role as one of Afghanistan's strategic allies.&nbsp;

Karzai said that America will never leave Afghanistan owing to its strategic placement on the world map.&nbsp;

Watch the full interview here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HatUkYUot18" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"We have a very strategic location, we have all the other superpowers in our neighbourhood -- Russia is there, China is there, India is there and we have regional powers surrounding us as well, therefore our location is surely to interest the United States. Truly, that is one of the reasons why the US is there. The US will stay in Afghanistan and would like to stay in Afghanistan," former Afghan president said.&nbsp;

He agreed that the Americans have turned his country into a war lab. As per a UNICEF report, the violence in Afghanistan maimed or killed some 5,000 children within the first three quarters of 2018. Many have been wounded, thousands lost their lives.

"This is one of the worst things they could have done to Afghanistan and they did it; that is the reason why they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is something that I have condemned very strongly and I would do it again and again. I would raise my condemnation against that atrocity again," Karzai told WION.&nbsp;

Karzai identified India as a key ally and stated that it can play a greater role in Afghanistan.&nbsp;India's work has been consistent in Afghanistan. Over the years, India has built more than four thousand kilometres of roads, dams and hydropower plants. But Karzai thinks that India has the ability to do more.&nbsp;

"India has the ability, the stature and the presence in Afghanistan, in the minds and the hearts of the people, to be able to do things independently. India is the most strategic of Afghanistan's allies in terms of the bilateral relations between the two countries, in terms of the help that India has given to Afghanistan. India has and will continue to play a role in Afghanistan," ex-Afghan president said.&nbsp;

Beijing wants to extend the China-Pakistan Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Karzai says Kabul welcomes provided it brings a 'win-win' situation to both China and Afghanistan.&nbsp;

"We all have political ambitions, Afghanistan has political ambitions, India has. Economic power brings you the power to reach political ambitions. It is legitimate, there is nothing wrong in that as long as you do it not at the cost of others; as long as you do it in a win-win&nbsp;situation," he noted.&nbsp;

Karzai further added that he doesn't think US president Donald Trump intended to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-mocks-indian-pm-for-library-in-afghanistan-187955">mock India on the library incident</a>.&nbsp;

"I don't think his intention was to mock India. I think it did not occur to him at that time that it was not a library but a parliament house. People make mistakes and say things," he said.&nbsp;

Amid reports of United States beginning to pullout from Syria, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war.

Amid reports of United States beginning to pullout from Syria, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war. Just like Syria, while US lawmakers and policymakers remain divided over the pullout move with respect to Afghanistan, the man who shaped the post-Taliban Afghanistan believes this would be a good decision. In an exclusive interview with WION, Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's former president talked about his views on Trump's policy on Afghanistan, China's growing presence around the region and India's role as one of Afghanistan's strategic allies. Karzai said that America will never leave Afghanistan owing to its strategic placement on the world map. Watch the full interview here: × "We have a very strategic location, we have all the other superpowers in our neighbourhood -- Russia is there, China is there, India is there and we have regional powers surrounding us as well, therefore our location is surely to interest the United States. Truly, that is one of the reasons why the US is there. The US will stay in Afghanistan and would like to stay in Afghanistan," former Afghan president said. He agreed that the Americans have turned his country into a war lab. As per a UNICEF report, the violence in Afghanistan maimed or killed some 5,000 children within the first three quarters of 2018. Many have been wounded, thousands lost their lives. "This is one of the worst things they could have done to Afghanistan and they did it; that is the reason why they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is something that I have condemned very strongly and I would do it again and again. I would raise my condemnation against that atrocity again," Karzai told WION. Karzai identified India as a key ally and stated that it can play a greater role in Afghanistan. India's work has been consistent in Afghanistan. Over the years, India has built more than four thousand kilometres of roads, dams and hydropower plants. But Karzai thinks that India has the ability to do more. "India has the ability, the stature and the presence in Afghanistan, in the minds and the hearts of the people, to be able to do things independently. India is the most strategic of Afghanistan's allies in terms of the bilateral relations between the two countries, in terms of the help that India has given to Afghanistan. India has and will continue to play a role in Afghanistan," ex-Afghan president said. Beijing wants to extend the China-Pakistan Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Karzai says Kabul welcomes provided it brings a 'win-win' situation to both China and Afghanistan. "We all have political ambitions, Afghanistan has political ambitions, India has. Economic power brings you the power to reach political ambitions. It is legitimate, there is nothing wrong in that as long as you do it not at the cost of others; as long as you do it in a win-win situation," he noted. Karzai further added that he doesn't think US president Donald Trump intended to mock India on the library incident. "I don't think his intention was to mock India. I think it did not occur to him at that time that it was not a library but a parliament house. People make mistakes and say things," he said.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai tells WION why he thinks US would like to stay in Afghanistan

One of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/canada-engaging-in-egotism-and-white-supremacy-over-huawei-vp-meng-chinese-ambassador-lu-shaye-189310">Huawei</a> Canada's top executives on Friday disclosed he was leaving his post after more than seven years with the Chinese telecommunications equipment maker, which is facing heightened scrutiny over security issues from Canada and its allies.

Scott Bradley disclosed his departure as the company's senior vice president for corporate affairs in a post on LinkedIn that did not give a reason for the move. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

Huawei is under intense scrutiny in the West over its relationship with the Chinese government and US-led allegations that its equipment could be used by Beijing for spying.

On Friday, sources told Reuters that Poland arrested a Huawei employee and former Polish security official on spying allegations, a move that could fuel Western concerns about the security of the company's technology.

Bradley was a key public spokesman for Huawei Canada, which has been under the spotlight since Canadian authorities in December arrested the chief financial officer of its parent company at the request of the United States.

Huawei is a major supplier of telecommunications equipment in Canada, where Bradley had served as chair of the 5G Canada Council, a national trade group promoting adoption of next-generation high-speed wireless technology.

The Canadian government last year launched a new security review of Huawei's 5G technology, which at least two major Canadian carriers have said they plan to test in small-scale pilots.

Bradley will serve as special adviser to the company, assisting the company "as required," Huawei Canada President Eric Li said in a memo to staff that was obtained by Reuters.

"We are saddened to see him leave but grateful for the tireless work he has put in to help us grow our brand and public image, and build various relationships with government," Li said.

Bradley confirmed on LinkedIn that he intended to advise the company.

"As we start 2019, it is time for a change," Bradley said in the post. "I continue to believe passionately in all of the values our Canadian team represents, and I believe that our team is one of the most innovative in the world."

One of Huawei Canada's top executives on Friday disclosed he was leaving his post after more than seven years with the Chinese telecommunications equipment maker, which is facing heightened scrutiny over security issues from Canada and its allies.

One of Huawei Canada's top executives on Friday disclosed he was leaving his post after more than seven years with the Chinese telecommunications equipment maker, which is facing heightened scrutiny over security issues from Canada and its allies. Scott Bradley disclosed his departure as the company's senior vice president for corporate affairs in a post on LinkedIn that did not give a reason for the move. He could not immediately be reached for comment. Huawei is under intense scrutiny in the West over its relationship with the Chinese government and US-led allegations that its equipment could be used by Beijing for spying. On Friday, sources told Reuters that Poland arrested a Huawei employee and former Polish security official on spying allegations, a move that could fuel Western concerns about the security of the company's technology. Bradley was a key public spokesman for Huawei Canada, which has been under the spotlight since Canadian authorities in December arrested the chief financial officer of its parent company at the request of the United States. Huawei is a major supplier of telecommunications equipment in Canada, where Bradley had served as chair of the 5G Canada Council, a national trade group promoting adoption of next-generation high-speed wireless technology. The Canadian government last year launched a new security review of Huawei's 5G technology, which at least two major Canadian carriers have said they plan to test in small-scale pilots. Bradley will serve as special adviser to the company, assisting the company "as required," Huawei Canada President Eric Li said in a memo to staff that was obtained by Reuters. "We are saddened to see him leave but grateful for the tireless work he has put in to help us grow our brand and public image, and build various relationships with government," Li said. Bradley confirmed on LinkedIn that he intended to advise the company. "As we start 2019, it is time for a change," Bradley said in the post. "I continue to believe passionately in all of the values our Canadian team represents, and I believe that our team is one of the most innovative in the world."

Huawei Canada executive Scott Bradley leaves post as scrutiny of company grows

Nissan Motor head of China operations Jose Munoz has resigned following reports that the Japanese automaker has broadened its investigation into ousted <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/ghosn-lawyers-seek-bail-after-ex-nissan-chief-indicted-on-two-new-charges-189582">Chairman Carlos Ghosn</a>'s alleged financial misconduct.

Reuters had reported earlier on Friday that the Japanese automaker was looking into decisions made in the United States by Munoz who led Nissan's North American operations from 2016 to 2018.

He joined the automaker in 2004 in Europe and led its ambitious expansion in North America after the global financial crisis. Since then, Nissan has succeeded in raising its market share in the United States.

In a LinkedIn on Friday, Munoz said, "I am proud to have played a role in achieving 74 per cent growth in North America, gaining market dominance in Mexico, getting China market share on the growth path, and helping the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance become the highest volume group in the world."

Earlier this year, Nissan tapped Munoz to oversee its operations in China where it plans to ramp up sales over the next few years. Since then, the world's largest auto market has been showing signs of a slowdown, prompting the automaker to cut local production plans in the coming months.

China is Nissan's second-largest market, accounting for roughly one-quarter of its annual global vehicle sales. Last year the company planned to boost sales to make China its biggest market in terms of vehicle sales by 2022.

Munoz, 53, who is also the automaker's Chief Performance Officer, has been with Nissan for 15 years. He was recently placed on a leave of absence due to the ongoing probe.

Munoz, who is widely seen within the industry as close to Ghosn, was a "person of interest" in the probe and it was not clear whether he would be accused of any wrongdoing.

"I look forward to continuing to assist Nissan in its investigations," Munoz said in the post.

Ghosn, once the most celebrated executives in the auto industry and the anchor of Nissan's alliance with France's Renault SA, has been charged with under-reporting his income. On Friday, he was also charged with aggravated breach of trust, accused of shifting personal investment losses worth 1.85 billion yen ($17 million) to Nissan.

Nissan Motor head of China operations Jose Munoz has resigned following reports that the Japanese automaker has broadened its investigation into ousted Chairman Carlos Ghosn's alleged financial misconduct.

Nissan Motor head of China operations Jose Munoz has resigned following reports that the Japanese automaker has broadened its investigation into ousted Chairman Carlos Ghosn's alleged financial misconduct. Reuters had reported earlier on Friday that the Japanese automaker was looking into decisions made in the United States by Munoz who led Nissan's North American operations from 2016 to 2018. He joined the automaker in 2004 in Europe and led its ambitious expansion in North America after the global financial crisis. Since then, Nissan has succeeded in raising its market share in the United States. In a LinkedIn on Friday, Munoz said, "I am proud to have played a role in achieving 74 per cent growth in North America, gaining market dominance in Mexico, getting China market share on the growth path, and helping the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance become the highest volume group in the world." Earlier this year, Nissan tapped Munoz to oversee its operations in China where it plans to ramp up sales over the next few years. Since then, the world's largest auto market has been showing signs of a slowdown, prompting the automaker to cut local production plans in the coming months. China is Nissan's second-largest market, accounting for roughly one-quarter of its annual global vehicle sales. Last year the company planned to boost sales to make China its biggest market in terms of vehicle sales by 2022. Munoz, 53, who is also the automaker's Chief Performance Officer, has been with Nissan for 15 years. He was recently placed on a leave of absence due to the ongoing probe. Munoz, who is widely seen within the industry as close to Ghosn, was a "person of interest" in the probe and it was not clear whether he would be accused of any wrongdoing. "I look forward to continuing to assist Nissan in its investigations," Munoz said in the post. Ghosn, once the most celebrated executives in the auto industry and the anchor of Nissan's alliance with France's Renault SA, has been charged with under-reporting his income. On Friday, he was also charged with aggravated breach of trust, accused of shifting personal investment losses worth 1.85 billion yen ($17 million) to Nissan.

Nissan China chief Jose Munoz resigns amid broadened Ghosn probe

US President Donald Trump on Friday tweeted out what potentially pronounced good news for H1-B visa holders.&nbsp;

Trump hinted at changes "that are soon coming" which will bring "both simplicity and certainty" to the stay of H1-B holders, "including a potential path to citizenship."

"We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the US," the tweet read.&nbsp;

Last month, the Trump administration proposed major changes to the H-1B application process with the aim of awarding the visa to the most skilled and highest paid foreign workers, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1083705208834834433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Under a new proposed merit-based rule companies employing foreign workers on the H-1B visa - under the Congressional mandated annual caps -- would have to electronically register with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during a designated registration period.

The H1-B visa has an annual numerical limit cap of 65,000 visas each fiscal year as mandated by the US Congress. The first 20,000 petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries with a US master's degree or higher are exempt from the cap.&nbsp;

The H1-B visa has an annual numerical limit cap of 65,000 each fiscal year as mandated by the Congress. The first 20,000 petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries with a US master's degree or higher are exempt from the cap.

According to the USCIS, between 2007 and 2017, it received the maximum number of 2.2 million H-1B petitions from high-skilled Indians, news agency PTI reported.&nbsp;

India was followed by China with 301,000 H-1B petitions during the same period.

(With inputs from PTI)

US President Donald Trump on Friday tweeted out what potentially pronounced good news for H1-B visa holders. Trump hinted at changes "that are soon coming" which will bring "both simplicity and certainty" to the stay of H1-B holders, "including a potential path to citizenship.

US President Donald Trump on Friday tweeted out what potentially pronounced good news for H1-B visa holders. Trump hinted at changes "that are soon coming" which will bring "both simplicity and certainty" to the stay of H1-B holders, "including a potential path to citizenship." "We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the US," the tweet read. Last month, the Trump administration proposed major changes to the H-1B application process with the aim of awarding the visa to the most skilled and highest paid foreign workers, news agency PTI reported. H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2019 × Under a new proposed merit-based rule companies employing foreign workers on the H-1B visa - under the Congressional mandated annual caps -- would have to electronically register with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) during a designated registration period. The H1-B visa has an annual numerical limit cap of 65,000 visas each fiscal year as mandated by the US Congress. The first 20,000 petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries with a US master's degree or higher are exempt from the cap. The H1-B visa has an annual numerical limit cap of 65,000 each fiscal year as mandated by the Congress. The first 20,000 petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries with a US master's degree or higher are exempt from the cap. According to the USCIS, between 2007 and 2017, it received the maximum number of 2.2 million H-1B petitions from high-skilled Indians, news agency PTI reported. India was followed by China with 301,000 H-1B petitions during the same period. (With inputs from PTI)

Want to encourage highly skilled people to pursue career in US: Trump tweets good news for H1-B holders

Russia said on Friday it was important for Syrian Kurds and the Syrian government to start talking to each other in light of US&nbsp;plans to withdraw its forces from Syria.

Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told reporters that territory previously controlled by the United States should be transferred to the Syrian government.

"In this regard, establishing dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus takes on particular significance. After all, the Kurds are an integral part of Syrian society," said Zakharova.

She told the same briefing that Moscow had the impression that the United States wanted to stay in Syria despite US&nbsp;President Donald Trump last month unexpectedly announcing a US&nbsp;withdrawal.

Zakharova also said Russia remained committed to an agreement it had struck with Turkey to stabilise a de-escalation zone in Syria's Idlib province, but said Moscow was worried by an increase in the number of ceasefire violations there.

The US-led coalition against Islamic State has <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-led-coalition-says-syria-withdrawal-has-begun-189587">begun the process of withdrawing from Syria</a>, a spokesman said on Friday, indicating the start of a US pullout that has been clouded by mixed messages from Washington.

US President Donald Trump's announcement last month that he had decided to withdraw 2,000 US troops stunned allies that have joined Washington in the battle against Islamic State in Syria. Senior US officials were shocked too, among them Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who quit in protest.

The coalition "has begun the process of our deliberate withdrawal from Syria. Out of concern for operational security, we will not discuss specific timelines, locations or troop movements," Colonel Sean Ryan said.

The US decision has injected new uncertainties into the eight-year long Syrian war and a flurry of contacts over how a resulting security vacuum will be filled across a swathe of northern and eastern Syria where the US forces are stationed.

&nbsp;

Russia said on Friday it was important for Syrian Kurds and the Syrian government to start talking to each other in light of US plans to withdraw its forces from Syria.

Russia said on Friday it was important for Syrian Kurds and the Syrian government to start talking to each other in light of US plans to withdraw its forces from Syria. Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told reporters that territory previously controlled by the United States should be transferred to the Syrian government. "In this regard, establishing dialogue between the Kurds and Damascus takes on particular significance. After all, the Kurds are an integral part of Syrian society," said Zakharova. She told the same briefing that Moscow had the impression that the United States wanted to stay in Syria despite US President Donald Trump last month unexpectedly announcing a US withdrawal. Zakharova also said Russia remained committed to an agreement it had struck with Turkey to stabilise a de-escalation zone in Syria's Idlib province, but said Moscow was worried by an increase in the number of ceasefire violations there. The US-led coalition against Islamic State has begun the process of withdrawing from Syria, a spokesman said on Friday, indicating the start of a US pullout that has been clouded by mixed messages from Washington. US President Donald Trump's announcement last month that he had decided to withdraw 2,000 US troops stunned allies that have joined Washington in the battle against Islamic State in Syria. Senior US officials were shocked too, among them Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who quit in protest. The coalition "has begun the process of our deliberate withdrawal from Syria. Out of concern for operational security, we will not discuss specific timelines, locations or troop movements," Colonel Sean Ryan said. The US decision has injected new uncertainties into the eight-year long Syrian war and a flurry of contacts over how a resulting security vacuum will be filled across a swathe of northern and eastern Syria where the US forces are stationed.

US Syria pullout spurs need for Kurds and Damascus to talk: Russia 

By John A Tures

One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win.

This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years. However, a poll conducted in the first week of January shows that 51 per cent of adults believe Trump is to blame for the shutdown.

I’m a scholar of political science and often research presidential politics. I did an analysis of Gallup data, a group that does public opinion polling, from its Presidential Job Approval Center.

There have been 18 shutdowns since 1977. I found that in the nine longest shutdowns during that time, presidents lose an average of 3 percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days.

Most presidents lose shutdowns

In only two of the nine cases that I looked at, did a chief executive boost his numbers. Jimmy Carter inched up a percentage point or two in 1977 and 1978 during the government shutdowns that took place during his presidency.

In the seven other cases, the shutdown led to declines in public approval of the president. And in the majority of cases, the president’s party lost the next presidential election.

The clearest example is President George H W Bush. In 1990, this GOP president was riding a 66 per cent approval rating after the successful Operation Desert Shield (when we sent US troops to Saudi Arabia to deter an attack by Iraq) and a long period of economic growth.

But Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress battled over the budget deficit, triggering a government shutdown from October 5 to 9. Public approval for Bush fell 10 percentage points.

Some of this may have been the result of Bush approving tax increases to close the budget deficit, which broke one of his campaign pledges of “no new taxes.”

But images of closed federal facilities didn’t help, giving voters the appearance of Bush presiding over gridlock. This hurt him in the 1992 election when voters agreed with Democrats that Bush’s policies led to legislative deadlock.

Pundits often cite the case of Democratic President Bill Clinton as an exception. They claim he “won” the longest shutdown in US history. This shutdown took place from December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, or 21 full days.

GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to reduce the budget deficit, while Clinton opposed deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

It’s true that Clinton went on to defeat GOP Sen. Robert Dole – one of his rivals during the shutdown – in the 1996 election. But Gallup polling shows that Clinton’s approval ratings from mid-November to early January had fallen 11 percentage points to 42 per cent.

In other circumstances, this could have cost Clinton another term. But in this case, he faced no opposition in his Democratic primary, while Dole lost precious time and money battling several rivals for the 1996 GOP nomination. I believe Clinton won in spite of the shutdown, not because of it.

Why presidents lose

People see the president as the most powerful actor in government.

“Presidents have more authority than anyone else in the United States government, and control more money and military forces than any other person in the world,” write Hoover Institution scholars Paul T Hill and Ashley E Jochim in their book “The Power of Persuasion.”

Hill and Jochim note that despite all of that power, presidents much work with Congress to get tasks accomplished. Because of their perceived power, presidents are often expected to accomplish more than their constitutional authority allows them to get done, notes Richard Neustadt in his book “Presidential Power.”

When the government is closed, history shows the president will be held accountable.

(John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, Lagrange College)

(This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trump-will-likely-lose-the-government-shutdown-109491">The Conversation</a>. Read the original article)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By John A Tures One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win. This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years.

By John A Tures One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win. This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years. However, a poll conducted in the first week of January shows that 51 per cent of adults believe Trump is to blame for the shutdown. I’m a scholar of political science and often research presidential politics. I did an analysis of Gallup data, a group that does public opinion polling, from its Presidential Job Approval Center. There have been 18 shutdowns since 1977. I found that in the nine longest shutdowns during that time, presidents lose an average of 3 percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days. Most presidents lose shutdowns In only two of the nine cases that I looked at, did a chief executive boost his numbers. Jimmy Carter inched up a percentage point or two in 1977 and 1978 during the government shutdowns that took place during his presidency. In the seven other cases, the shutdown led to declines in public approval of the president. And in the majority of cases, the president’s party lost the next presidential election. The clearest example is President George H W Bush. In 1990, this GOP president was riding a 66 per cent approval rating after the successful Operation Desert Shield (when we sent US troops to Saudi Arabia to deter an attack by Iraq) and a long period of economic growth. But Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress battled over the budget deficit, triggering a government shutdown from October 5 to 9. Public approval for Bush fell 10 percentage points. Some of this may have been the result of Bush approving tax increases to close the budget deficit, which broke one of his campaign pledges of “no new taxes.” But images of closed federal facilities didn’t help, giving voters the appearance of Bush presiding over gridlock. This hurt him in the 1992 election when voters agreed with Democrats that Bush’s policies led to legislative deadlock. Pundits often cite the case of Democratic President Bill Clinton as an exception. They claim he “won” the longest shutdown in US history. This shutdown took place from December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, or 21 full days. GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to reduce the budget deficit, while Clinton opposed deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare. It’s true that Clinton went on to defeat GOP Sen. Robert Dole – one of his rivals during the shutdown – in the 1996 election. But Gallup polling shows that Clinton’s approval ratings from mid-November to early January had fallen 11 percentage points to 42 per cent. In other circumstances, this could have cost Clinton another term. But in this case, he faced no opposition in his Democratic primary, while Dole lost precious time and money battling several rivals for the 1996 GOP nomination. I believe Clinton won in spite of the shutdown, not because of it. Why presidents lose People see the president as the most powerful actor in government. “Presidents have more authority than anyone else in the United States government, and control more money and military forces than any other person in the world,” write Hoover Institution scholars Paul T Hill and Ashley E Jochim in their book “The Power of Persuasion.” Hill and Jochim note that despite all of that power, presidents much work with Congress to get tasks accomplished. Because of their perceived power, presidents are often expected to accomplish more than their constitutional authority allows them to get done, notes Richard Neustadt in his book “Presidential Power.” When the government is closed, history shows the president will be held accountable. (John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, Lagrange College) (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)

Why Donald Trump will likely lose the government shutdown

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/apple-facebook-propel-wall-street-to-three-week-peak-189115">Apple Inc, which slashed its quarterly sales</a> forecast last week, has reduced planned production for its three new iPhone models by about 10 per cent for the January-March quarter, the Nikkei Asian Review reported on Wednesday.

That rare forecast cut exposed weakening iPhone demand in China, the world's biggest smartphone market, where a slowing economy has also been buffeted by a trade war with the United States.

Many analysts and consumers have said the new iPhones are overpriced.

Apple asked its suppliers late last month to produce fewer-than-planned units of its XS, XS Max and XR models, the Nikkei reported, citing sources with knowledge of the request.

The request was made before Apple announced its forecast cut, the Nikkei said. The bleaker sales outlook, which Apple attributed to weak China demand, triggered a broad sell-off in global stock markets.

Market research firm Canalys estimates shipments fell 12 per cent in China last year and expects smartphone shipments in 2019 to dip another 3 per cent, to below 400 million for the first time since 2014.

Overall planned production volume of both old and new iPhones is likely to be cut to a range of 40 million to 43 million units for January-March, from an earlier projection of 47 million to 48 million units, the Nikkei reported, citing one source familiar with the situation.

Apple did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The report comes after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/samsung-electronics-flags-near-30-slump-in-q4-operating-profit-188930">chip suppliers Samsung Electronics Co Ltd</a> and Skyworks Solutions Inc flagged weak first-quarter chip demand for smartphones.

Apple's iPhone suppliers include Taiwanese assemblers Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd (Foxconn) and Pegatron Corp. Pegatron declined to comment on the report when contacted by Reuters, while Foxconn did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

There was little reaction to the report among shares of major Apple suppliers, as the market has already digested production cuts after the iPhone maker's forecast cut, analysts said.

Shares of Foxconn, the world's biggest electronics contract manufacturer, were up 1.6 per cent while Pegatron was up 1.3 per cent.

Among iPhone component suppliers in Asia, South Korea's LG Display Co Ltd was up 0.5 per cent, while Japan Display Inc was flat.

As Chinese demand has faltered, Apple has increased focus on India, which recently overtook the United States as the world's second-largest smartphone market.

Chief Executive Tim Cook reiterated in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday that India was a major focus for Apple.

Reuters reported last month that Apple will begin assembling its top-end iPhones in India through the local unit of Foxconn this year, citing a person familiar with the matter.

Apple asked its suppliers late last month to produce fewer-than-planned units of its XS, XS Max and XR models, the Nikkei reported, citing sources with knowledge of the request.

Apple Inc, which slashed its quarterly sales forecast last week, has reduced planned production for its three new iPhone models by about 10 per cent for the January-March quarter, the Nikkei Asian Review reported on Wednesday. That rare forecast cut exposed weakening iPhone demand in China, the world's biggest smartphone market, where a slowing economy has also been buffeted by a trade war with the United States. Many analysts and consumers have said the new iPhones are overpriced. Apple asked its suppliers late last month to produce fewer-than-planned units of its XS, XS Max and XR models, the Nikkei reported, citing sources with knowledge of the request. The request was made before Apple announced its forecast cut, the Nikkei said. The bleaker sales outlook, which Apple attributed to weak China demand, triggered a broad sell-off in global stock markets. Market research firm Canalys estimates shipments fell 12 per cent in China last year and expects smartphone shipments in 2019 to dip another 3 per cent, to below 400 million for the first time since 2014. Overall planned production volume of both old and new iPhones is likely to be cut to a range of 40 million to 43 million units for January-March, from an earlier projection of 47 million to 48 million units, the Nikkei reported, citing one source familiar with the situation. Apple did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The report comes after chip suppliers Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Skyworks Solutions Inc flagged weak first-quarter chip demand for smartphones. Apple's iPhone suppliers include Taiwanese assemblers Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd (Foxconn) and Pegatron Corp. Pegatron declined to comment on the report when contacted by Reuters, while Foxconn did not immediately reply to a request for comment. There was little reaction to the report among shares of major Apple suppliers, as the market has already digested production cuts after the iPhone maker's forecast cut, analysts said. Shares of Foxconn, the world's biggest electronics contract manufacturer, were up 1.6 per cent while Pegatron was up 1.3 per cent. Among iPhone component suppliers in Asia, South Korea's LG Display Co Ltd was up 0.5 per cent, while Japan Display Inc was flat. As Chinese demand has faltered, Apple has increased focus on India, which recently overtook the United States as the world's second-largest smartphone market. Chief Executive Tim Cook reiterated in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday that India was a major focus for Apple. Reuters reported last month that Apple will begin assembling its top-end iPhones in India through the local unit of Foxconn this year, citing a person familiar with the matter.

Apple cuts first quarter production plan for new iPhones: Report

By Sojin Lim

News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”. The possible high-level defection came as a surprise, especially as US president Donald Trump recently confirmed his desire to have a second US-North Korea summit, and South Korean president Moon Jae-in is soon expecting a visit from the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. At time of writing, the North Korean leader was in China on an unannounced visit to see president Xi Jinping.

When Kim Jong-un sent handwritten letters to Moon and Trump on New Year’s Eve, he seemed to be promising that the three countries could continue their dialogue over the Korean peninsula’s peace process. But why is Jo Song-gil seeking asylum if Kim Jong-un really is open to change in North Korea? Is he making his escape for personal reasons – or is it an indication that things are as bad as ever in Pyongyang?

Whatever the reason, Jo Song-gil’s defection could impact the ongoing negotiations. He could, for example, share sensitive information with the US and South Korea about the real denuclearisation situation in North Korea – and this could make Kim Jong-un less willing to engage.

And the negotiations are already fragile. Over the past 12 months, there have been repeated promises – and cancellations – made by all sides. It certainly remains to be seen whether the three countries will meet as suggested – and whether it will amount to any more than “gesture politics” if they do.

On one level, things do look different to the past, when little tangible progress was made. South Korea’s Moon Jae-in is a proactive leader, and Kim Jong-un is young, ambitious and eager to make his own mark. Both Kim Jong-un and Trump are also deeply unpredictable, however.

But there are other factors to consider, too, not least North Korea’s sharp economic downturn. This has, in fact, given many North Koreans wider access to information from outside the country, partially thanks to a growing number of defectors communicating with those who remain and the outside world. Kim Jong Un’s “equal emphasis” (Byungjin) policy, which focuses on both military and economic development, has also given impetus to his willingness to talk with Moon and Trump.

But even if the willingness is there, North Korea’s regime cannot upend nearly 70 years of history in a day. It will be a long process.

Bargaining chip

Although Kim Jong-un’s current performance on this issue is occasionally more promising than that of his father or grandfather, the truth is that he cannot abandon his nuclear programme until he can see an alternative way of guaranteeing the security of his regime.

After all, North Korea’s nuclear programme has so far worked well as a bargaining chip in international negotiations – although the current UN sanctions are an exception. Indeed, North Korea’s nuclear threats and long-range missiles have strengthened the county’s hand against the US, while without them, North Korea has almost nothing to offer as a concession.

Nor should we forget the role the North Korean media plays. By showing images of Kim Jong-un shaking hands with world leaders, it has become part of his survival strategy, bolstering his strongman image among both ordinary North Koreans and his government. Any meeting Kim Jong-un agrees to should, at least partly, be seen in this light.

Ultimately, there have been no significant changes in North Korea’s nuclear programme (besides demolishing some old or disused facilities). Nor will it be possible to achieve completely irreversible denuclearisation as long as North Korea retains its theoretical nuclear know-how. At the same time, while North Korea tends to highlight its will to halt rather than dismantle its nuclear capability, the US wants more before it invests economically.

So how to move forward? And how can negotiators overcome the current chicken-or-egg dilemma: denuclearisation first or economic support first?

The answer is twofold. First, we need something truly imaginative. Perhaps the US can find a solution by transforming the nuclear sites in North Korea into special industrial clusters and providing some of its military capability in exchange for nuclear disarmament. In this way, North Korea can attract private investment from the US, while easing its security concerns.

In the end, however, foreign policy objectives on the peninsula will need to be realistic. As mentioned before, a truly denuclearised North Korea will never happen as it will retain its theoretical nuclear knowledge. It will be far more practical, then, to find a common ground of mutual interests.

Accountability 
 
Second, there needs to be a sense of “mutual accountability”. The traditional definition of accountability has three stages: responsibility, answerability, and enforceability.

The “responsibility” stage can take the form of policy dialogue and trust building. Plenty of dialogue occurred during the six-party talks held intermittently since 2003 between North Korea, China, the US, South Korea, Japan and Russia – but they appeared to fail to build any meaningful trust. The latest rounds of dialogue between the US and the two Koreas will also fall at this hurdle unless they find a novel way forward.

Consequently, the dialogue must be based on mutual understanding and openness. The rest of the world must understand that North Korea is a fragile state, which cannot overcome the denuclearisation problem on its own – especially given its vulnerable financial situation. After all, it’s not just the US that doesn’t trust North Korea; North Korea doesn’t trust the US either, especially following the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

But that is just the first step. The “answerability” stage will require much greater information sharing and transparency. The international community is so suspicious of the sincerity of Kim Jong-un’s denuclearisation process because of that country’s poor level of openness and the limited access to solid information from within North Korea. Once North Korea opens its borders, there will be simultaneous achievements in terms of both denuclearisation and economic development.

All parties need measurable and transparent indicators of progress. But if agreements aren’t kept, a move can be made towards “enforceability”, including convening inspection panels or enforcing a compliance review process. Kim Jong-un’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, for example, faced international sanctions along with the removal of food aid even during a famine period when he left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003.

2019 may yet bring a way forward. But unless there is a foundation of mutual understanding, defectors such as Jo Song-gil may offer the only tangible insight into what’s really going on in North Korea.

(Sojin Lim is Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/north-korea-what-latest-defection-tells-us-about-hopes-for-peace-on-peninsula-109447">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By Sojin Lim News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”.

By Sojin Lim News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”. The possible high-level defection came as a surprise, especially as US president Donald Trump recently confirmed his desire to have a second US-North Korea summit, and South Korean president Moon Jae-in is soon expecting a visit from the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. At time of writing, the North Korean leader was in China on an unannounced visit to see president Xi Jinping. When Kim Jong-un sent handwritten letters to Moon and Trump on New Year’s Eve, he seemed to be promising that the three countries could continue their dialogue over the Korean peninsula’s peace process. But why is Jo Song-gil seeking asylum if Kim Jong-un really is open to change in North Korea? Is he making his escape for personal reasons – or is it an indication that things are as bad as ever in Pyongyang? Whatever the reason, Jo Song-gil’s defection could impact the ongoing negotiations. He could, for example, share sensitive information with the US and South Korea about the real denuclearisation situation in North Korea – and this could make Kim Jong-un less willing to engage. And the negotiations are already fragile. Over the past 12 months, there have been repeated promises – and cancellations – made by all sides. It certainly remains to be seen whether the three countries will meet as suggested – and whether it will amount to any more than “gesture politics” if they do. On one level, things do look different to the past, when little tangible progress was made. South Korea’s Moon Jae-in is a proactive leader, and Kim Jong-un is young, ambitious and eager to make his own mark. Both Kim Jong-un and Trump are also deeply unpredictable, however. But there are other factors to consider, too, not least North Korea’s sharp economic downturn. This has, in fact, given many North Koreans wider access to information from outside the country, partially thanks to a growing number of defectors communicating with those who remain and the outside world. Kim Jong Un’s “equal emphasis” (Byungjin) policy, which focuses on both military and economic development, has also given impetus to his willingness to talk with Moon and Trump. But even if the willingness is there, North Korea’s regime cannot upend nearly 70 years of history in a day. It will be a long process. Bargaining chip Although Kim Jong-un’s current performance on this issue is occasionally more promising than that of his father or grandfather, the truth is that he cannot abandon his nuclear programme until he can see an alternative way of guaranteeing the security of his regime. After all, North Korea’s nuclear programme has so far worked well as a bargaining chip in international negotiations – although the current UN sanctions are an exception. Indeed, North Korea’s nuclear threats and long-range missiles have strengthened the county’s hand against the US, while without them, North Korea has almost nothing to offer as a concession. Nor should we forget the role the North Korean media plays. By showing images of Kim Jong-un shaking hands with world leaders, it has become part of his survival strategy, bolstering his strongman image among both ordinary North Koreans and his government. Any meeting Kim Jong-un agrees to should, at least partly, be seen in this light. Ultimately, there have been no significant changes in North Korea’s nuclear programme (besides demolishing some old or disused facilities). Nor will it be possible to achieve completely irreversible denuclearisation as long as North Korea retains its theoretical nuclear know-how. At the same time, while North Korea tends to highlight its will to halt rather than dismantle its nuclear capability, the US wants more before it invests economically. So how to move forward? And how can negotiators overcome the current chicken-or-egg dilemma: denuclearisation first or economic support first? The answer is twofold. First, we need something truly imaginative. Perhaps the US can find a solution by transforming the nuclear sites in North Korea into special industrial clusters and providing some of its military capability in exchange for nuclear disarmament. In this way, North Korea can attract private investment from the US, while easing its security concerns. In the end, however, foreign policy objectives on the peninsula will need to be realistic. As mentioned before, a truly denuclearised North Korea will never happen as it will retain its theoretical nuclear knowledge. It will be far more practical, then, to find a common ground of mutual interests. Accountability Second, there needs to be a sense of “mutual accountability”. The traditional definition of accountability has three stages: responsibility, answerability, and enforceability. The “responsibility” stage can take the form of policy dialogue and trust building. Plenty of dialogue occurred during the six-party talks held intermittently since 2003 between North Korea, China, the US, South Korea, Japan and Russia – but they appeared to fail to build any meaningful trust. The latest rounds of dialogue between the US and the two Koreas will also fall at this hurdle unless they find a novel way forward. Consequently, the dialogue must be based on mutual understanding and openness. The rest of the world must understand that North Korea is a fragile state, which cannot overcome the denuclearisation problem on its own – especially given its vulnerable financial situation. After all, it’s not just the US that doesn’t trust North Korea; North Korea doesn’t trust the US either, especially following the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. But that is just the first step. The “answerability” stage will require much greater information sharing and transparency. The international community is so suspicious of the sincerity of Kim Jong-un’s denuclearisation process because of that country’s poor level of openness and the limited access to solid information from within North Korea. Once North Korea opens its borders, there will be simultaneous achievements in terms of both denuclearisation and economic development. All parties need measurable and transparent indicators of progress. But if agreements aren’t kept, a move can be made towards “enforceability”, including convening inspection panels or enforcing a compliance review process. Kim Jong-un’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, for example, faced international sanctions along with the removal of food aid even during a famine period when he left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. 2019 may yet bring a way forward. But unless there is a foundation of mutual understanding, defectors such as Jo Song-gil may offer the only tangible insight into what’s really going on in North Korea. (Sojin Lim is Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What latest defection tells us about hopes for peace on Korean peninsula

By Nick Megoran

Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea. What lessons can be drawn from these examples?

International boundaries are not the same as international borders. Boundaries are invisible vertical planes extending upwards into airspace and downwards into the subsoil, marking the legal limit of states. Borders, on the other hand, are the practices associated with managing movement over boundaries, such as customs checkpoints, passport controls, and fences. Although literally at the edge of states, they can symbolically figure at the heart of a nation’s politics.

This was amply demonstrated in 2018. In the UK, the “Irish backstop” question plunged the country into an unprecedented political crisis. In the Mediterranean, meanwhile, over 2,200 migrants died attempting to evade the EU’s draconian border controls. At the same time, political gains have been made by parties of the right who regard the EU’s border-control policies as not draconian enough.

Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s tub-thumping over a “caravan” of Central American migrants supposedly threatening the US border made 2017’s hotly-contested midterm elections even uglier. Tussles with lawmakers over funding a border wall with Mexico have now led to a government shutdown.

All this is a long way away from the “borderless world” that 1990s globalisation theorists such as Kenichi Ohmae predicted would follow the end of the Cold War. Instead, we are seeing a “rebordering” of the world, the physical and symbolic reinforcement of what historian Timothy Synder has called “the wall around the West”.

But the Western perspective isn’t the only one. Indeed, 2018 saw a number of hopeful and instructive developments in Asia and Africa.

Central Asia

Created in the 1920s by the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became independent states in 1991. Their mutual boundary was an internal division within the Soviet Union, and was never intended to be an international boundary. Consequently, when the two states became independent, there were numerous disputes about its precise course. Villages, ethnic groups, families, farms, transport links and utility provision crisscrossed the borderlands.

Nonetheless, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, imposed unilateral border controls. Visas were demanded, crossborder bridges demolished, roads blocked, and bus routes terminated. Villages that straddled the boundary were demolished and residents forcibly moved elsewhere. Barbed wire fences were erected, unmarked mine fields laid, and soldiers deployed to the border frequently used violence on petty traders and other borderlanders. A boundary commission was established, but its work stalled as relations between the two states deteriorated.

Populists in Kyrgyzstan reacted furiously, alleging that Uzbekistan was invading them. Inter-ethnic dynamics within Kyrgyzstan worsened, culminating in 2010 with pogroms against the country’s Uzbek minority.

Karimov died in 2016 and was succeeded by his protege, Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Mirziyoyev prioritised rebuilding regional relations, kick-starting delimitation negotiations and in late 2017 unilaterally reopened many border crossings.

In 2018, I visited the border and saw crowds of people crossing for trade and to visit family members, many of whom they had not seen for a decade and a half. Ethnic and interstate relations have improved as a result.

Ethiopia-Eritrea

An even more striking example from 2018 was the ending of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict. As with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, this boundary was a colonial legacy that artificially divided populations – and between 1998 and 2000, the two countries fought a bitter border war during which some 70,000 people died. The disputed territories were relatively small and of little economic value, but became heavily politicised by the militaristic governments of both countries.

The Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) was established under a 2000 peace agreement to end the war. It rendered its decision in 2002 and planned to oversee demarcation in 2003. Although previously agreeing that the ruling would be binding, Ethiopia took the highly unusual position of refusing to accept it. Despite pressure from the UN Security Council, troops continued to occupy disputed territory, refugees remained in camps, and crossborder contact was minimal. The threat of renewed war continued.

But in April 2018, the relatively youthful Abiy Ahmed took over as Ethiopian prime minister. He moved rapidly to improve relations with Eritrea, accepting the EEBC ruling and pulling troops back from disputed areas. A mere three months after taking office, he signed a peace accord with his Eritrean counterpart, formally ending the war. This was accompanied by joyful scenes of families reunited after two decades.

How to make good borders

Good borders are not about technical lines on a map, but political will. Changes in leadership in Uzbekistan and Ethiopia were crucial in restarting boundary delimitation and border management processes that had become deadlocked. As a result, families have been reunited, ethnic tensions reduced, and trade opportunities increased.

There are broader lessons here. The impasses created by the Irish border question in the Brexit negotiations and Trump’s border wall have created a political crisis, poisoned politics, and fanned xenophobia. More migrants die each year because of the EU’s militarised border controls than at any other border on Earth. These outcomes are not inevitable; they are political choices.

The EU, UK and US like to see themselves as moral standard-bearers in the international community. When it comes to border politics, however, they could do a lot worse than look to Uzbekistan and Ethiopia in 2019.

(Nick Megoran is Reader in Political Geography, Newcastle University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/need-to-solve-a-border-dispute-look-to-ethiopia-and-uzbekistan-109149">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

By Nick Megoran Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea.

By Nick Megoran Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea. What lessons can be drawn from these examples? International boundaries are not the same as international borders. Boundaries are invisible vertical planes extending upwards into airspace and downwards into the subsoil, marking the legal limit of states. Borders, on the other hand, are the practices associated with managing movement over boundaries, such as customs checkpoints, passport controls, and fences. Although literally at the edge of states, they can symbolically figure at the heart of a nation’s politics. This was amply demonstrated in 2018. In the UK, the “Irish backstop” question plunged the country into an unprecedented political crisis. In the Mediterranean, meanwhile, over 2,200 migrants died attempting to evade the EU’s draconian border controls. At the same time, political gains have been made by parties of the right who regard the EU’s border-control policies as not draconian enough. Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s tub-thumping over a “caravan” of Central American migrants supposedly threatening the US border made 2017’s hotly-contested midterm elections even uglier. Tussles with lawmakers over funding a border wall with Mexico have now led to a government shutdown. All this is a long way away from the “borderless world” that 1990s globalisation theorists such as Kenichi Ohmae predicted would follow the end of the Cold War. Instead, we are seeing a “rebordering” of the world, the physical and symbolic reinforcement of what historian Timothy Synder has called “the wall around the West”. But the Western perspective isn’t the only one. Indeed, 2018 saw a number of hopeful and instructive developments in Asia and Africa. Central Asia Created in the 1920s by the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became independent states in 1991. Their mutual boundary was an internal division within the Soviet Union, and was never intended to be an international boundary. Consequently, when the two states became independent, there were numerous disputes about its precise course. Villages, ethnic groups, families, farms, transport links and utility provision crisscrossed the borderlands. Nonetheless, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, imposed unilateral border controls. Visas were demanded, crossborder bridges demolished, roads blocked, and bus routes terminated. Villages that straddled the boundary were demolished and residents forcibly moved elsewhere. Barbed wire fences were erected, unmarked mine fields laid, and soldiers deployed to the border frequently used violence on petty traders and other borderlanders. A boundary commission was established, but its work stalled as relations between the two states deteriorated. Populists in Kyrgyzstan reacted furiously, alleging that Uzbekistan was invading them. Inter-ethnic dynamics within Kyrgyzstan worsened, culminating in 2010 with pogroms against the country’s Uzbek minority. Karimov died in 2016 and was succeeded by his protege, Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Mirziyoyev prioritised rebuilding regional relations, kick-starting delimitation negotiations and in late 2017 unilaterally reopened many border crossings. In 2018, I visited the border and saw crowds of people crossing for trade and to visit family members, many of whom they had not seen for a decade and a half. Ethnic and interstate relations have improved as a result. Ethiopia-Eritrea An even more striking example from 2018 was the ending of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict. As with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, this boundary was a colonial legacy that artificially divided populations – and between 1998 and 2000, the two countries fought a bitter border war during which some 70,000 people died. The disputed territories were relatively small and of little economic value, but became heavily politicised by the militaristic governments of both countries. The Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) was established under a 2000 peace agreement to end the war. It rendered its decision in 2002 and planned to oversee demarcation in 2003. Although previously agreeing that the ruling would be binding, Ethiopia took the highly unusual position of refusing to accept it. Despite pressure from the UN Security Council, troops continued to occupy disputed territory, refugees remained in camps, and crossborder contact was minimal. The threat of renewed war continued. But in April 2018, the relatively youthful Abiy Ahmed took over as Ethiopian prime minister. He moved rapidly to improve relations with Eritrea, accepting the EEBC ruling and pulling troops back from disputed areas. A mere three months after taking office, he signed a peace accord with his Eritrean counterpart, formally ending the war. This was accompanied by joyful scenes of families reunited after two decades. How to make good borders Good borders are not about technical lines on a map, but political will. Changes in leadership in Uzbekistan and Ethiopia were crucial in restarting boundary delimitation and border management processes that had become deadlocked. As a result, families have been reunited, ethnic tensions reduced, and trade opportunities increased. There are broader lessons here. The impasses created by the Irish border question in the Brexit negotiations and Trump’s border wall have created a political crisis, poisoned politics, and fanned xenophobia. More migrants die each year because of the EU’s militarised border controls than at any other border on Earth. These outcomes are not inevitable; they are political choices. The EU, UK and US like to see themselves as moral standard-bearers in the international community. When it comes to border politics, however, they could do a lot worse than look to Uzbekistan and Ethiopia in 2019. (Nick Megoran is Reader in Political Geography, Newcastle University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Need to solve a border dispute? Look to Ethiopia and Uzbekistan

Asian players are proving to be conceptually and bureaucratically better positioned in the 21st century’s 'great game' that involves tectonic geopolitical shifts with the emergence of what former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macaes terms the fusion of Europe and Asia into a “supercontinent.”

Yet, in contrast to the United States, Asian players despite approaching Europe and Asia as one political, albeit polarised and disorganised entity populated by widely differing and competing visions, may find that their historic legacies work against them.

US Naval College national security scholar Nikolas K Gvosdev argued that the United States, for example, was blinded to the shifts by the State Department’s classification of Russia as part of Europe, its lumping of Central Asia together with Pakistan and India and the Pentagon’s association of the region with the Arab world and Iran.

“The (State Department’s) continued inclusion of Russia within the diplomatic confines of a larger European bureau has intellectually limited assessments about Russia’s position in the world by framing Russian action primarily through a European lens. Not only does this undercount Russia’s ability to be a major player in the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, it has also, in my view, tended to overweight the importance of the Baltic littoral to Russian policy,” Gvosdev said.

He warned that the US government’s geographical classification of Central Asia, Eurasia’s heartland has “relegated it to second-tier status in terms of US attention and priorities.”

US failure to get ahead of the tectonic shifts in global geopolitics contrasts starkly with the understanding of Central Asian nations that they increasingly exist in an integrated, interconnected region that cannot isolate itself from changes enveloping it.

That understanding is reflected in a report by the Astana Club that brings together prominent political figures, diplomats, and experts from the great game’s various players under the auspices of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Entitled, ‘Toward a Greater Eurasia: How to Build a Common Future?,’ the report warns that the Eurasian supercontinent needs to anticipate the Great Game’s risks that include mounting tensions between the United States and China; global trade wars; arms races; escalating conflict in the greater Middle East; deteriorating relations between Russia and the West; a heating up of contained European conflicts such as former Yugoslavia; rising chances of separatism and ethnic/religious conflict; and environmental degradation as well as technological advances.

The report suggested that the risks were enhanced by the fragility of the global system with the weakening of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and NATO.

Nazarbayev, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be better positioned to understand the shifts given that they govern territories at the heart of the emerging Eurasian supercontinent and see it as an integral development rooted in their countries’ histories.

The then Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu made as much clear in 2013, “The last century was only a parenthesis for us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any border; we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power. These may look like different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the same country a hundred and ten years ago as were Erzurum and Benghazi,” Davutoglu said drawing a picture of a modern-day revival of the Ottoman empire.

Erdogan has taken that ambition a step further by increasingly expanding it to the Turkic and Muslim world.

At its core, Erdogan’s vision, according to Eurasia scholar Igor Torbakov, is built on the notion that the world is divided into distinct civilisations. And upon that foundation rise three pillars: 1) A just world order can only be a multipolar one; 2) No civilisation has the right to claim a hegemonic position in the international system, and 3) Non-Western civilisations (including those in Turkey and Russia) are in the ascendant. In addition, anti-Western sentiment and self-assertiveness are crucial elements of this outlook.

Expressing that sentiment, Turkish bestselling author and Erdogan supporter Alev Alati quipped: “We are the ones who have adopted Islam as an identity but have become so competent in playing chess with Westerners that we can beat them. We made this country that lacked oil, gold and gas what it is now. It was not easy, and we won’t give it up so quickly.”

The Achilles Heel, however, of Putin and Erdogan’s Eurasianism is the fact that its geographies are populated by former empires like the Ottomans and Russia whose post-imperial notions of national identity remain contested and drive its leaders to define national unity as state unity, control the flow of information, and repress alternative views expressions of dissent.

Turkey and Russia still “see themselves as empires, and, as a general rule, an empire’s political philosophy is one of universalism and exceptionalism. In other words, empires don’t have friends – they have either enemies or dependencies,” said Torbakov, the Eurasia scholar, or exist in what Russian strategists term “imperial or geopolitical solitude.”

Erdogan’s vision of a modern-day Ottoman empire encompasses the Turkic and Muslim world. Different groups of Russian strategists promote concepts of Russia as a state that has to continuously act as an empire or as a unique “state civilisation” devoid of expansionist ambition despite its premise of a Russian World that embraces the primacy of Russian culture as well as tolerance for non-Russian cultures. Both notions highlight the pitfalls of their nations’ history and Eurasianism.

Both Erdogan and Russia’s vision remain controversial. In Erdogan’s case, it is Muslim more than the Turkic world that is unwilling to accept Turkish leadership unchallenged with Saudi Arabia leading the charge and Turkish-Iranian relations defined by immediate common interests rather than shared strategic thinking.

Similarly, post-Soviet states take issue with Russia’s notion of the primacy of its culture. Beyond the Russian-Ukrainian conflict over the annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for Russian-speaking rebels in the east of the country, Ukraine emphasised its rejection of Russian cultural primacy with this month’s creation of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent of its Russian counterpart.

Earlier, Ukraine’s parliament passed a law in September 2017 establishing Ukrainian rather than Russian as the language of instruction in schools and colleges. The law stipulated that educational institutions could teach courses in a second language, provided it was an official language of the European Union. National minorities were guaranteed the right to study in Ukrainian as well as their minority language.

Similarly, Kazakhstan, the Eurasian nation par excellence, shifted from Cyrillic to Latin script.

“Russia’s influence (in Central Asia) has been largely mythologised, and its role in both national and regional security has not been properly and honestly discussed. Different fears and phobias still influence the decision-making process, including those over Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea, the concept of the ‘Russian World’ as a pillar of its national identity, and its soft power,” said Kazakh Central Asia scholar Anna Gussarova.

Ukraine may put a dent in the Russian World’s attractivity, but it does not amount to a body blow.

Gussarova cautioned that while Central Asian elites may recognise the risks involved in embracing Russian primacy, the region’s public remains far more aligned with Russian culture, at least linguistically.

“Whereas the expert community, which is supposed to shape public opinion, uses the English-language platforms Facebook and Twitter, the general public relies on Russian-language social media. This dichotomy underscores the limitations of any effort by the government and affiliated experts to shape public perceptions. At the same time, this gap shows greater public support for Russia and its activities, which makes nation-building and language issues difficult and sensitive,” Gussarova said. 
 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Asian players are proving to be conceptually and bureaucratically better positioned in the 21st century’s 'great game' that involves tectonic geopolitical shifts with the emergence of what former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macaes terms the fusion of Europe and Asia into a “supercontinent.

Asian players are proving to be conceptually and bureaucratically better positioned in the 21st century’s 'great game' that involves tectonic geopolitical shifts with the emergence of what former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macaes terms the fusion of Europe and Asia into a “supercontinent.” Yet, in contrast to the United States, Asian players despite approaching Europe and Asia as one political, albeit polarised and disorganised entity populated by widely differing and competing visions, may find that their historic legacies work against them. US Naval College national security scholar Nikolas K Gvosdev argued that the United States, for example, was blinded to the shifts by the State Department’s classification of Russia as part of Europe, its lumping of Central Asia together with Pakistan and India and the Pentagon’s association of the region with the Arab world and Iran. “The (State Department’s) continued inclusion of Russia within the diplomatic confines of a larger European bureau has intellectually limited assessments about Russia’s position in the world by framing Russian action primarily through a European lens. Not only does this undercount Russia’s ability to be a major player in the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, it has also, in my view, tended to overweight the importance of the Baltic littoral to Russian policy,” Gvosdev said. He warned that the US government’s geographical classification of Central Asia, Eurasia’s heartland has “relegated it to second-tier status in terms of US attention and priorities.” US failure to get ahead of the tectonic shifts in global geopolitics contrasts starkly with the understanding of Central Asian nations that they increasingly exist in an integrated, interconnected region that cannot isolate itself from changes enveloping it. That understanding is reflected in a report by the Astana Club that brings together prominent political figures, diplomats, and experts from the great game’s various players under the auspices of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Entitled, ‘Toward a Greater Eurasia: How to Build a Common Future?,’ the report warns that the Eurasian supercontinent needs to anticipate the Great Game’s risks that include mounting tensions between the United States and China; global trade wars; arms races; escalating conflict in the greater Middle East; deteriorating relations between Russia and the West; a heating up of contained European conflicts such as former Yugoslavia; rising chances of separatism and ethnic/religious conflict; and environmental degradation as well as technological advances. The report suggested that the risks were enhanced by the fragility of the global system with the weakening of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and NATO. Nazarbayev, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be better positioned to understand the shifts given that they govern territories at the heart of the emerging Eurasian supercontinent and see it as an integral development rooted in their countries’ histories. The then Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu made as much clear in 2013, “The last century was only a parenthesis for us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any border; we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power. These may look like different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the same country a hundred and ten years ago as were Erzurum and Benghazi,” Davutoglu said drawing a picture of a modern-day revival of the Ottoman empire. Erdogan has taken that ambition a step further by increasingly expanding it to the Turkic and Muslim world. At its core, Erdogan’s vision, according to Eurasia scholar Igor Torbakov, is built on the notion that the world is divided into distinct civilisations. And upon that foundation rise three pillars: 1) A just world order can only be a multipolar one; 2) No civilisation has the right to claim a hegemonic position in the international system, and 3) Non-Western civilisations (including those in Turkey and Russia) are in the ascendant. In addition, anti-Western sentiment and self-assertiveness are crucial elements of this outlook. Expressing that sentiment, Turkish bestselling author and Erdogan supporter Alev Alati quipped: “We are the ones who have adopted Islam as an identity but have become so competent in playing chess with Westerners that we can beat them. We made this country that lacked oil, gold and gas what it is now. It was not easy, and we won’t give it up so quickly.” The Achilles Heel, however, of Putin and Erdogan’s Eurasianism is the fact that its geographies are populated by former empires like the Ottomans and Russia whose post-imperial notions of national identity remain contested and drive its leaders to define national unity as state unity, control the flow of information, and repress alternative views expressions of dissent. Turkey and Russia still “see themselves as empires, and, as a general rule, an empire’s political philosophy is one of universalism and exceptionalism. In other words, empires don’t have friends – they have either enemies or dependencies,” said Torbakov, the Eurasia scholar, or exist in what Russian strategists term “imperial or geopolitical solitude.” Erdogan’s vision of a modern-day Ottoman empire encompasses the Turkic and Muslim world. Different groups of Russian strategists promote concepts of Russia as a state that has to continuously act as an empire or as a unique “state civilisation” devoid of expansionist ambition despite its premise of a Russian World that embraces the primacy of Russian culture as well as tolerance for non-Russian cultures. Both notions highlight the pitfalls of their nations’ history and Eurasianism. Both Erdogan and Russia’s vision remain controversial. In Erdogan’s case, it is Muslim more than the Turkic world that is unwilling to accept Turkish leadership unchallenged with Saudi Arabia leading the charge and Turkish-Iranian relations defined by immediate common interests rather than shared strategic thinking. Similarly, post-Soviet states take issue with Russia’s notion of the primacy of its culture. Beyond the Russian-Ukrainian conflict over the annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for Russian-speaking rebels in the east of the country, Ukraine emphasised its rejection of Russian cultural primacy with this month’s creation of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent of its Russian counterpart. Earlier, Ukraine’s parliament passed a law in September 2017 establishing Ukrainian rather than Russian as the language of instruction in schools and colleges. The law stipulated that educational institutions could teach courses in a second language, provided it was an official language of the European Union. National minorities were guaranteed the right to study in Ukrainian as well as their minority language. Similarly, Kazakhstan, the Eurasian nation par excellence, shifted from Cyrillic to Latin script. “Russia’s influence (in Central Asia) has been largely mythologised, and its role in both national and regional security has not been properly and honestly discussed. Different fears and phobias still influence the decision-making process, including those over Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea, the concept of the ‘Russian World’ as a pillar of its national identity, and its soft power,” said Kazakh Central Asia scholar Anna Gussarova. Ukraine may put a dent in the Russian World’s attractivity, but it does not amount to a body blow. Gussarova cautioned that while Central Asian elites may recognise the risks involved in embracing Russian primacy, the region’s public remains far more aligned with Russian culture, at least linguistically. “Whereas the expert community, which is supposed to shape public opinion, uses the English-language platforms Facebook and Twitter, the general public relies on Russian-language social media. This dichotomy underscores the limitations of any effort by the government and affiliated experts to shape public perceptions. At the same time, this gap shows greater public support for Russia and its activities, which makes nation-building and language issues difficult and sensitive,” Gussarova said. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The rise of Eurasia: Geopolitical advantages and historic pitfalls

Talks aimed at ending a partial US government shutdown which entered its third week on Saturday made little progress but were to continue on Sunday, President Donald Trump said.

An impasse with lawmakers over Trump's demand for billions of dollars to pay for a wall on the border with Mexico has shut 25 per cent of the government since December 22.

Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday met with representatives of Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Republican-controlled Senate, as well as Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives which since last Thursday is under Democratic control.

"VP&nbsp;Mike Pence and team just left the White House. Briefed me on their meeting with the Schumer/Pelosi representatives. Not much headway made today. Second meeting set for tomorrow," Trump said on Twitter.

Under the previous Republican-controlled Congress, the Senate unanimously passed a measure to fully fund the government until February 8, allowing more time for debate on issues including border security.&nbsp;

That measure was also under House consideration but Trump on December 20 reversed course and rejected it under pressure from ultraconservative lawmakers and media personalities.

While the US military and other major agencies are still fully funded, the impasse has left 800,000 government workers from other departments furloughed or working without pay.

Those on the job and not being paid include airline security officers from the Transportation Security Administration, FBI agents, and others.

The shutdown has left the Smithsonian museums, a major tourist draw, shuttered, garbage piling up at national parks, and workers concerned about paying their bills.

The shutdown has also been a factor in stock market volatility.

Building a wall along the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) US-Mexico frontier was a central plank in the 2016 election campaign of Trump, who has sought to equate immigrants with crime, drugs and gangs.

"This is national security we're talking about," he said on Friday. 
&nbsp;

Talks aimed at ending a partial US government shutdown which entered its third week on Saturday made little progress but were to continue on Sunday, President Donald Trump said.

Talks aimed at ending a partial US government shutdown which entered its third week on Saturday made little progress but were to continue on Sunday, President Donald Trump said. An impasse with lawmakers over Trump's demand for billions of dollars to pay for a wall on the border with Mexico has shut 25 per cent of the government since December 22. Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday met with representatives of Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Republican-controlled Senate, as well as Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives which since last Thursday is under Democratic control. "VP Mike Pence and team just left the White House. Briefed me on their meeting with the Schumer/Pelosi representatives. Not much headway made today. Second meeting set for tomorrow," Trump said on Twitter. Under the previous Republican-controlled Congress, the Senate unanimously passed a measure to fully fund the government until February 8, allowing more time for debate on issues including border security. That measure was also under House consideration but Trump on December 20 reversed course and rejected it under pressure from ultraconservative lawmakers and media personalities. While the US military and other major agencies are still fully funded, the impasse has left 800,000 government workers from other departments furloughed or working without pay. Those on the job and not being paid include airline security officers from the Transportation Security Administration, FBI agents, and others. The shutdown has left the Smithsonian museums, a major tourist draw, shuttered, garbage piling up at national parks, and workers concerned about paying their bills. The shutdown has also been a factor in stock market volatility. Building a wall along the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) US-Mexico frontier was a central plank in the 2016 election campaign of Trump, who has sought to equate immigrants with crime, drugs and gangs. "This is national security we're talking about," he said on Friday.

Trump says little progress as govt shutdown in third week

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday offered a rather stark take on the situation in war-wracked Syria, summing it up in two words -- "sand and death" -- while remaining vague about the timing of the withdrawal of US troops.

"So Syria was lost long ago. It was lost long ago. And besides that, I don't want -- we're talking about sand and death. That's what we're talking about," Trump said during a cabinet meeting.

"We're not talking about vast wealth. We're talking about sand and death."

On when US forces would leave Syria, Trump said: "I don't want to be in Syria forever."

But after saying troops would come home right away, and that the Islamic State group was defeated, he didn't give any specific timetable.

"I never said we are getting out overnight," Trump said.

"Oh, we're withdrawing," he added, saying only that it would happen "over a period of time."

On Monday, the Republican president said the United States was "slowly sending" troops home -- a markedly different tone than he used in his initial announcement of a withdrawal on December 19.

"Our boys, our young women, our men -- they're all coming back and they're coming back now," he said in a video message that day.

The United States has about 2,000 troops -- most of them special forces -- deployed in northern Syria to fight IS and reinforce anti-jihadist forces.

Top-ranking US military officials had repeatedly warned against a hasty retreat from Syria, which they say could leave the door open in Syria to allies of President Bashar al-Assad -- notably Russia and Iran.

Trump's defense secretary Jim Mattis resigned over the decision to leave Syria, as did the administration's special envoy to the anti-IS coalition, Brett McGurk.

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday offered a rather stark take on the situation in war-wracked Syria, summing it up in two words -- "sand and death" -- while remaining vague about the timing of the withdrawal of US troops.

US President Donald Trump on Wednesday offered a rather stark take on the situation in war-wracked Syria, summing it up in two words -- "sand and death" -- while remaining vague about the timing of the withdrawal of US troops. "So Syria was lost long ago. It was lost long ago. And besides that, I don't want -- we're talking about sand and death. That's what we're talking about," Trump said during a cabinet meeting. "We're not talking about vast wealth. We're talking about sand and death." On when US forces would leave Syria, Trump said: "I don't want to be in Syria forever." But after saying troops would come home right away, and that the Islamic State group was defeated, he didn't give any specific timetable. "I never said we are getting out overnight," Trump said. "Oh, we're withdrawing," he added, saying only that it would happen "over a period of time." On Monday, the Republican president said the United States was "slowly sending" troops home -- a markedly different tone than he used in his initial announcement of a withdrawal on December 19. "Our boys, our young women, our men -- they're all coming back and they're coming back now," he said in a video message that day. The United States has about 2,000 troops -- most of them special forces -- deployed in northern Syria to fight IS and reinforce anti-jihadist forces. Top-ranking US military officials had repeatedly warned against a hasty retreat from Syria, which they say could leave the door open in Syria to allies of President Bashar al-Assad -- notably Russia and Iran. Trump's defense secretary Jim Mattis resigned over the decision to leave Syria, as did the administration's special envoy to the anti-IS coalition, Brett McGurk.

Syria is 'sand and death': Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he had received a "great letter" from Kim Jong Un, after the North Korean leader warned <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-pyongyangs-warning-trump-says-looks-forward-to-new-meeting-with-kim-187846">Pyongyang may change its approach</a> to nuclear talks if Washington persists with sanctions.

"I just got a great letter from Kim Jong Un," Trump told a cabinet meeting, reiterating that he still expected to hold a second summit with the North Korean leader, after the pair signed a pledge on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in Singapore last June.

"We really established a very good relationship," Trump said. "We'll probably have another meeting."

Trump has cast his first summit with Kim as a major diplomatic victory, and on Wednesday repeated his claim that there would be a "big fat war in Asia" had they not sat down to talk.

But progress has stalled since the Singapore summit with the two sides disagreeing over the meaning of their vaguely-worded declaration, and the pace of US-North Korean negotiations has slowed, with meetings and visits cancelled at short notice.

Speculation about a second Trump-Kim summit has meanwhile ebbed and flowed, with the US president saying that he hoped it would take place early this year.

In a brief tweet on Tuesday, Trump said he "look(s) forward to meeting with Chairman Kim who realizes so well that North Korea possesses great economic potential!"&nbsp;

The North is demanding relief from multiple sanctions imposed over its banned nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, and has condemned US insistence on its nuclear disarmament as "gangster-like."

In his New Year speech Kim called for the sanctions to be eased, saying that the North had declared "we would neither make and test nuclear weapons any longer nor use and proliferate them," and urged the US to take "corresponding practical actions."&nbsp;

Culminating in late 2017, the North has carried out six atomic blasts and launched rockets capable of reaching the entire US mainland, but has now carried out no such tests for more than a year.

US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he had received a "great letter" from Kim Jong Un, after the North Korean leader warned Pyongyang may change its approach to nuclear talks if Washington persists with sanctions.

US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he had received a "great letter" from Kim Jong Un, after the North Korean leader warned Pyongyang may change its approach to nuclear talks if Washington persists with sanctions. "I just got a great letter from Kim Jong Un," Trump told a cabinet meeting, reiterating that he still expected to hold a second summit with the North Korean leader, after the pair signed a pledge on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in Singapore last June. "We really established a very good relationship," Trump said. "We'll probably have another meeting." Trump has cast his first summit with Kim as a major diplomatic victory, and on Wednesday repeated his claim that there would be a "big fat war in Asia" had they not sat down to talk. But progress has stalled since the Singapore summit with the two sides disagreeing over the meaning of their vaguely-worded declaration, and the pace of US-North Korean negotiations has slowed, with meetings and visits cancelled at short notice. Speculation about a second Trump-Kim summit has meanwhile ebbed and flowed, with the US president saying that he hoped it would take place early this year. In a brief tweet on Tuesday, Trump said he "look(s) forward to meeting with Chairman Kim who realizes so well that North Korea possesses great economic potential!" The North is demanding relief from multiple sanctions imposed over its banned nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, and has condemned US insistence on its nuclear disarmament as "gangster-like." In his New Year speech Kim called for the sanctions to be eased, saying that the North had declared "we would neither make and test nuclear weapons any longer nor use and proliferate them," and urged the US to take "corresponding practical actions." Culminating in late 2017, the North has carried out six atomic blasts and launched rockets capable of reaching the entire US mainland, but has now carried out no such tests for more than a year.

Trump received 'great' letter from North Korea's Kim, says still expects to hold second summit

Washington's new era of divided government begins Thursday as Democrats seize control of the US House, aiming to serve as a check on Donald Trump's disruptive presidency at least until the 2020 election.

Battle-tested Nancy Pelosi will in all likelihood win the gavel as speaker of the House of Representatives, a dramatic return to national power for the California Democrat who made history a dozen years earlier as the first woman to lead the chamber.

She will take command during a period of American political upheaval, and with a caucus riding high after a very strong midterm election showing last November.

Thursday brings an end to Trump's one-party rule in Washington, a massive boost for Democrats who felt deflated after Trump's 2016 victory.

Progressives will be eager to push back with greater effect against an administration they believe has overstepped its authority and abused power in the nearly two years since Trump's inauguration.

They will have that opportunity, as congressional panels will be led by chairmen who have pledged to probe topics such as Trump's income taxes, his firing of attorney general Jeff Sessions, and the president's ties to Vladimir Putin.

Incoming chairpersons have signaled that Trump will face a barrage of probes that could bog down a White House already besieged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia collusion probe, draining energy from the administration's agenda and foiling Trump's message.

"It's on," Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, a new member of House leadership who is seen by some as a potential future House speaker, tweeted Wednesday.

"Tomorrow, we seize the majority. Then, we pass legislation to end reckless #TrumpShutdown," he added. "Next, we fight to lower healthcare costs and enact a progressive agenda."

While the "blue wave" swept dozens of House Republicans out of Congress last November, Trump's party managed to modestly expand its majority in the Senate to 57-43, meaning Washington gridlock is almost certain to deepen.

Not 'stirring the pot'

Among the first tasks of the 116th Congress will be ending a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-warns-us-government-shutdown-could-last-a-long-time-187969">nearly two-week government shutdown</a> that has left one quarter of federal agencies shuttered due to lapsed funding.

Trump has said he would not sign a spending bill that does not include $5.6 billion for construction of a wall on the US-Mexico border, but Democrats appear uninterested in appeasing him.

Pelosi has introduced new measures that would fund the agencies, but she noted that they "contain no new wall funding," a move the White House -- and leaders in the Republican-controlled Senate -- dismissed as a non-starter.

"Democrats will have to get serious about border security so that a government funding agreement may be reached that can pass the House, earn 60 votes here in the Senate, and receive a presidential signature," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

"All three of these things are needed. One partisan vote in the House tomorrow won’t solve anything."

The House and Senate gavel into session Thursday at noon (1700 GMT), with the new Congress sworn in shortly thereafter. Pelosi is expected to win her speaker election in the early afternoon.

She will preside over the most diverse Congress in history. One hundred House freshmen will take the oath of office, including trailblazers like New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who at 29 was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.&nbsp;

The first two Native American women and first two Muslim women were also elected.

The House and Senate will each have a record number of female members come Thursday.

Democrats will move early to protect coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, a popular feature of the Affordable Care Act that a judge in Texas recently struck down.

House Democrats are thumbing their nose at Trump by establishing a special committee on climate so the government can better respond to the urgency of global warming.

Hovering in the background in Washington will be the threat of impeachment, and it is almost certain that some Democrats will introduce proceedings to remove Trump from office.

Even if Democrats believe some of Trump's actions clear the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors," Pelosi has downplayed the prospects of impeachment.

"It would be very divisive," she told Elle magazine. "It's not something that I'm stirring the pot on."

Washington's new era of divided government begins Thursday as Democrats seize control of the US House, aiming to serve as a check on Donald Trump's disruptive presidency at least until the 2020 election.

Washington's new era of divided government begins Thursday as Democrats seize control of the US House, aiming to serve as a check on Donald Trump's disruptive presidency at least until the 2020 election. Battle-tested Nancy Pelosi will in all likelihood win the gavel as speaker of the House of Representatives, a dramatic return to national power for the California Democrat who made history a dozen years earlier as the first woman to lead the chamber. She will take command during a period of American political upheaval, and with a caucus riding high after a very strong midterm election showing last November. Thursday brings an end to Trump's one-party rule in Washington, a massive boost for Democrats who felt deflated after Trump's 2016 victory. Progressives will be eager to push back with greater effect against an administration they believe has overstepped its authority and abused power in the nearly two years since Trump's inauguration. They will have that opportunity, as congressional panels will be led by chairmen who have pledged to probe topics such as Trump's income taxes, his firing of attorney general Jeff Sessions, and the president's ties to Vladimir Putin. Incoming chairpersons have signaled that Trump will face a barrage of probes that could bog down a White House already besieged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia collusion probe, draining energy from the administration's agenda and foiling Trump's message. "It's on," Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, a new member of House leadership who is seen by some as a potential future House speaker, tweeted Wednesday. "Tomorrow, we seize the majority. Then, we pass legislation to end reckless #TrumpShutdown," he added. "Next, we fight to lower healthcare costs and enact a progressive agenda." While the "blue wave" swept dozens of House Republicans out of Congress last November, Trump's party managed to modestly expand its majority in the Senate to 57-43, meaning Washington gridlock is almost certain to deepen. Not 'stirring the pot' Among the first tasks of the 116th Congress will be ending a nearly two-week government shutdown that has left one quarter of federal agencies shuttered due to lapsed funding. Trump has said he would not sign a spending bill that does not include $5.6 billion for construction of a wall on the US-Mexico border, but Democrats appear uninterested in appeasing him. Pelosi has introduced new measures that would fund the agencies, but she noted that they "contain no new wall funding," a move the White House -- and leaders in the Republican-controlled Senate -- dismissed as a non-starter. "Democrats will have to get serious about border security so that a government funding agreement may be reached that can pass the House, earn 60 votes here in the Senate, and receive a presidential signature," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. "All three of these things are needed. One partisan vote in the House tomorrow won’t solve anything." The House and Senate gavel into session Thursday at noon (1700 GMT), with the new Congress sworn in shortly thereafter. Pelosi is expected to win her speaker election in the early afternoon. She will preside over the most diverse Congress in history. One hundred House freshmen will take the oath of office, including trailblazers like New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who at 29 was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. The first two Native American women and first two Muslim women were also elected. The House and Senate will each have a record number of female members come Thursday. Democrats will move early to protect coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, a popular feature of the Affordable Care Act that a judge in Texas recently struck down. House Democrats are thumbing their nose at Trump by establishing a special committee on climate so the government can better respond to the urgency of global warming. Hovering in the background in Washington will be the threat of impeachment, and it is almost certain that some Democrats will introduce proceedings to remove Trump from office. Even if Democrats believe some of Trump's actions clear the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors," Pelosi has downplayed the prospects of impeachment. "It would be very divisive," she told Elle magazine. "It's not something that I'm stirring the pot on."

Divided government arrives at Capitol Hill, first task to end nearly two-week-long shutdown

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he looked forward to another summit with Kim Jong Un, a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/north-koreas-kim-says-new-path-inevitable-if-us-demands-unilateral-action-187606">day after the North Korean leader warned</a> Pyongyang could take a different approach to nuclear talks if US economic sanctions persist.

"I also look forward to meeting with Chairman Kim who realizes so well that North Korea possesses great economic potential!" Trump said in a brief tweet.

The US leader made his comment after citing news coverage of Kim's New Year remark that the North had declared it would neither make nor test nuclear weapons any longer, or proliferate them.

At a summit with Trump in Singapore in June, the two signed a vaguely worded pledge on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

But progress has since stalled with Pyongyang and Washington arguing over what that means.

Trump has previously said that he hoped to have a second meeting with Kim early this year.

But the North is demanding relief from the multiple sanctions over its banned nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, and has condemned US insistence on its nuclear disarmament as "gangster-like."

Kim, in his New Year speech, said that if the US continues with sanctions "we may be compelled to find a new way for defending the sovereignty of the country and the supreme interests of the state."

He added he was willing to meet Trump at any time and would seek "to obtain without fail results which can be welcomed by the international community."

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he looked forward to another summit with Kim Jong Un, a day after the North Korean leader warned Pyongyang could take a different approach to nuclear talks if US economic sanctions persist.

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he looked forward to another summit with Kim Jong Un, a day after the North Korean leader warned Pyongyang could take a different approach to nuclear talks if US economic sanctions persist. "I also look forward to meeting with Chairman Kim who realizes so well that North Korea possesses great economic potential!" Trump said in a brief tweet. The US leader made his comment after citing news coverage of Kim's New Year remark that the North had declared it would neither make nor test nuclear weapons any longer, or proliferate them. At a summit with Trump in Singapore in June, the two signed a vaguely worded pledge on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. But progress has since stalled with Pyongyang and Washington arguing over what that means. Trump has previously said that he hoped to have a second meeting with Kim early this year. But the North is demanding relief from the multiple sanctions over its banned nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, and has condemned US insistence on its nuclear disarmament as "gangster-like." Kim, in his New Year speech, said that if the US continues with sanctions "we may be compelled to find a new way for defending the sovereignty of the country and the supreme interests of the state." He added he was willing to meet Trump at any time and would seek "to obtain without fail results which can be welcomed by the international community."

After Pyongyang's warning, Trump says looks forward to new meeting with Kim

The United States and Israel have formally quitted the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on Tuesday.

The Times of Israel reported that the move came following alleged allegations that the Paris-based organisation criticised Israel's policies of East Jerusalem's occupation and the grant of full-time membership to Palestine in defiance of the American and Israeli pressure.

"UNESCO is a body that continually rewrites history, including by erasing the Jewish connection to Jerusalem," Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon was quoted as saying."

It is corrupted and manipulated by Israel's enemies, and continually singles out the only Jewish state for condemnation. We are not going to be a member of an organisation that deliberately acts against us," Danon added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
UNESCO is among the most corrupt and politically biased UN agencies. Today the U.S. withdrawal from this cesspool became official. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USStrong?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#USStrong</a>❤️🇺🇸
— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) <a href="https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1080272354050297857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Israel initiated the withdrawal process after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-withdraws-from-unesco-over-anti-israel-bias-22354">US declared to step out of UNESCO in 2017</a>.

"We hope that the organization will change its ways but we are not pinning hopes on this; therefore, my directive to leave the organisation stands and we will move forward to carry it out," Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

The Jewish state, which is home to six UNESCO world heritage sites including Masada, the Old City of Acre, the Bahai Temples in Haifa and the "White City" of Tel Aviv, had joined the United Nations organisation on September 16, 1949.

However, a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem confirmed that these sites will continue to remain as world heritage sites even after Israel formally quits from the UNESCO membership.

However, Al Jazeera further stated that the withdrawal from both the countries would not affect the UN organisation financially as both Israel and the US had stopped funding it since Palestine's membership was granted in 2011.

The United States and Israel have formally quitted the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on Tuesday. The Times of Israel reported that the move came following alleged allegations that the Paris-based organisation criticised Israel's policies of East Jerusalem's occupation and the grant of full-time membership to Palestine in defiance of the American and Israeli pressure.

The United States and Israel have formally quitted the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on Tuesday. The Times of Israel reported that the move came following alleged allegations that the Paris-based organisation criticised Israel's policies of East Jerusalem's occupation and the grant of full-time membership to Palestine in defiance of the American and Israeli pressure. "UNESCO is a body that continually rewrites history, including by erasing the Jewish connection to Jerusalem," Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon was quoted as saying." It is corrupted and manipulated by Israel's enemies, and continually singles out the only Jewish state for condemnation. We are not going to be a member of an organisation that deliberately acts against us," Danon added. UNESCO is among the most corrupt and politically biased UN agencies. Today the U.S. withdrawal from this cesspool became official. #USStrong❤️🇺🇸 — Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) January 2, 2019 × Israel initiated the withdrawal process after the US declared to step out of UNESCO in 2017. "We hope that the organization will change its ways but we are not pinning hopes on this; therefore, my directive to leave the organisation stands and we will move forward to carry it out," Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. The Jewish state, which is home to six UNESCO world heritage sites including Masada, the Old City of Acre, the Bahai Temples in Haifa and the "White City" of Tel Aviv, had joined the United Nations organisation on September 16, 1949. However, a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem confirmed that these sites will continue to remain as world heritage sites even after Israel formally quits from the UNESCO membership. However, Al Jazeera further stated that the withdrawal from both the countries would not affect the UN organisation financially as both Israel and the US had stopped funding it since Palestine's membership was granted in 2011.

United States, Israel officially quit UNESCO

Honduras on Tuesday discussed with Israel and the United States moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a controversial initiative that follows similar gestures by Washington, officials said.

In a meeting with Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "it was agreed to strengthen political relations and coordinate cooperation on development in Honduras," read a joint statement by Honduras, Israel and the US.&nbsp;

"They also agreed to pursue a plan of action, which includes meetings in their three respective capitals, to advance in the process of the decision to open embassies in both Tegucigalpa and Jerusalem."

The meeting took place in Brasilia on the sidelines of the presidential inauguration of new Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.&nbsp;

Last year, US President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Months later, Guatemala followed suit.

Bolsonaro said during his presidential campaign that he would switch Brazil's embassy but without offering details.

The Palestinians view east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, but Israel asserts that all of Jerusalem is its capital and is keen to see foreign embassies move there to bolster that claim.

Most countries, however, back Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to settle Jerusalem's status as part of a wider peace deal.

Brazil's meat producers are worried that an embassy move could threaten $1 billion in exports to Arab countries. 
&nbsp;

Honduras on Tuesday discussed with Israel and the United States moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a controversial initiative that follows similar gestures by Washington, officials said.

Honduras on Tuesday discussed with Israel and the United States moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a controversial initiative that follows similar gestures by Washington, officials said. In a meeting with Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "it was agreed to strengthen political relations and coordinate cooperation on development in Honduras," read a joint statement by Honduras, Israel and the US. "They also agreed to pursue a plan of action, which includes meetings in their three respective capitals, to advance in the process of the decision to open embassies in both Tegucigalpa and Jerusalem." The meeting took place in Brasilia on the sidelines of the presidential inauguration of new Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Last year, US President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Months later, Guatemala followed suit. Bolsonaro said during his presidential campaign that he would switch Brazil's embassy but without offering details. The Palestinians view east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, but Israel asserts that all of Jerusalem is its capital and is keen to see foreign embassies move there to bolster that claim. Most countries, however, back Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to settle Jerusalem's status as part of a wider peace deal. Brazil's meat producers are worried that an embassy move could threaten $1 billion in exports to Arab countries.

Honduras in talks with US, Israel on moving embassy to Jerusalem

Former Cuban president and leader of the island's Communist Party Raul Castro on Tuesday urged the nation to strengthen its defenses and prepare "for the worst scenarios" vis-a-vis the US, the government of which he accused of having resumed the policy of "confrontation."

In a speech in the eastern city of Santiago de Cuba on the 60th anniversary of the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the 87-year-old leader said that it is the duty of all Cubans to prepare themselves "meticulously for all scenarios, including the worst ... (and) not to leave room for uncertainty and improvisation."

"We will continue prioritizing the work of preparing (our) defense" with the aim of "preserving sovereignty and peace," said Castro, who served as Cuba's president from February 2008 until last April, when he handed over the office to his chosen successor, Miguel Diaz-Canel.

Castro also expressed his "certainty" that the new Cuban Constitution that will be submitted to a popular referendum on February&nbsp;24 will receive "majority support" as the public demonstrates its backing for the "Revolution and socialism."

Cuba's National Assembly on December&nbsp;22 unanimously approved the new charter, which will replace the one in force since 1976 and will ratify the island's choice of communism as its governing model while simultaneously recognizing private property and foreign investment as necessary.

Castro headed the Constitutional Commission that prepared the document and said that the text of the document will begin to be distributed to the public for their perusal and comments "in a few days."

Former Cuban president and leader of the island's Communist Party Raul Castro on Tuesday urged the nation to strengthen its defenses and prepare "for the worst scenarios" vis-a-vis the US, the government of which he accused of having resumed the policy of "confrontation.

Former Cuban president and leader of the island's Communist Party Raul Castro on Tuesday urged the nation to strengthen its defenses and prepare "for the worst scenarios" vis-a-vis the US, the government of which he accused of having resumed the policy of "confrontation." In a speech in the eastern city of Santiago de Cuba on the 60th anniversary of the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the 87-year-old leader said that it is the duty of all Cubans to prepare themselves "meticulously for all scenarios, including the worst ... (and) not to leave room for uncertainty and improvisation." "We will continue prioritizing the work of preparing (our) defense" with the aim of "preserving sovereignty and peace," said Castro, who served as Cuba's president from February 2008 until last April, when he handed over the office to his chosen successor, Miguel Diaz-Canel. Castro also expressed his "certainty" that the new Cuban Constitution that will be submitted to a popular referendum on February 24 will receive "majority support" as the public demonstrates its backing for the "Revolution and socialism." Cuba's National Assembly on December 22 unanimously approved the new charter, which will replace the one in force since 1976 and will ratify the island's choice of communism as its governing model while simultaneously recognizing private property and foreign investment as necessary. Castro headed the Constitutional Commission that prepared the document and said that the text of the document will begin to be distributed to the public for their perusal and comments "in a few days."

Former president Raul Castro urges Cubans to prepare for worst with US

US&nbsp;Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear arsenal, apologized for a Twitter message saying it was ready if necessary to drop something "much, much bigger" than the New Year's Eve ball in New York and showing a clip of an aircraft releasing bombs.

"#TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball...if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger," the tweet said, hours before the midnight descent of the illuminated ball in New York's Times Square marking the arrival of the new year.

The video showed a B-2 bomber dropping bombs, followed by explosions on the ground.

The message touched off many critical comments on social media. Mary Fahner-Short, using the handle @maryfshort, wrote on Twitter: "Why is @US_Stratcom joking about nuclear war? #shameful."

Later on Monday, the message was deleted from the US&nbsp;Strategic Command's Twitter feed. A new message said: "Our previous NYE tweet was in poor taste &amp; does not reflect our values. We apologize. We are dedicated to the security of America &amp; allies."

US Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear arsenal, apologized for a Twitter message saying it was ready if necessary to drop something "much, much bigger" than the New Year's Eve ball in New York and showing a clip of an aircraft releasing bombs.

US Strategic Command, which oversees the country's nuclear arsenal, apologized for a Twitter message saying it was ready if necessary to drop something "much, much bigger" than the New Year's Eve ball in New York and showing a clip of an aircraft releasing bombs. "#TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball...if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger," the tweet said, hours before the midnight descent of the illuminated ball in New York's Times Square marking the arrival of the new year. The video showed a B-2 bomber dropping bombs, followed by explosions on the ground. The message touched off many critical comments on social media. Mary Fahner-Short, using the handle @maryfshort, wrote on Twitter: "Why is @US_Stratcom joking about nuclear war? #shameful." Later on Monday, the message was deleted from the US Strategic Command's Twitter feed. A new message said: "Our previous NYE tweet was in poor taste & does not reflect our values. We apologize. We are dedicated to the security of America & allies."

US military deletes tweet about dropping bombs, apologises

History shows that cooperation is the best choice for both China and the United States, Chinese President Xi Jinping told US&nbsp;President Donald Trump in a congratulatory message on Tuesday to mark 40 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations.

The two countries agreed last month to a 90-day temporary ceasefire in their bitter trade war to give them time to hold fresh talks to try and end a dispute that has seen them level increasingly severe tariffs on each others' goods.

In his message to Trump, Xi said China-US&nbsp;relations have experienced ups and downs but have made historic progress over the past four decades, state news agency Xinhua said.

This has brought huge benefits to the two peoples and has contributed greatly to world peace, stability and prosperity, Xi added.

"History has proved that cooperation is the best choice for both sides," Xi said.

Sino-US&nbsp;relations are in an important stage, he added.

"I attach great importance to the development of China-US&nbsp;relations and am willing to work with President Trump to summarise the experience of the development of China-US&nbsp;relations and implement the consensus we have reached in a joint effort to advance China-US&nbsp;relations featuring coordination, cooperation and stability so as to better benefit the two peoples as well as the people of the rest of the world," he said.

Trump sent his own congratulatory message in return, saying it was his priority to promote cooperative and constructive US-China relations, Xinhua added.

Xi and Trump also spoke by telephone over the weekend. Trump said he had a "long and very good call" with Xi and that a possible trade deal between the United States and China was progressing well.

China and the United States have made plans for face-to-face consultations over trade in January, China's Commerce Ministry said last week.

Xinhua, in a commentary, said it was only natural the two countries would have disagreements and encounter problems, considering their "different social systems, development paths and historical and cultural backgrounds".

"At a time when the world is undergoing unprecedentedly profound changes and is fraught with risks and uncertainties, the global community expects even closer collaboration between the two largest economies," it said.

This year marks a series of sensitive anniversaries for China, including, in June, 30 years since the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Beijing's Tiananmen Square.

On Wednesday, Xi will make his first public appearance at an anniversary-related event, giving a speech about self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as its sacred territory, on the 40th anniversary of a key policy statement that led to a thaw in relations with the island. 
&nbsp;

History shows that cooperation is the best choice for both China and the United States, Chinese President Xi Jinping told US President Donald Trump in a congratulatory message on Tuesday to mark 40 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations.

History shows that cooperation is the best choice for both China and the United States, Chinese President Xi Jinping told US President Donald Trump in a congratulatory message on Tuesday to mark 40 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations. The two countries agreed last month to a 90-day temporary ceasefire in their bitter trade war to give them time to hold fresh talks to try and end a dispute that has seen them level increasingly severe tariffs on each others' goods. In his message to Trump, Xi said China-US relations have experienced ups and downs but have made historic progress over the past four decades, state news agency Xinhua said. This has brought huge benefits to the two peoples and has contributed greatly to world peace, stability and prosperity, Xi added. "History has proved that cooperation is the best choice for both sides," Xi said. Sino-US relations are in an important stage, he added. "I attach great importance to the development of China-US relations and am willing to work with President Trump to summarise the experience of the development of China-US relations and implement the consensus we have reached in a joint effort to advance China-US relations featuring coordination, cooperation and stability so as to better benefit the two peoples as well as the people of the rest of the world," he said. Trump sent his own congratulatory message in return, saying it was his priority to promote cooperative and constructive US-China relations, Xinhua added. Xi and Trump also spoke by telephone over the weekend. Trump said he had a "long and very good call" with Xi and that a possible trade deal between the United States and China was progressing well. China and the United States have made plans for face-to-face consultations over trade in January, China's Commerce Ministry said last week. Xinhua, in a commentary, said it was only natural the two countries would have disagreements and encounter problems, considering their "different social systems, development paths and historical and cultural backgrounds". "At a time when the world is undergoing unprecedentedly profound changes and is fraught with risks and uncertainties, the global community expects even closer collaboration between the two largest economies," it said. This year marks a series of sensitive anniversaries for China, including, in June, 30 years since the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Beijing's Tiananmen Square. On Wednesday, Xi will make his first public appearance at an anniversary-related event, giving a speech about self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as its sacred territory, on the 40th anniversary of a key policy statement that led to a thaw in relations with the island.

Cooperation best for both China and US, Xi tells Trump

Former US president Jimmy Carter warned Monday of the risks of sliding into a Cold War with China and called on the powers to find common cause on African development.

Marking the 40th anniversary of his January 1979 normalization of relations with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, Carter voiced concern that both countries were increasingly describing each other as threats.

"If top government officials embrace these dangerous notions, a modern Cold War between our two nations is not inconceivable," the 94-year-old former president wrote in The Washington Post.

"At this sensitive moment, misperceptions, miscalculations and failure to follow carefully defined rules of engagement in areas such as the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea could escalate into military conflict, creating a worldwide catastrophe," he warned.

Carter, who has devoted his post-presidential career to eradicating poverty, said that the "easiest route" to cooperation between the United States and China was in Africa.

"Both countries are already heavily involved there in fighting disease, building infrastructure and keeping peace — sometimes cooperatively. Yet each nation has accused the other of economic exploitation or political manipulation," Carter wrote.

"Africans -- like billions of other people around the world -- do not want to be forced to choose a side."

"By working together with Africans, the United States and China would also be helping themselves overcome distrust and rebuild this vital relationship," he wrote.

The United States has stepped up warnings to developing countries about Chinese assistance, accusing Beijing of wooing countries with projects that become debt traps.

US-China tensions have soared in 2018 over trade disputes, although President Donald Trump has frozen the latest planned tariff hike and on Saturday reported "big progress."

Former US president Jimmy Carter warned Monday of the risks of sliding into a Cold War with China and called on the powers to find common cause on African development.

Former US president Jimmy Carter warned Monday of the risks of sliding into a Cold War with China and called on the powers to find common cause on African development. Marking the 40th anniversary of his January 1979 normalization of relations with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, Carter voiced concern that both countries were increasingly describing each other as threats. "If top government officials embrace these dangerous notions, a modern Cold War between our two nations is not inconceivable," the 94-year-old former president wrote in The Washington Post. "At this sensitive moment, misperceptions, miscalculations and failure to follow carefully defined rules of engagement in areas such as the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea could escalate into military conflict, creating a worldwide catastrophe," he warned. Carter, who has devoted his post-presidential career to eradicating poverty, said that the "easiest route" to cooperation between the United States and China was in Africa. "Both countries are already heavily involved there in fighting disease, building infrastructure and keeping peace — sometimes cooperatively. Yet each nation has accused the other of economic exploitation or political manipulation," Carter wrote. "Africans -- like billions of other people around the world -- do not want to be forced to choose a side." "By working together with Africans, the United States and China would also be helping themselves overcome distrust and rebuild this vital relationship," he wrote. The United States has stepped up warnings to developing countries about Chinese assistance, accusing Beijing of wooing countries with projects that become debt traps. US-China tensions have soared in 2018 over trade disputes, although President Donald Trump has frozen the latest planned tariff hike and on Saturday reported "big progress."

Former US president Jimmy Carter says US, China should partner in Africa

President Donald Trump appeared to backtrack Monday on shock plans for an immediate pullout of US troops from Syria, but said his drive to end American involvement in wars made him a "hero."

The shift came a day after a senior Republican senator said Trump had promised to stay in Syria to finish the job of defeating the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS.

Trump had earlier stunned allies -- and prompted the resignation of his respected defense secretary, Jim Mattis -- by abruptly announcing that the jihadists were defeated and that US troops in Syria were ready to leave.

However, in a tweet early Monday, Trump seemed to signal a more cautious schedule for pulling out the troops, which provide crucial support to Kurdish and other local forces.

"We're slowly sending our troops back home to be with their families, while at the same time fighting ISIS remnants," Trump wrote.

In contrast to previously emphatic victory declarations, Trump said that "ISIS is mostly gone."

But reflecting his frustration at the outpouring of criticism over his Syria strategy, Trump lashed out at opponents and the media, saying that he should be given more credit.

"If anybody but Donald Trump did what I did in Syria, which was an ISIS loaded mess when I became President, they would be a national hero," Trump tweeted.

"The results are FAR BETTER than I ever said they were going to be! I campaigned against the NEVER ENDING WARS, remember!" he added.

Trump also wants to bring home about half of the 14,000 soldiers locked in a 17-year war against Afghanistan's Taliban guerrillas, although no formal announcement has been made.

In Syria, about 2,000 US soldiers operate alongside other foreign troops to assist local fighters battling Islamic State, a jihadist group that once held territory across much of Iraq and Syria and set up its own ultra-Islamist government.

Though much reduced, and forced into hiding, it is still believed to comprise thousands of guerrillas.

The US-led coalition launched its first raids against IS in September, 2014, more than two years before Trump won the US election. US-backed forces seized the jihadists' self-declared capital Raqa on October 17, 2017.

- Allies worried - 
Part of Trump's appeal in his surprise 2016 election victory was his promise to get the United States out of post-9/11 wars in the Middle East.

During a lightning visit to US troops based in Iraq last week, Trump said the United States would no longer be the world's "policeman".

"We're in countries that most people have never even heard about," he said, referring to US combat deployments, including in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

"We don't want to be taken advantage of any more by countries that use us," he said.

The view is popular with many Americans, but critics, including some of Washington's closest allies, say the United States cannot abandon its traditional leadership role.

"The impromptu announcement of the US withdrawal from (Syria) caused a lot of questions," French Defense Minister Florence Parly said Monday on a visit to French personnel stationed in Jordan. "Our priority is to continue until the end."

On Friday, Britain's foreign minister, Jeremy Hunt, was less diplomatic, telling Radio 4 that Trump "makes a specialty of talking in very black and white terms about what's happening in the world."

Those concerns are shared at the top of Trump's own Republican party.

Leading Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's principal allies in an increasingly unfriendly Congress, used lunch at the White House on Sunday to urge the president to reevaluate on Syria.

After two hours, he emerged, saying Trump "understands the need to finish the job."

"I think the president is committed to making sure when we leave Syria that ISIS is completely defeated," Graham said.

In response to the uproar, Trump national security advisor John Bolton will soon visit allies Turkey and Israel, which each have their own complex goals in Syria's multi-dimensional civil war.

President Donald Trump appeared to backtrack Monday on shock plans for an immediate pullout of US troops from Syria, but said his drive to end American involvement in wars made him a "hero.

President Donald Trump appeared to backtrack Monday on shock plans for an immediate pullout of US troops from Syria, but said his drive to end American involvement in wars made him a "hero." The shift came a day after a senior Republican senator said Trump had promised to stay in Syria to finish the job of defeating the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS. Trump had earlier stunned allies -- and prompted the resignation of his respected defense secretary, Jim Mattis -- by abruptly announcing that the jihadists were defeated and that US troops in Syria were ready to leave. However, in a tweet early Monday, Trump seemed to signal a more cautious schedule for pulling out the troops, which provide crucial support to Kurdish and other local forces. "We're slowly sending our troops back home to be with their families, while at the same time fighting ISIS remnants," Trump wrote. In contrast to previously emphatic victory declarations, Trump said that "ISIS is mostly gone." But reflecting his frustration at the outpouring of criticism over his Syria strategy, Trump lashed out at opponents and the media, saying that he should be given more credit. "If anybody but Donald Trump did what I did in Syria, which was an ISIS loaded mess when I became President, they would be a national hero," Trump tweeted. "The results are FAR BETTER than I ever said they were going to be! I campaigned against the NEVER ENDING WARS, remember!" he added. Trump also wants to bring home about half of the 14,000 soldiers locked in a 17-year war against Afghanistan's Taliban guerrillas, although no formal announcement has been made. In Syria, about 2,000 US soldiers operate alongside other foreign troops to assist local fighters battling Islamic State, a jihadist group that once held territory across much of Iraq and Syria and set up its own ultra-Islamist government. Though much reduced, and forced into hiding, it is still believed to comprise thousands of guerrillas. The US-led coalition launched its first raids against IS in September, 2014, more than two years before Trump won the US election. US-backed forces seized the jihadists' self-declared capital Raqa on October 17, 2017. - Allies worried - Part of Trump's appeal in his surprise 2016 election victory was his promise to get the United States out of post-9/11 wars in the Middle East. During a lightning visit to US troops based in Iraq last week, Trump said the United States would no longer be the world's "policeman". "We're in countries that most people have never even heard about," he said, referring to US combat deployments, including in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. "We don't want to be taken advantage of any more by countries that use us," he said. The view is popular with many Americans, but critics, including some of Washington's closest allies, say the United States cannot abandon its traditional leadership role. "The impromptu announcement of the US withdrawal from (Syria) caused a lot of questions," French Defense Minister Florence Parly said Monday on a visit to French personnel stationed in Jordan. "Our priority is to continue until the end." On Friday, Britain's foreign minister, Jeremy Hunt, was less diplomatic, telling Radio 4 that Trump "makes a specialty of talking in very black and white terms about what's happening in the world." Those concerns are shared at the top of Trump's own Republican party. Leading Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's principal allies in an increasingly unfriendly Congress, used lunch at the White House on Sunday to urge the president to reevaluate on Syria. After two hours, he emerged, saying Trump "understands the need to finish the job." "I think the president is committed to making sure when we leave Syria that ISIS is completely defeated," Graham said. In response to the uproar, Trump national security advisor John Bolton will soon visit allies Turkey and Israel, which each have their own complex goals in Syria's multi-dimensional civil war.

Trump appears to slow Syria troop pullout plan

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said on Tuesday that his resolve for complete denuclearisation remains unchanged but he may have no option but to seek a "new path" if the United States continues to demand unilateral action from North Korea.

In his New Year address, Kim said there would be faster progress on denuclearisation if the United States takes corresponding action.

He added that he is willing to meet US&nbsp;President Donald Trump at any time.

Kim also called for South Korea to stop joint military exercises with "outside forces" involving strategic assets, while multilateral negotiations should be pursued to build a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korean media on Monday reported that leader Kim Jong Un sent a "conciliatory message" to US President Donald Trump amid stalled nuclear negotiations.

The report did not include details about the message but said it related to US-North Korea talks, and was conciliatory in tone.

On Sunday, the office of South Korea's President Moon Jae-in said Kim had sent a letter to his counterpart in Seoul saying he wants to hold more inter-Korean summits next year to achieve denuclearisation of the peninsula.

Neither the US State Department nor the US Embassy in Seoul had an immediate comment about the report of Kim's message to Trump when contacted by Reuters.

"There is a dialogue channel between North Korea and the United States through which they exchange active communication, but I cannot know whether it took the form of letter or something else," Moon's spokesman told a news briefing on Monday.

However, both sides have struggled to make progress on this matter. They are also yet to reschedule a meeting between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol after an abrupt cancellation in November.

Pyongyang's state media has credited Trump for his willingness to continue dialogue but has also slammed the US State Department for tightening sanctions.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said on Tuesday that his resolve for complete denuclearisation remains unchanged but he may have no option but to seek a "new path" if the United States continues to demand unilateral action from North Korea.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said on Tuesday that his resolve for complete denuclearisation remains unchanged but he may have no option but to seek a "new path" if the United States continues to demand unilateral action from North Korea. In his New Year address, Kim said there would be faster progress on denuclearisation if the United States takes corresponding action. He added that he is willing to meet US President Donald Trump at any time. Kim also called for South Korea to stop joint military exercises with "outside forces" involving strategic assets, while multilateral negotiations should be pursued to build a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. North Korean media on Monday reported that leader Kim Jong Un sent a "conciliatory message" to US President Donald Trump amid stalled nuclear negotiations. The report did not include details about the message but said it related to US-North Korea talks, and was conciliatory in tone. On Sunday, the office of South Korea's President Moon Jae-in said Kim had sent a letter to his counterpart in Seoul saying he wants to hold more inter-Korean summits next year to achieve denuclearisation of the peninsula. Neither the US State Department nor the US Embassy in Seoul had an immediate comment about the report of Kim's message to Trump when contacted by Reuters. "There is a dialogue channel between North Korea and the United States through which they exchange active communication, but I cannot know whether it took the form of letter or something else," Moon's spokesman told a news briefing on Monday. However, both sides have struggled to make progress on this matter. They are also yet to reschedule a meeting between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol after an abrupt cancellation in November. Pyongyang's state media has credited Trump for his willingness to continue dialogue but has also slammed the US State Department for tightening sanctions.

North Korea warns: Kim says 'new path' inevitable if US demands unilateral action

US president Donald Trump on Tuesday lashed out at the House of Representatives Democrats for deciding <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-democrats-ready-bills-to-reopen-government-with-13-billion-for-border-security-187605">not to fund the border wall</a> in the legislation this week that intends to end a partial US government shutdown.

In a series of tweets, the US president stated that there can be no other option for US border security except for the southern border wall.&nbsp;

"You see, without the Wall there can be no Border Security," Trump tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Democrats will probably submit a Bill, being cute as always, which gives everything away but gives NOTHING to Border Security, namely the Wall. You see, without the Wall there can be no Border Security - the Tech “stuff” is just, by comparison, meaningless bells &amp; whistles...
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1079902957938925568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Please explain to the Democrats that there can NEVER be a replacement for a good old-fashioned WALL!" read another tweet. &nbsp;

"The Democrats will probably submit a Bill, being cute as always, which gives everything away but gives NOTHING to Border Security, namely the Wall," Trump tweeted out on January 1.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
...Remember this. Throughout the ages some things NEVER get better and NEVER change. You have Walls and you have Wheels. It was ALWAYS that way and it will ALWAYS be that way! Please explain to the Democrats that there can NEVER be a replacement for a good old fashioned WALL!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1079906462753869825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

House of Representatives Democrats will introduce legislation this week intended to end a partial US government shutdown and fund the Department of Homeland Security through February 8, including $1.3 billion for border security but not the $5 billion President Donald Trump has demanded for a border wall, a senior Democratic aide said on Monday.

Democrats, set this week to take control of the House from Trump's fellow Republicans, they will also offer legislation to provide year-long funding for other agencies and departments that have been closed by a partial government shutdown that began on December 22, news agency Reuters reported.&nbsp;

Democrats have said they intend to vote on legislation to reopen the government on Thursday when the new Congress convenes.

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

US president Donald Trump on Tuesday lashed out at the House of Representatives Democrats for deciding not to fund the border wall in the legislation this week that intends to end a partial US government shutdown.

US president Donald Trump on Tuesday lashed out at the House of Representatives Democrats for deciding not to fund the border wall in the legislation this week that intends to end a partial US government shutdown. In a series of tweets, the US president stated that there can be no other option for US border security except for the southern border wall. "You see, without the Wall there can be no Border Security," Trump tweeted. The Democrats will probably submit a Bill, being cute as always, which gives everything away but gives NOTHING to Border Security, namely the Wall. You see, without the Wall there can be no Border Security - the Tech “stuff” is just, by comparison, meaningless bells & whistles... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2019 × "Please explain to the Democrats that there can NEVER be a replacement for a good old-fashioned WALL!" read another tweet. "The Democrats will probably submit a Bill, being cute as always, which gives everything away but gives NOTHING to Border Security, namely the Wall," Trump tweeted out on January 1. ...Remember this. Throughout the ages some things NEVER get better and NEVER change. You have Walls and you have Wheels. It was ALWAYS that way and it will ALWAYS be that way! Please explain to the Democrats that there can NEVER be a replacement for a good old fashioned WALL! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2019 × House of Representatives Democrats will introduce legislation this week intended to end a partial US government shutdown and fund the Department of Homeland Security through February 8, including $1.3 billion for border security but not the $5 billion President Donald Trump has demanded for a border wall, a senior Democratic aide said on Monday. Democrats, set this week to take control of the House from Trump's fellow Republicans, they will also offer legislation to provide year-long funding for other agencies and departments that have been closed by a partial government shutdown that began on December 22, news agency Reuters reported. Democrats have said they intend to vote on legislation to reopen the government on Thursday when the new Congress convenes. (With inputs from Reuters)

Democrats bill to end shutdown without wall funding will give nothing to border security: Trump

Iraq's prime minister said on Sunday that top security officials from Baghdad had met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, and hinted at a bigger Iraqi role fighting Islamic State militants as US&nbsp;troops withdraw from Syria.

"This issue has a lot of complications," Adel Abdul Mahdi told reporters, referring to US&nbsp;President Donald Trump's surprise announcement this month that he will withdraw US&nbsp;forces from Iraq's neighbour.

"If any negative development takes place in Syria it will affect us. We have a 600 km (400 mile) border with Syria and Daesh (Islamic State) is there," Abdul Mahdi said.

The premier said the Iraqi delegation had visited Damascus to "gain the initiative, not just deal with the consequences" of any future Islamic State (IS) activity emboldened by the US&nbsp;withdrawal. Iraqi news websites said the visit took place on Saturday.

Abdul Mahdi said Iraq sought to move beyond its current arrangement with Syria - under which it launches air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syrian territory - but did not got into more details.

"There are groups operating in Syria, and Iraq is the best way to deal with this," he said, responding to a question about the possibility of increased involvement of Iraqi forces in Syria.

Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim paramilitary groups backed by Iran already operate inside Syrian territory against the Sunni Muslim militants of Islamic State.&nbsp;

Abdul Mahdi has previously said that about 2,000 Islamic State fighters are operating near the border in Syria and trying to cross into Iraq.&nbsp;

Islamic State was militarily defeated in Iraq in 2017, but has continued to launch guerilla-style attacks on security forces in the north of the country. 
&nbsp;

Iraq's prime minister said on Sunday that top security officials from Baghdad had met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, and hinted at a bigger Iraqi role fighting Islamic State militants as US troops withdraw from Syria.

Iraq's prime minister said on Sunday that top security officials from Baghdad had met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, and hinted at a bigger Iraqi role fighting Islamic State militants as US troops withdraw from Syria. "This issue has a lot of complications," Adel Abdul Mahdi told reporters, referring to US President Donald Trump's surprise announcement this month that he will withdraw US forces from Iraq's neighbour. "If any negative development takes place in Syria it will affect us. We have a 600 km (400 mile) border with Syria and Daesh (Islamic State) is there," Abdul Mahdi said. The premier said the Iraqi delegation had visited Damascus to "gain the initiative, not just deal with the consequences" of any future Islamic State (IS) activity emboldened by the US withdrawal. Iraqi news websites said the visit took place on Saturday. Abdul Mahdi said Iraq sought to move beyond its current arrangement with Syria - under which it launches air strikes against Islamic State militants in Syrian territory - but did not got into more details. "There are groups operating in Syria, and Iraq is the best way to deal with this," he said, responding to a question about the possibility of increased involvement of Iraqi forces in Syria. Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim paramilitary groups backed by Iran already operate inside Syrian territory against the Sunni Muslim militants of Islamic State. Abdul Mahdi has previously said that about 2,000 Islamic State fighters are operating near the border in Syria and trying to cross into Iraq. Islamic State was militarily defeated in Iraq in 2017, but has continued to launch guerilla-style attacks on security forces in the north of the country.

Iraq hints at bigger role in Syria after US withdrawal

President Donald Trump said Friday that the United States will eliminate all economic assistance to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador in retaliation for the caravans of Central American migrants arriving at the southern border.

"Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money. Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries - taking advantage of US&nbsp;for years!," the president wrote on Twitter.

Trump made a similar threat in October, when he said he would "substantially" cut aid to countries making up the Northern Triangle of Central America, but his words were not followed by any action.

During the 2018 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, the US allocated $84 million in assistance to Guatemala, $58 million to Honduras and $51 million to El Salvador, according to figures from the State Department.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
.....Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money. Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries - taking advantage of U.S. for years!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1078638249562775552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Some those funds was channeled through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), while the Pentagon provided a total of $42 million across Central America in 2017 to support the war on drugs.

The White House's proposed 2019 budget includes $69 million in aid to Guatemala, $66 million to Honduras and $46 million to El Salvador, a reduction of 29 percent from the levels of fiscal 2018.

The president cannot unilaterally block the disbursement of aid authorized by Congress for the region, according to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a think-tank.

Immigration to the US from the countries of the Northern Triangle has increased in recent years.

Since October, at least 9,000 Central Americans, mainly from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, entered Mexico in several caravans hoping to reach the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-threatens-to-entirely-close-us-mexico-border-unless-wall-demands-met-187046">US border</a> and apply for asylum.

Roughly half of them are gathered in Tijuana, just across the border from San Diego.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall &amp; also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with. Hard to believe there was a Congress &amp; President who would approve!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1078625779670503426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

President Donald Trump threatened Friday to seal off the US-Mexico border "entirely" if Congress does not approve billions of dollars in funding for a wall.

President Donald Trump said Friday that the United States will eliminate all economic assistance to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador in retaliation for the caravans of Central American migrants arriving at the southern border.

President Donald Trump said Friday that the United States will eliminate all economic assistance to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador in retaliation for the caravans of Central American migrants arriving at the southern border. "Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money. Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries - taking advantage of US for years!," the president wrote on Twitter. Trump made a similar threat in October, when he said he would "substantially" cut aid to countries making up the Northern Triangle of Central America, but his words were not followed by any action. During the 2018 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, the US allocated $84 million in assistance to Guatemala, $58 million to Honduras and $51 million to El Salvador, according to figures from the State Department. .....Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for the United States but taking our money. Word is that a new Caravan is forming in Honduras and they are doing nothing about it. We will be cutting off all aid to these 3 countries - taking advantage of U.S. for years! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2018 × Some those funds was channeled through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), while the Pentagon provided a total of $42 million across Central America in 2017 to support the war on drugs. The White House's proposed 2019 budget includes $69 million in aid to Guatemala, $66 million to Honduras and $46 million to El Salvador, a reduction of 29 percent from the levels of fiscal 2018. The president cannot unilaterally block the disbursement of aid authorized by Congress for the region, according to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a think-tank. Immigration to the US from the countries of the Northern Triangle has increased in recent years. Since October, at least 9,000 Central Americans, mainly from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, entered Mexico in several caravans hoping to reach the US border and apply for asylum. Roughly half of them are gathered in Tijuana, just across the border from San Diego. We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall & also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with. Hard to believe there was a Congress & President who would approve! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2018 × President Donald Trump threatened Friday to seal off the US-Mexico border "entirely" if Congress does not approve billions of dollars in funding for a wall.

'Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are doing nothing for US,' says Trump vowing to end all aid

President Donald Trump could not meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdelmahdi on his recent <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-cant-be-worlds-policeman-trump-defends-syria-pullout-in-surprise-visit-to-iraq-186730">surprise trip to the Middle Eastern country</a> because for "security reasons" the premier was only informed of the president's visit two hours earlier, the White House said Thursday.

In remarks to reporters who traveled with the US president, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that for "security reasons" the White House could only invite the Iraqi premier to meet with Trump two hours prior to the time that could be scheduled for the meeting.

Abdelmahdi was elsewhere in Iraq and could not rearrange his schedule to meet with Trump on such short notice, Sanders said.

Given the US announcement, the Iraqi premier's press office issued a statement saying that the meeting could not be arranged due to a lack of agreement regarding how to conduct it and so the two leaders spoke on the phone instead.

During that telephone conversation, Trump invited Abdelmahdi to visit the White House and the prime minister accepted, Sanders said.

In addition, she said that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will meet with Abdelmahdi in Baghdad on January&nbsp;11.

Trump and his wife Melania on Wednesday made a surprise visit to US troops deployed in Iraq, the first time the president has visited soldiers stationed abroad.

The first couple visited the US Ain al Asad base in Iraq's western Al Anbar province, and on their return to Washington aboard Air Force One they stopped in Germany to spend 45 minutes with US soldiers at the Ramstein military base.

Last week, Trump announced that he was withdrawing from Syria all 2,000 US troops stationed there to fight the Islamic State as part of an international coalition.

According to local media, the president also ordered the withdrawal of 7,000 of the 14,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan, although this has not been officially confirmed.

The Pentagon has about 5,200 soldiers deployed in Iraq as part of the coalition fighting the IS.

Last week, Pompeo assured Abdelmahdi that the US remains committed to the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Iraq and promised that the international coalition will continue working closely with the Iraqi military to destroy the remnants of the Islamic State. 
&nbsp;

President Donald Trump could not meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdelmahdi on his recent surprise trip to the Middle Eastern country because for "security reasons" the premier was only informed of the president's visit two hours earlier, the White House said Thursday.

President Donald Trump could not meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdelmahdi on his recent surprise trip to the Middle Eastern country because for "security reasons" the premier was only informed of the president's visit two hours earlier, the White House said Thursday. In remarks to reporters who traveled with the US president, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that for "security reasons" the White House could only invite the Iraqi premier to meet with Trump two hours prior to the time that could be scheduled for the meeting. Abdelmahdi was elsewhere in Iraq and could not rearrange his schedule to meet with Trump on such short notice, Sanders said. Given the US announcement, the Iraqi premier's press office issued a statement saying that the meeting could not be arranged due to a lack of agreement regarding how to conduct it and so the two leaders spoke on the phone instead. During that telephone conversation, Trump invited Abdelmahdi to visit the White House and the prime minister accepted, Sanders said. In addition, she said that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will meet with Abdelmahdi in Baghdad on January 11. Trump and his wife Melania on Wednesday made a surprise visit to US troops deployed in Iraq, the first time the president has visited soldiers stationed abroad. The first couple visited the US Ain al Asad base in Iraq's western Al Anbar province, and on their return to Washington aboard Air Force One they stopped in Germany to spend 45 minutes with US soldiers at the Ramstein military base. Last week, Trump announced that he was withdrawing from Syria all 2,000 US troops stationed there to fight the Islamic State as part of an international coalition. According to local media, the president also ordered the withdrawal of 7,000 of the 14,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan, although this has not been officially confirmed. The Pentagon has about 5,200 soldiers deployed in Iraq as part of the coalition fighting the IS. Last week, Pompeo assured Abdelmahdi that the US remains committed to the "sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Iraq and promised that the international coalition will continue working closely with the Iraqi military to destroy the remnants of the Islamic State.

Trump skips meeting Iraqi PM in his surprise visit over 'security reasons'

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